Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 282


The Decline of Medieval

Hellenism in Asia Minor and
the Process of Islamization
k from the Eleventh through
the Fifteenth Century

Speros Vryonis, Jr.

e n il

(,I1 ' 1 2) (1'

Berkclcy Los Rngeles London 197I

To my mother and to the memoy of my father

University of California Press

Berkeley and Los Angeles, California
University of California Press, Ltd.
London, England
Copyright 0 1971by The Regents of the University of California
ISBN: 0-520-01597-5
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 75-94.984
Printed in the United States of America

The writing of this book arose from the convergence of two interests that
have long intrigued me: the Hellenization of the Levant in antiquity and
the centuries-long confrontation of Byzantine and Islamic societies, the
joint heirs of this semi-Hellenized Levant. The decline of Byzantine
Hellenism and the phenomenon of Islamization in Anatolia from the
eleventh through the fifteenth century focus on that area and time within
which these two interests converge for the last time. Perhaps this under-
taking is inordinately ambitious, encompassing as it does a vast geo-
graphical and chronological span and cutting across three disciplines
(those of the Byzantinist, Islamist, and Turkologist). Now that this work is
finished thc words that Helmut Ritter spoke to me in a n Istanbul
restaurant in 1959, and which then seemed to be a challenge, take on a
different meaning. This renowned orientalist told me, simply and calmly,
that it would be impossible to write a history of this great cultural trans-
formation. My own efforts have, of necessity, been rcstricted to certain
aspects of this huge problem. Scholarship badly nceds new, detailed
histories of the Seljuk, Nicaean, Trebizondine states, and of many of the
Turkish emirates. There has been no comprehensive history of the Rum
Seljuks since that of Gordlevski (1941) of Nicaea since those of Meliarakes
and Gardner in 1898 and 1912, of Trebizond since that of Miller in 1926.
The archaeology of Byzantine and Seljuk Anatolia is still in its infancy,
and the mere establishment of the principal events and their dates in
these four centuries remains unachieved. Unwritten ’also is the history of
Arabo-Byzantine relations and confrontations in Anatolia, though the
monumental work of Marius Canard on the Hamdanids represents a
substantial beginning. The story ofthe decline that Islamization occasioned
in the Armenian, Georgian, and Syrian communities of eastern Anatolia,
though absolutely essential, is yet to be written. Finally a comparative
study of the folklore and folk cultures of the Anatolian Muslims and
Christians would do much to fill the wide gaps in historical sources. The
number and extent of these scholarly desiderata surely indicate how
imperfect and insuficient the present work must be. I have concentrated

The book of Claude Cahen, Pre-Ottoman Turkey (London, 1968) appeared after the
completion of my own work.

i related to Byzantino-Turcica, who supplied me with copies of their
on the fate and Islamization of the Greek population in Anatolia to the
exclusion of the other Christian groups. There has been no attempt to writings, and who gave me encouragcment. The studies of Paul Wittek and
present a conventional chronological history of events, but rather the I Claude Cahen have been of particular value and aid, and those ofRichard
approach has been topical. Ettinghausen have been helpful in the area of art history. 1 wish to thank
It is with pleasure that 1acknowledge the support of several institutions my editor, Shirley Warren, who performed admirably with a difficult
which greatly facilitated my research. The Middle East Center of Harvard manuscript and also the editors of the new EncycloJedia of Islam for
University enabled me to begin the investigation as a Research Fellow of permission to reproduce the statistical chart from the article “Anadolu,”
t h e Center in 1959-60. A grant from the Harvard Center and Dumbarton
I by Franz Taeschner. I have dedicated the book to my father and mother,
who first imbued me with a love for the historical past, who educated me

I? ’
O a k s subsequently allowed me to spend a summer at Dumbarton Oaks in
this early stage. The interest and sympathy of former Chancellor Franklin
Murphy and the director of the UCLA library, Dr. Robert Vosper,
resulted in the constitution of a respectable Byzantine collection of books
and periodicals absolutely essential for research in Byzantine history, and
with great patience and expense, and who gave me every encouragement.
T h e problems of transliteration and of geographical names have been
such that there is no conceivable system that would satisfy everyone.
Basically I have followed the new edition of the Eiicyclopedia of Islam in the
which had previously been lacking on the UCLA campus. The UCLA transliteration of Islamic names. The Turkish equivalents for the names of
Research Committee and the Center for Near Eastern Studies, by their Byzantine towns and villages will frequently be found in the key to the
unstinting generosity, made it possible for m e to work at those institutions map. Though to some my treatment of transliteration and of geographic
in t h e United States and abroad which would provide me with the necessary
materials. Thanks to a grant of the Social Science Research Council in
i1 names will seem cavalier, I shall be satisfied if I have conveyed the mean-
ing rather than a particular philological form.
1962-63,I spent one semester at Dumbarton Oaks and one semester in
Greece and Turkey where I enjoyed t h e facilities of the Gennadius
Library, the Center for Asia Minor Studies, and the kindness of the
members of the history faculty of the University of Ankara. As the work
neared a n end, William Polk, Director of the Middle East Center, and
William McNeill, chairman of the history department, invited me to
spend I 966-67 a t the University of Chicago where they provided me with
the badly needed leisure to finish the basic writing.
I a m particularly indebted to my colIeagues a t UCLA who in meetings
of t h e Near Eastern Center, the Medieval and Renaissance Center, the
faculty seminar of the history department, and in individual encounters
contributed to the sharpening of the work’s focus as well as to the improve-
m e n t of its contents. Milton Anastos, Amin Banani, Andreas Tietze,
Gustave von Grunebaum, and Lynn White came to my assistance in
certain specialized areas, and more important listened to what must have
seemed an endless outpouring of Anatolica with a patience that would
easily rank them among the Byzantine saints and Muslim dervishes of
Anatolia. I a m also grateful to Andreas Tietze who took time from
his busy schedule as chairman of the Department of Near Eastern
Languages to read through the manuscript. His great knowledge and
kindness saved the book from many errors. I wish to express my gratitude
to Peter Charanis with whom I frequently discussed many of the problems
entailed in the writing of this book, and to whose research on Byzantine
ethnography I am much indebted. Thanks are also due to Osman Turan
and Halil Inalcik who, with their unsurpassed expertise in things Seljuk
and Ottoman, have been so kind as to discuss with me many particulars
viii ix

List of Illustrations xiii

Abbreviations xv

I. Byzantine Asia Minor on t.: Eve of the Turkish Conquest I

Administrative Institutions
Towns and Commerce
Great Landed Families
Road System
The Church

11. Political and Military Collapse of Byzantium in Asia Minor 69

Events Leading to Maiazikert
Manzikert (1071)
Initial Turkish Conquest and Occupation of Anatolia (1071-81)
Byzantine Counterattack ( X O ~ I - X I ~ J )
. Byzantine Retreaf (1143-1204)
Political Stability and Polarization : Nicaea and Konya
Withdrawal of the Byzantines to Constaiatino,ble and the Decline of
Konya: Establishment of the Emirates and Emergence of the

111. The Beginnings of Transformation I43

Nature of the Turkish Conquest in the Eleventh and Twelfih
Recolonization and Reconstruction
Integration of the Christians into Muslim Sociey (107’-1276)
Equilibrium of Konya and Nicaea Destroyed
The Nomads


IV. Decline of the Church in the Fourteenth Century 288 iI

The Acta I
The Notitiae Efiiscopatum
Acta : Ujheaval
Acta: Im&overization List of Ill ustra ti0 ns
Acta :Ecclesiastical Discipline
Matthew of Efhesus-a Case Study
V. Conversion to Islam 351
Muslim Institutions: Tasawwuf
Muslim Institutions :Fu tuw w a following p . 4 6 2 :
T h e rupestrian churches of Cappadocia
VI. The Loss of Byzantine Asia Minor and the Byzantine World 403
Interior view of Sultan Khan caravansaray
Causes and Egkcts of the Loss
Byzantine ReJectiolzs on and Reactions to the Loss of Anntolia Exterior view of Sa’d al-Din Khan caravansaray
Religious Polemic View of Seyid Ghazi Tekke
Folklore Tahtadji women from Chibuk Khan
Governmental Measures A Bektashi sheikh with disciple
VII. T h e Byzantine Residue in Turkish Anatolia 4444 Mawlawi dervishes participating in a sciiia’
The Physical Residue Danishmendid coinage
Formal lnstitutions T h e former church of St. Amphilochius at Konya as a inosquc
Economic Lge Equestrian statue of Justinian 1
Folk Culture
l’he threshing sledge
Recapitulation 498
Index 503

xi i xl11

Greek historians in the Corpus Scriptorum Efistoriae Byzantinae are simply listed by
name and with no further identification,

AS Acta Sanctorum.
Aksaray-Genqosman M. N. Genqosman and F. N. Uzluk, Aksamyli Kerimeddin
Mahmrid’un miisatneret-el-ahyer adlz’ Farsga tarihinin terciimesi
(Ankara, 1943).
A.B. Analecta Bollandiana.
A.I.Z. ’AV&AEKTU‘ I E ~ O C J O ~ V ~ I T I U I-rqvohoyiaS,
vols. I-V (Petersburg, 1891-1898).
Anna Comnena Anne Cotnndne. Alexiade, texts dtabli et traduit, B. Leib, vols.
1-111, (Paris, 1937-1945).
A.I.P.H.O.S. Annuaire de l’institiit ~hilologique et historique orientales et
A.l-l. ’ApXEiov ~ ~ V T O W .
B.K. Bedi Karthlisa.
B.G.A. Bibliotlieca geographorum arabicorum, ed. J-M. de Goeje,
vols. I-VIII, (Leiden, 1885-1927).
B.J.R.L. Bulletin of the John Rylands Library.
B.S.O. A.S. Bulletin of the Scltool of Oriental and African Studies.
B.F. Byzantinische Forschungen.
B.N.J. Byzantiniscli-neugriec~iischeJahrbiiclter.
B. Z. Byzantinisclie Zeitsclirift.
B.S. Byzantinoslavica.
C.E.H. Cambridge Economic History, ed. J. H. Clapham and E.
Power (Cambridge, 1941ff.).
A.I.E.E.E. AEA-rlov ~ i j io-ropmfjs
5 K a l hohOylKij$ hrctlpias Tqs ‘EAA&bS.
D . T.C. Dictionnaire de tlihologie catholique (Paris, I go3 ff.).
D.H.G.E. Dictionnaire d’liistoire et de giographie kcclesiastigues (Paris,
Dolger, Regesten F. Dolger, Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des ostromischen
Reiches (Munich-Berlin, 1924ff.).
D.O.P. Dumbarton Oaks Papers.
E.O. l?c/ios d’0rient.
Eflaki-Huar t C. Huart, Les saints des derviches tourneurs, vols. 1-11 (Paris,
Encyclopedia of Islam, first edition.
Encyclopedia of Islam, second edition.

- 1


E.H.R. English Historical Review. V.D. Vaktjlar Dergisi.

G.R.B.S. GFeek Roman and Byzantine Studies. v.v. Vieantiiskii Vremennik.
Grumel, Regestes V. Grumel, Les regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constan- W.Z.K.M. Wiener Zeitsch@ft fur die Kunde des Morgenlandes.
tinoble (Chalcedon, 1932 ff.). Z.R.V.I. Zbornik Radoua Vizantoloshkog Inst ituta.
I b n Bibi-Duda €3. Duda, Die Seltschukengeschichte des Ibn Bibi (Copen- Z.D . M . G. Zeitschrijit der deutschen morgenlandische Gesellschaft,
hagen, ‘959). Z.B. Zeitschrijitfur Balkanologie.
LA. Islam Ansiklopedisi. Zepos, J.G.B. I. Zepos and P. Zepos, Jus Graecoromanum, vols. I-VIII
I.M. Istanbuler Mitteilungen. (Athens, 1931).
J.O.B.G. Jahrbuch der osterreichischen byzantinischen Gesellschaft. Z.M.N.P. Zhurnal Ministerstua Narodnago Prosviescheniia.
J .A. Journal Asiatique.
J.H.S. Journal of Hellenic Studies.
J.A.O.S. Journal of the American Oriental Society.
J . E.S.H. 0. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient.
J .R.A.S. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society.
K.C.A. Korosi Csoma-archivium.
M.B. K. N. Sathas, MEoaiaviKfi BiPhioefiKq
(Venice, I 872-1877).
Miklosich et Miiller F. Miklosich and J. Muller, Acta et diplomata graeca medii
aevi sacra et profana (Vienna, 1860-1890).
M.A.M. A. Monurnenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua (London, 1918ff.).
M.G.H. Monuinenta Germaniae Historica.
N.E. Nlos ‘EAAqvo~vfi~wv.
O.C.P. Orientalia Christiana Periodica.
n.n. S . Lampros, llahaiohhysia K a l l l ~ h o ~ o v v r p ~ c vols.
t x h ~ 1-11
(Athens, xg 12-1924) I

P.P. T.S. Palestine Pilgrims’ Text Society (London, 1885-1897).

P.S. Palestinskii Sbornik.
P.G. J. P. Migne, Patrologiae cursus comjletus, series graeca (Paris,
P.O. Patrologia Orientalis (Paris, 1904IT.).
P.w. Real-Enzyklopadie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft (Stutt-
gart, 1893ff.).
TI.@. llov-ricnch Oiihha.
l7.E. ~ O V T I C ~‘Emla.
C ~ ~
P.P.S. Pravoslavni Palestinskii Sbornik.
Ramsay, Geography W. Ramsay, The Historical Geograi)lg of Asiu Minor
(London, 1890).
R.H.C. Recueil des historiens des Croisades (Paris, 1841ff.).
Regel W. Regel, Fontes rerum byeantinarum, sumptibus academiae
scientiarum rossicae (Petrograd, 1892-1917).
R.C.E.A. Rkjertoire chronologique d’bpigraphie arabe, ed. E. Combe,
J. Sauvaget, G. Wiet, (Cairo, 1931ff.).
R,O.C. Revue de I’Orient chrbtien.
R.E.I. Revue des btudes islamiques.
R.H. Revue historique.
Rhalles and Potles K. Rhalles and M. Potles, Zllrv-raypa T ~ Belov V Ka1 ~ E ~ Q v
K W ~ V W V , vols. I-VI (Athens, 1852-1859).
R.S.O. Rivista degli studi orientali.
s.I. Studia Islamica.
S.F. Sudost-Forschungen.
T.M. Tiirkiyut Mecmuasi.
xvi xvii
1. Byzantine Asia Minor
on the Eve of the Turkish Conquest

Since the fall of North Africa, Egypt, and the Levant to the Arabs and the
occupation of Italy by the Germanic peoples a n d of much of the Balkans
by the Slavs, Byzantium had been restricted to the southern confines of
the Balkan peninsula, Anatolia, the isles, and southern Italy.1 Of these
areas, Anatolia was by far the largest, most populous, and economically
the most important. Unfortunately, almost nothing in the way of popu-
lation statistics for Anatolia has survived, but aside from the factor of its
great size, there are other indications that Asia Minor was the most
populous region of the empiree2So long as Anatolia continued to be an
integral part of the empire, Byzantium remained a strong and com-
paratively prosperous state. Once Anatolia slipped from Byzantine control,
the empire became little more than a weak Balkan principality, competing
with Serbs and Bulgars on an almost equal footing.
With the decline of medieval Hellenism i n Anatolia, there arose a
Turkish-Muslim society that is at the base of the Seljuk state and Ottoman
Empire. This new society differed from those of the Asiatic steppe and
from that of the Islamic Middle East because it arose in a Byzantine
milieu. Consequently, the related Anatolian phenomena of Byzantine
decline and Islamization are essential to a basic understanding of both
Turkish and Byzantine societies. For the student of cultural change, the
Islamization of Asia Minor has a twofold interest. Specifically it represents
the last in a long series of religio-linguistic changes to which Anatolia
had been subjccted over the centuries. Broadly considered, the Islamiz-
ation and Turkification of the Anatolians in the later Middle Ages, along
with the Christianization and Hispanization of Iberia, constitute one of
the last chapters in the history of cultural change in the Mediterrancan
basin. Since antiquity the inhabitants of the Mediterranean world had
been subject to a remarkable variety of transforming cultural forces :
Hellenization, Romanization, Arabization, Christianization, and Islam-
ization. T o these were now added Turkification.
1 For a picture of the Byzantinc world at this time, G . Ostrogorsky, “The Byzantine
Empire in the World of the Seventh Century,” D.O.P.,XI11 (IS$), I -2 I .
1 The evidence is discussed below.


As the subject of this book is the cultural transformation of Greek author Abu’l-Faradj Kudama ibn Djafar noted that the levy of the
Anatolia between the eleventh and fifteenth centuries, one must begin Anatolian themes in the first half of the ninth century was approximately
with a descriptive analysis of Byzantine society in the peninsula on the eve 70,000.~ By the tenth century, however, there is every indication that the
of the Turkish invasions. This will entail a discussion and partial descrip- size of Byzantine military forces must have increased markedly. The
tion of administrative, military, and ecclesiastical institutions, towns, conquest of new lands in the east witnessed the creation of new provinces
rural society, demography, roads, ethnography, and religion.3 and army corps, whereas the intensification of the Byzantine offensive
efforts similarly demanded an increase i n the size o f the armies. Perhaps
Administrative Institutions the remarks of Leo VI, that the armies ought not be too large, is a
Certain political, economic, and religious institutions characterized reflection of this expansion.7
Anatolian society prior to the drastic upheavals of the eleventh century Beside the men the government recruited from the local soldiery, there
which caused serious dislocation of this society. These institutions were other sources ofmilitary personnel in the provinces. These included a
produced an element o f homogeneity in the life of the inhabitants of this
H. Gelzer, Die Genesis der bymntinischen Themcnverfssung, Abh. d. Kgl. sacits. Ges. d.
immense area and at the same time integrated them effectively into a Wiss., Phil-hist. Kl., vol. XVIII, Nr. 5 (18gg), pp. 97-98 (hereafter cited as Gelzer Die
Constantinopolitan-centered organism, The system of the themes, by Genesis). For the breakdown of these forces which follows, A. Pertusi, Constantino Per-
phirogenito De Thematibus (Vatican, 1952)~pp. I I 5-148.
which the civil administration became subordinate to the thematic hnatolicon 15,000
strategus, dominated the administrative and military activity of the Armeniacon 9,000
Anatolians. At the time of the death of Basil I1 (1025)~there existed in Cappadocia 4,000
Charsianon 4Jooo
Anatolia approximately twenty-five provinces, mostly themes but in- Thracesion 6,000
cluding also duchies and catepanates, largely under the direct control and Opsicion 6,000
Optimaton 4.3000
administration of the ~tra t e goi.Though
~ the administrative apparatus Bucellarion 8,000
placed the provincial bureaucracy under the tutelage of the military, it Paphlagonia 5,000
also acted as a partial check on the absorption of the free peasantry by the Chaldia 4,000
Seleuceia 5,000
landed magnates and thereby assured the empire of military, social, and 70,000
fiscal strength. The thematic system served as a vital impetus to and The thematic army was organized in units of decreasing size, the turm, drungus, and
support of the existence of the free peasant society, which in turn not only and bandon. But because of the differences in size of the various themes, the number of
turms, drungoi, and banda in a particular theme varied. A thematic army usually had,
served as a balance to the landed aristocracy, but fought the Arabs and for any given theme, between two and four turms, but it would seem that the size of the
was a major contributor to the imperial tax collectors.6 turm was not regularly established and observed.
7 Leonis in$eratoris tactica, P.G., CVII, 709. The bandum should not have more than
T h e strategus, as supreme authority in the theme, was a veritable 400 men, the drungus not more than 3,000, the turm not more than 6,000. Michael
viceroy. Nothing could be done in his province, save for the assessment Psellus, Chrono&hie, ed. E. Renauld (Paris, 1926-1928), I, 36 (hereafter cited as Psellus-
Renauld). L. BrChier, Les instituliotis de l’emjire byzantin (Paris, 1948), p. 369. Ibn IChura-
and collection of taxes, which were eiTected by agents directly under dadhbih, B.C.A., VI, I I I , gives the following figures: 5,000 in a turm, I ,000in a drungus,
Constantinople, without his consent. His most important function was to and 200 in a bandum. Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Cuerinmiis, I, G51-655, 696497.
command the army of the theme. Much has been said about the efficacy In the order of honorary precedence and size of payment the generals of the more
important and powerful themes generally preceded the generals of these thrcc themes
a n d importance of these local armies drawn from the inhabitants of the (see below).
provinces, but there is little information as to their numbers. The Arab The catalog of the expedition to Crete in the reign of Leo VI tends to confirm the growth
in the size of the thematic forces. The levies of the Cibyrrheote force amounted to 6,760,
a The art of eleventh-century Byzantine Anatolia is still insufficiently investigated, and those of Samos 5,690, of Aegean 3,100. One century earlier Kudama noted that the forces
education and intellectual life cannot be satisfactorily reconstructed because of the nature of the theme of Seleuceia, amounted to only 5,000. The themes of Cibyrrheote, Seleuceia,
of the sources. Hence, there will be no attempt to include these two categories in this Samos, and Aegean, were among the less important and numerous of the hnatolian
chapter, regrettable though this fact may be. A useful and brief sketch of Anatolian provinces in the eyes of the central administration. I n addition the thematic soldiery of the
geography and its significance for the history of the area is to be found in P. Birot and Cibyrrheote under Leo VI was larger than 6,760, as this does not include the two ships
J. Drcsch, La Mediterrnnie et le Moyen-Orient,tome 2 : Les Balknns, 1’Asie Mineure, le Mayen- that the strategus of the theme sent to watch the shores of Syria, and probably other ships
Orient (Park, 1956), pp. 125-191. and personnel that had to remain to guard the shores of the theme and to cut timber
N. Skabalanovi& Vizantiiskoe gosudarstuo i tserkou u XI. u. (St. Petersburg, 1884),pp. for shipbuilding. This comparatively largc number for such a theme as the Cibyrrheote,
193-209. Ostregersky, Geschichte des byrantinischen Staates, 3d ed. (Munich, 1963), pp. in contrast to the smaller figures for theninth century, indicates that the size of the thematic
80-83, and passim for the literature. I-I. Glycatzi-Ahnveiler, Recherches sur l’administratzon armies had increased by the early tenth century. When one compares the size of the
de l’empire byznntin QW IXE-A’IBsitcles (Paris, 1960). Cibyrrheotc force under Leo VI with the size of the forces of the thcmes as reported
For a cautious reevaluation and refinement of the role of the themes, W. E. Kaegi, by the Arabs in the ninth century, this conclusion seems inescapable, for the Cibyrrheote
“Some Reconsiderations on the Themes (Seventh-Ninth Centuries),” J.O.B.G.,XVI levy of Leo VI is greater than that of any of the ninth-century Anatolian themes save
(19679, 39-53. those of the great Anatolicon, Armeniacon, and Ruccelarion.

2 3

variety of ethnic groups that the emperors settled as distinct military Bucellarion 30
bodies throughout Anatolia. Theophilus, by way of example, settled Cappadocia 20

2,000 Persians in each theme (though these seem to have been incorporated
Charsianon 20
Paphlagonia 20
into the thematic levies) ; Mardaites were settled around Attaleia, possibly Thrace 20
b y Justinian 11; there were also bodies of Slavs and Armeniansa8 I n Macedonia 30
addition the government stationed tagmata of imperial troops i n certain Chaldia 10 plus 10 from commercium
of the Anatolian districts. This superimposition of foreign bodies of Coloneia 20

soldiers in the provinces increased the military manpower of a given Mesopotamia from commercium
Sebasteia 5
province considerably. With the addition of the Mardaites to the forces
Lycandus 5
of the Cibyrrheote theme, the military strength of the district may have Seleuceia 5
been as large as I O , O O O . ~ ~ Leontocome 5
Other large themes very probably had as large a military force, if not Cihyrrheote I0

larger, with the consequence that the military manpower stationed in Samos I0
Aegean I0
Anatolia during the tenth and early eleventh centuries must have far
surpassed the 70,000 thematic levies mentioned by the Arab sources for
t he early ninth century. T h e success of Byzantine arms against the Arabs The pay of the thematic soldiers in comparison with that of the officiers
during this period is i n part to be explained by the effectiveness of this was quite small, and yet the overall expenditure on military salaries was
Anatolian manpower, a nd the importance of these Anatolian forces very substantial, as emerges from the incidental accoLmts of the period.
emerges from the obvious correlation between thematic decline and the I n the early ninth century, the military pay chests of the themes of
Turkish invasions in the eleventh century. The professional mercenaries Armeniacon in Anatolia and of Strymon in Europe amounted to 1,300
who took the place of the indigenous thematic soldiers in this period of and 1,100pounds of gold respectively, or 93,600 and 79,200 gold solidi
crisis were ineffective replacements and were unable to halt the Turks. each.12 O n the basis of these figures it seems likely that the government
The military apparatus in Anatolia had an important role in the pro- paid out between 500,000 and I,OOO,OOO solidi annually to the soldiery of
vincial economic life. I t contributed to the local economy by paying out Asis Minor.13 The soldier was also entitled to part of the spoils of war, and
salaries in gold to the officers and soldiers who lived in Asia Minor, and i n many instanccs pensions were given to disabled soldiers and to the
stimulating local industry, commerce, and agriculture by its expenditures. widows of the ~ l a i n . 1 ~
T h e government was able to feed into the business life of the Anatolians a The army and navy required supplies, armament, and provisions on
comparatively steady a nd significant sum of coined money in the form of their frequent expeditions. Though the government undoubtedly
the military roga. One can gain some idea as to the sums of money involved acquired many of the necessary items by taxes in kind on the populace,
i n military pay from the sources of the ninth and tenth centuries. During the authorities also paid out cash to artisans and merchants to provide a
the reign of Leo VI the generals of the more important themes received wide assortment of items and services. Craftsmen were hired to make
the following cash payment:11 weapons of every type for the armed forces, to sew the sails for the ships,
Anatolicon 40 pounds of gold t o caulk the boats; merchants sold the government the cloth for the sails,
Armeniacon 40 rope, bronze, wax, lead, tin, oars, foodstuffs, and other necessary
Thracesion 40
Opsicion 30
12 Theophanes, C/trono,era~/iiu,ed. C. de Boor (Leipzig, 1883-1885),I, 484, 489 (here-
A. Vasiliev, Byzance et b s Arabes I : La dynnstie d’dmorium (820-876).Edition fratyaise after cited as Theophanis): .
prepardepar H.Grdgoire et M. Canard (Brussels, 1g35),pp. gr-g3.C.Amantos, “MapGahai,” 13 Speros Vryonis, “An Attic Hoard of Byzantine Gold Coins (668-741)from the
‘EAAT~IKCI,V (Ig23), 130-136.Ostrogorsky, Geschiclite, pp. 109-110, 140.Constantine Thomas Whittemore Collection and the Numismatic Evidence for the Urban History
Porphyrogenitus, De Caerimoniis, I, 651-656. ofByzantium,” Z.R.V.I., VIII (rg63),298-299.On the basis of these and other figures in
Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Cnerimoniis, I, 652. Constantine Porphyrogenitus an estimate of 690,300 solidi was made for government
The Mardaites of the west in the Cretan expedition of Leo VI numbered over 5,000, militarv expenditures in Anatolia during the early ninth century. The Arab sources
ibid. 655. record ‘tha; the Anatolian levy of yo,ooo received pay of between eighteen and twclvc
l1 Ibid., 696-697. Ibn Khuradadhbih B.G.A., VI, I I I, gives the following salary range: solidi, or between 1,260,000and 840,000 solidi. Thus the Byzantine and Arab sources
40, 30, 24, 12, I,lbs. of gold. Soldiers received between eighteen and twelve solidi per tend to corroborate one another.
year. On the pay for the lesser officers and for the soldiers, Constantine Porphyrogenitus, l4 BrChier, Les institutions, p. 382. Five pounds of gold were given to the widows in the
De Caerimoniis, I, 669. reign of Michael I.

4 5

materials.lGThe administration saw to it that salaried craftsmen special- no such abrupt decline or hiatus during the seventh century in Anatolia,
izing in the production of military weapons were maintained in the though the Slavic invasions in the Balkans did cause a marked decline of
principal towns,l6 and their production was quantitatively significant.17 many of the towns of the western half of the empire. This condition in the
The military organization ofByzantium, and the passage of armies through Balkans served to put in even bolder relief the economic and political
the provinces, thereby played a stimulating and significant role in the importance of the continuity of towns and cities in Anatolia. I t is quite
economic prosperity of Anatolia.18 1 possible that a number of the towns may have decreased in size by the late
seventh or the eighth century,21 or possibly have shifted their locations
Towns and Commerce
slightly to more strategic positions on higher ground,2a or been ‘‘ruralized,”
By late Roman and early Byzantine times there had developed in Anatolia b u t this does not mean that they did so to the point of becoming insignifi-
a large number of thriving cities and lesser towns with a considerable cant as an urban phenomenon. I t is doubtful that Byzantium could have
commercial life and money economy.19 The question has often arisen as survived as a centralized state without a money economy and towns, and
to the continuity of this urban character of much of Anatolia into the it is even more doubtful that the Greek language and Byzantine Christi-
middle Byzantine period. To what extent, if at all, did Anatolia continue anity could have spread and penetrated to the extent they did in Anatolia.
to be the possessor of extensive urban settlements down to the period when Obviously what had happened to the Byzantine urban settlements in the
the Turks first appeared ? This question is doubly important, first in that Balkans did not occur in Anatolia. The raids of the Arabs were, in spite of
it bears on the relative importance of the area for Byzantine civilization their frequency, transitory affairs (when one compares them to the Slavic
I and strength, and second because it is closely related to the problem of invasions of the Balkans which not only effaced cities but also Christianity,
Muslim urban developments in Anatolia during the later period. or to the Turkish invasions) .23
Some students of the question have maintained that between the What were the characteristics of these Byzantine cities in the eleventh
seventh and ninth centuries the polis of antiquity, and so cities generally, century? When one speaks of cities he thinks primarily in terms of
underwent a disastrous decline.20.But actually there seems to have bSen autonomous municipal institutions. This is certainIy the case of the town
I n the outfitting of eleven ships that participated in the Cretan expedition of Con- in antiquity, where there were also divisions of the citizenry according to
stantine .VII and Romanus 11, the treasury paid out approximately twenty-two pounds tribes, and finally a walled enclosurc. Obviously the Byzantine towns of
of gold to .craftsmen and merchants for services and materials, Constantine
Porphyrogenitus, D e Cuerimoniis, I, 673-676. Anatolia in thc eleventh century would hardly fit such a description, at
This situation existed as late as the reign of John Vatatzes in the thirteenth century. least insofar as the meager sources permit conjecture. ‘The existence of
Theodore Scutariotes, M.B., VII, 506-507 (hereafter cited as Theodore Scutariotes-
Sathas). Leonis imperatoris tacfica, P.G., CVII, 1088-1093,on craftsmen in the army.
l T I n Leo’s Cretan expedition there are extensive details,-Constantine Porphyrogenitus,
De Caerimoniis, I, 657-660. The strategus of Thessalonike was ordered to manufacture istorii uizantiiskogo obizestua i kitltttry ~III-pervain polovilla I X ueka (Moscow-Leningrad, rg61),
20,000 arrows, 3,000 lances, and as many shields as possible. The archon of Hellas was to I pp. 87 ff,; “K voprosu o gorode v Vizantii VIII-IX vv.” V.V., V I (1953),I x3 ff. M. J.
produce 1,000lances; the archon ofEuboea 20,ooo arrows and 3,000 lances. The generals Siuziumov, “Rol gorodov-emporiev v istorii Vizanlii,” V.V.,V I I I (1956), z6 ffa
21 E. ICirsten, “Die byzantinischc Stadt,” Bsrichte zum XI. Internoliorialem Byzurititiislen-
of Nicopolis and Peloponnesus were to perform in a similar manner. T h e protonotarius
of the Thracesian theme was to collect 20,000 measures of barley; 40,000 of wheat, hard- Kungress (Munich, 1g58), p. 14,.There is even archaeological evidence for the temporary
tack, and flour; 30,000 of wine; 10,000“sphacta.” He was to prepare 10,000measures of disappearance of a few towns, as for instance Corasium in southern Asia Minor during the
linen cloth for Greek fire and ship caulking, and 6,000 nails for the ships, and so forth. seventh century, Kakdan, “Vizantiislcie goroda,” 186.
Procopius, Anecdota, XXX, 5-7, records that the state post system had also provided z2 Kirsten, “Byzantinische Stadt,” p. 28.
business and cash to the inhabitants of the provinces by purchasing from them horses, z3 Kaidan, “Vizantiiskie goroda,” p. 187, is ambivalent o n this point, H e attributes
fodder, and provisions for the grooms. It is not clear whether this system continued after the decline and to a certain extent the disappearance of the Byzantine towns to the dis-
Justinian I. anmearance
--r,- - - --
~ ~
of the slave method of production. He adds, however, that this was signifi-
‘*Byzantine armies on the move spent considerable sums of money, Vryonis, “An cantly accelerated by the invasions of foreign peoples.
Attic Hoard,” p. 300. The A O ~ W J T I Kor~ accounting officeof the army was in charge of The history of Arabo-Byzantine warfare and relations in Asia Minor is yet to be written.
moneys so spent, Leonis imperaloris tactica, P.G., CVII, 1092. For the earlier period one may consult the following works. E. W. Brooks, “Byzantines
’OT. R. S. Broughton, Roman Asia Minor, in T. Frank, An Economic Suruey of Ancient and Arabs in the Time of the Early Abbassids, 750-813,” E.H.R., X V (]goo), 128-747;
Rome, I V (Baltimore, I@), 903-916.T h c Anatolian cities were able to recover from the XVI (igoi), 84-92; “The Arabs in Asia Minor from Arabic Sources,” J.H.S., X V I I I
crisis of the third century. A. H. M. Jones, The Greek C i p , j ; ~ n i Alexander to Justininn (1898), 182-208. W. Ramsay, “The War of Moslem and Christian for Possession o f Asia
(Oxford, 1940), pp. 85-94. Minor,” Studies in t h e History and Art of ilia Eastern Provinces of the Roman Enqire (Aberdeen
T h e principal exponent of this theory is A. P.Kagdan, “Vizantiiskie goroda v VII- 1906), pp. 281-301.J. Wellhausen, “Die I<iimpfe der Araber mit den Romaern i n der
X I vv,” Souetskaia Arkheologia, X X I (1954), 164-188;Dereonia i gorod u Viraniii IX-X vu, Zeit der Umaijaden,” Naclirichten uon d. koti. Ges. der Wiss. ru Gdttittgen, Pfiil-hist. XI.
(Moscow, 1960), pp. 260-270.He relies very heavily upon the numismatic evidence which, ( ICJOI), pp. 4.14-447.M. Canard, “Les expeditions des Arabes centre Constnntinople,”
however, is unsatisfactory and unreliable. For a critique of his theory, Ostrogorsky, J.A., CVIII (1926), 61-121. H. Manandean, “Les invasions arabes cn Armhie,”
“Byzantine Cities in the Early Middle Ages,” D.O.P., XI11 (1959),47-66; Vryonis, Byzantion, X V I I I (194,8),163-195. For the later period, Vasiliev, GrCgoire, Canard,
“An Attic Hoard,” p. 300, passim. On urban continuity see also, E. E. Lip;:, O&ki Byzance et les Arabes, vols. 1-11 (Brussels, I 935, 1950).Glycatzi-Rhnveiler, “L’Asie Mineure
et les invasions arabes (VIIb-IXd sikles), R.H., CCXXVII, (1962)~ 1-32.

aUtonOmOus, independent institutions in the municipalities of antiquity civil administration of the fourth and fifth centuries, I n this manner
had been threatened from the moment the Hellenistic monarchs had those cities that were the centers of the provincial administration became
placed their epistates Or I’eprCSentatiVe in the pOliS to oversee its foreign the centers of the ecclcsiastical organization. The council of Chalcedon i n
affairs,The crisis of the third century further undermined these institutions, 451 decreed that cities or poleis would be the seats of bishops, a n d con-
as is witnessed by the attempts of Diocletian to stabilize them. So in the sequently the concept of a polis or city became inseparably associated with
fifth century the city, as it had evolved, at least in Asia Minor, did not the presence of a bishop, and the exact reverse was also true; wherever
preserve the city type of the Hellenistic and Roman periods. The later there was a bishop there had to bc a city. Justinian I restated this one
militarization of the provincial administration through the implemen- century later:
tation of.the thematic system consummated the end of urban autonomy,
for the affairs of the town were subjected to the strategus who was
We decree t h a t every city. . . shall h a v e . . .its own and inseparable . ., bishop.27
appointed from Constantinople. The novel of Leo VI abolishing the The episcopal powers and rule in provincial administrative organization
remnants of u r b a n autonomy simply put into legal language a state were to remain important until the end of the Byzantine Empire and
that had come into being previously and that had been in the process of beyond. By the sixth century the bishops were participating i n the elections
formation for centuries.24Nevertheless, the populace of Byzantine towns of local urban officials, were important in city finances, and wcre often
does not seem to have been quiescent in political matters and it frequently the recipients of imperial gifts bestowed upon the city.a8 One can say
expressed its will in riots and political outbursts, first through the demes, I that episcopal authority became a refuge of the last vestiges of urban
and later through the guilds.26 I
autonomy, though the eastern bishops, because of the authority of the
The “aspect” of the eleventh-century Byzantine town was characterized centralized state, never attained the power of the western Latin bishops.ZD
by institutions of a different sort. These institutions were largely thematic Not only did the bishops take some part in these strictIy governmental
and ecclesiastical, both ultimately centering in Constantinople. Con- matters, but they seem to have had charge of performing many services
sequently, the city i n the early eleventh century was the seat of a strategus that today one generally, though not exclusively, connccts with t h e state:
with his immediate retinue (or of one of his subordinates) appointed by education, care for the sick, the aged, the orphaned, and others i n need.
Constantinople. These officials presided over routine matters of admini- I n short they cared not only €or the souls of the provincials but for their
stration and juridical business as well as over military and police affairs, bodies as well.
though the lesser oficials were local inhabitants.26Alongside the officials T h e Byzantine town of Asia Minor in the eleventh century was, then,
of the military administration were those of the ecclesiastical hierarchy- characterized by the presence of the members of the ecclesiastical
metropolitans and the bishops. The integration of the ecclesiastical hierarchy (bishops or metropolitans), and by the presence of the strategus
administrative set up into that of the~provincialgovernment is not as well or his representatives. I n addition there were other characteristics of the
known as the parallelism existing between the structure of the earlier towns-the presence of trade or commercial activity whether with foreign
provincial administration and the structure of the hierarchical administra- states or with neighboring towns and villages. T h e Byzantine polis had
tion. The church had modeled its administration along the lines of the resident a number of local craftsmen as well as merchants both
indigenous and foreign. This particular aspect of the town as a center of
24 F. Dolger, “Die frtihbyzantinische und byzantinisch beeinflusste Stadt,” Atti de 3” craftsmen and merchants and of industry and commerce is not well
Congress0 internazionale di studi sull’ alto medioevo (Spoleto, 1958),pp. 22-23. Zepos, J.G.R., I,
116. documented. According to some scholars this basic element for the
O n this Byzantine “demokratia” during the earlier period, G. Manoljovi:, “Le existence of towns was seriously lacking in the eighth and ninth centuries.30
peuple de Constantinople,” Byzantion, V I (1936),617-71 6; Vryonis, “Byzantine Circus
Factions and Islamic Futuwwa Organizations (neaniai, fityln, ahdiieh),” B.Z.,LVIII
But such arguments are based largely upon the silence of the sources,
(1965),46-59.A. Marciq, “La duret du rtgime des partis populaires B Constantinople,”
and “Factions de cirque et partis populaires,” Bulletin de la classe des lettres et des sciences
2 7 Cod. lust., 1.3.55, . .
.rr&av ~ M I V , &EIV ,.. ..
&$~pimov K a t h o v , ~ ~ T ~ I X O ~ O V
0mnI~oyEv.”A later list of episcopal sees uses the terms bishoprics and cities inter-
morales el politiques, XXXV (1949)~ 63 ff., and XXXVI (~gso),396-421.For the later changeably, -rrbh~i~ ~ T O imcrKo.rr&s.
I Gelzer, Untedruckte tind ungeniigend veroffentlichte
period, Vryonis, “Byzantine AqpoKpcnia and the Guilds in the Eleventh Century,” Texte der NotiliaeEpiscopntum, Abh. der bay. Akad. der PViss., L I (’go’), 546 (hereafter cited
D.O.P., XVII (1963), 289-314.F. Cognasso, Partiti politici e lotte dinasticlie in Bizanzio as Gelzer, Notitiae Episcopatunz). As late as the twelfth century, Balsamon remarks that
0110 morte di Manuele Corntieno. Reale Accademia delle scienze di Torino, Igrr-rz (Turin, 1912). only inhabited ccnters which are -rohv&vOpwroI can have bishops. Those towns that
For a general survey, D. Xanalatos, Bv(awivh pEhETfipcna. Zw@ohT) €15 TT)V la-ropfav decline in population lose their status as bishoprics.
TO6 pv[crvTlVOa haoU (Athens, 1g4,o).
a s Cod. lust., 1.4.18-26. E. Stein, Histoire du Bas-Empire, I1 (Paris-Brussels-Amsterdam,
eeAhrweiler, “L’histoire et la gbographie de la rtgion de Smyrne entre les deux
occupations turques ( I o ~ I - K ~particulibrernent
I ~ ) au XIIIEsibcle,” Trauaux el Mdmoires I949), 11, 213.
e n Dolger, “Stadt,” pp. 16, 24-25,
(Paris, rg65), I, 103-104,155 (hereafter cited as Ahrweiler, “Smyrne”).
3 0 Kagdan, “Vizantiiskie goroda,” passim.

SOUrCeS that are not only rare but are also Constantinople-centered. interesting to note that when Alexius I accorded the Venetians com-
Archaeology has not yet progressed to the point where it can be of service mercial privileges, Ephesus was one of the cities that Venetian merchants
in regard to the extent of urban life in Byzantine Anatolia during the could visit.3s Its plain was fertile, well watered, and the nearby sea was
period under consideration. If one looks at the scattered references of the a rich fishing ground.30
tenth and eleventh centuries, however, it becomcs obvious that neither T h e western Anatolian coast was dotted with natural harbors that
trade nor commerce, neither craftsmen nor merchants, were absent from seem to have been active maritime centers in the tenth and eleventh
Asia Minor during this period.31 centuries, though possibly not on the same scale as Ephesus. The monks of
Ephesus was a lively harbor town with a panegyris or trade fair that Mt. Athos sailed to Smyrna to purchase necessities, and shipping con-
yielded 100pounds of gold in annual taxes during the reign of Constantine stantly plied the lanes between Smyrna and Constantinople and the isles in
VI (780-797) .32 Incidental information concerning the economic activity the eleventh century.40 Phygela served as a debarkation point to and from
of the city emerges from an eleventh-century hagiographical composition Crete41 as well as a commercial center and depot for naval stores.42
in which we get a glimpse of what must have been a very busy town. The Phocaea and Strobilus were among the important ports of Anatolia in
monks of the monastery on Mt. Galesium near Ephesus are constantly which Venetian merchants were to be allowed to trade late in the
going to the ~dto-rpov (Ephesus) for the various needs of the monastery.33 eleventh century. Miletus and Clazomenae were undoubtedly oE similar
Books are purchased there,34 and the monks are permitted to attend the i ~ n p o r t a n c e The
. ~ ~ hinterland of these towns in the Thracesian theme
fair,35 though this is felt to be something of a formidable temptation for produced much grain, the surplus of which was exported to regions in
the brethren. Craftsmen and merchants of various sorts appear : a painter, Phrygia, which produced only barley.44 The towns farther north were
a plasterer, a nauclerus, and there is also mention of a state bakery.36 This also centers of lively trading activity. Nicomedia, a central emporium with
commercial activity was of more than a local nature, as there is mention of
Saracens, Jews, Russians, and Ge~rgians.~’ These incidental bits of
3 8 G. P. L. Tafel and G. M. Thomas, Urkunden a i r alteren Handels-wid Stantsgesdichte
information indicate that eleventh-century Ephesus was no sleepy hollow
der Repulrlik Venedig (Vienna, 1856), I, 52 (hereafter cited as Tafel and Thomas,
but was rather a center of both local and international trade. It is Urkunden).
3 0 T h e Pilgrimage of the Rzcssian Abbot Daniel in the flooly Land 1106-1107 AD.,C. W.
Wilson, P.P.T.S. (London, 18g5), IV, 6 (hereafter cited as Daniel, P.P.T.S., IV). For a
31 The famous passage of Hudud al-‘Alam, so often quoted, rcmarks that cities were general treatment see the following: 0. Benndorf, Zur Ortskunde und Stad&escliiclite von
few in Rum, V. Minorsky, Hudud al-‘Alam. The Regions of the World: a Persian Geography, Ephesus (Vienna, 1go5), I. W. Broekhoff, Studien z z i ~Geschichte der Stadt Ephesits vom 4.
372 A.H.-982 A.D. (London, 1g37), p. 157 (hereafter cited as Hudud al-‘Alam-Minorsky). nachchristlichen Jahriiuridert bis zum ilrrem Untergang an der ersten Halfte des 15. Jalirlticnderts
But in the preceding passage, p. 156, it makes the contradictory remark that R u m has (Jena, 1905). J. Keil, Ein Fuhrer durcli die Ruinenstndt utid itire Gescliichte, 5th ecl. (Vienna,
many towns and villages. T h e translator and commentator on the text, p. 40, remarks that 1964); “Ephesus,” Oriens Christianus, 3d series, V I (1931), 1-14, I b n Baituta, 1-1. A. R.
the relevant passage is confused as a result of incorrect copying from other sources. A Gibb, The Travels of Ibn Battuta (Cambridge, 1959) 11, 444 (hereafter‘cited as Ibn
useful collection on the towns, trade, and commerce is to be found in A. Rudikov, Ozerki Battuta-Gibb). C. DefrCmery and B. R. Sanguinetti, Voyages d’lbn Bntoirtah (Paris, I 854),
uizantiiskoi kultury Po dannym grezeskoi agiografii (Moscow, 1917). P. TivEev, “Sur les citCs 11, 309 (hereafter cited as Ibn Battuta-DefrCmery), noted it to be still well watered and
byzantines aux XP-XII8 sikcles,” Byzantine-Bulgarica, I (1962), 145-182. Because the that the vine was cultivated.
source material is so scarce, random factual information spanning a long period of time 4 0 “Vie de Saint Athanase l’hthonite,” A D . , XXV (1906), 81. AS Nov. 111, 579.
has been gathered. There is no intention of trying to adduce urban conditions in the O n the agriculture, commerce, and mining of the Smyrna region, Ahrweiler, “Smyrne,
eleventh century by facts pertaining to earlier centuries. Rather there is a n attempt to fiassim.
give a general, if impressionistic, picture of the towns over a period of time. dl AS Nov. 111, 578. Attaliates, 223.
3a P. Dvornik, Vie de Grigoire Ddcapolite el les Slaves Macddoniens au IX“ sihle (Paris, 1926) 41 Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Caeriinoniis, I, 658. T h e eighth-century pilgrim
p. 53. Theophanes, I, 469. H. Vetters, “Zum byzantinischen Ephesos, J.O.B.G., X V I Willibaldus, Hodoeporicon S. Willibaldi, in Itinera HierosoCyrnitana e t Descr$tiones Terrae
(1966), 273-288. N. Bees, Meh-rafiuma P X E T ~ Kw ~p b ~T ~ VyeoaioviKfiv “ETEDOVK a i Sanctae, ed. T. Toller and A. Molinier (Geneva, 1880), I,, 256, describes Phygela as
T ~ VKahobyEvov @aoA6yov,” ’ApXaiohoyiK? ’Eqqy~pl~ pt. 2. (1953-54), pp. 263-283. “villam magnam.” For some reason Icazdan, “Vizantiiskie goroda,” p. I 94, lists Phygela
A number of the texts that follow are also cited in Ka;dan, “Vizantiiskie goroda,” pp. as one of the “new cities” which he claims were founded in the late ninth and tenth
182-186. centuries, after the decline of the “old cities.” But Phygela is described as a large town in
33 AS Nov. 111,532,554,586. The monastery, which received money from pious donors, 723-726 and, of course, had existed in classical times, Strabo, XIV.i.ao. For further
bought many of its necessities in the shops of Ephesus. reference, Benndorf, “Ephesus” pp. 73-75.
34 Ibid., 536. 43 Tafel and Thomas, Urktinden, I, 52, mentions both Strobilus and Phocaea. A
36 Ibid., 556. StrobiIite merchant pledges to his patron saint one-half of all his gains from maritime
’’ Ibid., 537, 540, 541. This would seem to imply the continued existence of state regu- cornmercc if he comes back safely, AS Nov. III,, 532-533. Strobilus also had a Jewish
lated corporations in the provinces during the eleventh century. colony, J. Starr, The Jews in the Byzantine Empwe (Athens, 1 9 3 9 ) ~p. 228. Ahrweiler,
“What is most interesting is that the Saracen, who has just converted to Christianity “Smyrne,” pp. 50-51, on Clazomenae as a port of call and seat of a bishopric in the
in Ephesus, receives an interpreter from the metropolitan of Ephesus so that when he eleventh century.
goes to see St. Lazarus he will be able to converse with him. There may have been a small *4 J. Darrouxts, ghistoliers Dyzaiitins du Xe si2cZe (Paris, I 960), pp. 198-1gg, This con-
colony of Muslim merchants in Ephesus, for in an earlier period I b n Khuradadhbih, dition also prevailed in the thirteenth century between the Seljuk and Nicaean domains,
B.G.A., VI, 106, mentions the presence of a mosque in the city. Gelzer, Die Genesis, p. 83. see chapter I11 below.
I0 I1

state khans for the residence of the merchant^,^^ exported livestock to their favorable location along the land and maritime routes leading to
the capital and served as the market for villagers in the vast rural area Constantinople.65 Pylae possessed <woSoxEiaor Khans for the rnerchants,b6
around the city. These dr/poyai-rov~gcame to town to sell their own and the town specialized in the export of swine, cattle, horses, a n d asses to
produce, to buy what they needed,40 and also to visit the church of the Con~tantinople.~7 Pythia (the Turkish Yalova), embellished since the time
Archangel Michael. Prusa, an important market for grain and livestock, of Justinian I with public baths and buildings, became a famous resort
was in addition famed for its thermal baths.47 Its neighbor, Nicaea, was town that Constantinopolitans visited for the cures of the warm baths.6a
an equally active commercial center and mart for local farming pr0ducts.~8 The whole region of northwest Anatolia was unusually favored, commer-
The city contained granaries for the agricultural produce o f the rural cially, by its proximity to a large market in Constantinople, by the presence
environs49 and an active colony of Jewish merchants.60 The tenth- of large towns and centers of population, by numerous harbors, a n d by the
century Theophanes Continuatus refers to Nicaea as rich and heavily existence of fairly rich and large villages.5DGreat numbers of merchant
populatcd.61 It is pertinent that the Arab geographer al-Mukaddasi vessels touched at such ports of call as Cyzicus, Lampsacus, Nicomedia,
mentioned the presence o f Muslims in the cities of Bithynia, some Helenopolis, Abydus, Cius, Chalcedon.so
probably there for purposes of trade.62 Though the literary references to Attaleia remained throughout the whole period the principal naval
the town are scanty, the archaeological finds indicate that in the eleventh base and commercial station that the Byzantines possessed i n southern
century Pergamum was the site of some local industry,sS and its neighbor Anatolia, visited by great numbers of ships.01 It was the most convenient
Adramyttium was a town of more than respectable s i ~ e . 6Abydus, ~ harbor between the region of the Aegean and Cyprus and points eastward,
Cyzicus, Lampsacus, and Pylae enjoyed a certain prosperity because of and travelers and merchants voyaging between the two areas usually
45 Zepos, J.G.R., 111, 386. Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Caerimoniis, I, 720.
stopped at Attaleiaao2It was not only an important center for the deposit
46 Michaelis Pselli Scripta Minora, ed. E. Drexl and F. Pertz (Milan, 1936, 1g41), I, 333 of naval stores and grain but an international trading centerogwhere in
(hereafter cited as Drexl and Pertz). ahla &mopla Kal TpaypmIKh a w v a h h a y ~ m a , ”
addition to the local merchants one could expect to see Arrnenians,O4
4 7 Papadopoulos-Kerameus, A.I.C., IV, 384, 387, 397. V. Laurent. La vie nierveillsuse
de S. Pierre d’dtroa 837 (Brussels, 1956), p. 109. Ibn Battuta-Gibb, 11, 450, noted that the
springs Were still visited by the sick in his day. Ibn Battuta-Defrtmery, 11, 318.
4 8 Much of this produce was evidently shipped to Constantinople, Giogruphie d’Edrisi, 66 Tafel and Thomas, Urkunden, I, 52-53. Abydus was an important station for the levy-
trans. P. A. Jaubert (Paris, 1840), 11, 302 (hereafter cited as al-Idrisi-Jaubert). ing of maritime tolls. I t also had a Jewish colony.
4 0 Cedrpnus, 11, 428. Wheat was grown in the area and fish were supplied from the 6a Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Caerirnoniis, I, 720.
lake, AS Nov. Iv, 643, 645. The fish and crustaceans were believed to cure fever and 6 7 DarrouzPs, &istoliers byrantins, p. 209, 2v &o-rEiov 6 x 6 ~ ~ 1
~~rlrvros Kal
paralysis, al-Idrisi-Jaubert, 11, 304. As late as the early fourteenth century Nicaea was an mpicmo66amov ~b xolpows K a l Bvovs, P6as TE K a l ~ITITOWSK a l ~pdpccrctTOGS &va h @
important silk manufacturing center, A. M. Schneider, Ramischen und byzantinischen KOTOlKOhJTaS pee’ 6Oqs O h &V E k O I Tls hl!.lEhE“Xs 6K&&EUeal K a l 8la”rEpb Kal Ta
Denkmdler aus Nicaea-Iznik (Berlin, 1g43), p. 5. Northwestern Asia Minor had remained an PacrihiSi T a p a d p m i v T& epippma.” I t was still an important commercial center in thir-
important area of silk production down to the early fourteenth century. Most of the silk teenth century commerce between Bithynia and Constantinople. Nicholas Mesarites, Netre
to be found in the shops of Constantinople came from thcse rcgions. Laudanum was Quellen zur Geschicltte des lateinischeti Kaistertirms und der Kirchenunion, ed. A. Heisenbefg
produced and the thermal baths of the city were still visited at this late date. F. Taeschner, Sitz. der bay. Akad. der Wiss. P~~ilosopti.-pliilolog-Kl,~ Abh. (1913), 11, 39, “vrroh(~viov
Al-Umari’s Bericht iiber Anatolien in seinem Werke masiilik al-absiir f i maniiilik al-amsiir EhEpiypaTTOV pkV, IOXWpbV 6k Th TOhhb.”
(Leipzig, 1929)~ p. 43 (hereafter cited as al-Umari-Taeschner) ;E. Quatremtre, “Notices Procopius, Buildings, V, iii, 17-20. Darrouzts, &istoliers byzantine, p. 326, for the
de I’ouvrage qui a pour titre: Mesalek etc.,” in Notices et extraits des mss. de la bibliothdgue restoration of the baths by Leo VI. Leo Choerospliactes composed a poem on the baths,
du Roi, XIII, (Paris, 1838), 365-366 (hereafter cited as al-Umari-Quatremtre). Ibn S. G. Mcrcati, “Intorno all’ autore del carme €15 ~h 6v nUOlolS 8EpM&,” R.S.O., X
Battuta-Gibb, 11, 453, notes that the environs abounded in fruits, of which the “virgin” (1gr3-25), 241; G. Kolias, Lion Choirosphactes (Athens, 1g3g), p. 54.
grapes were a speciality. Ibn Battuta-Defrtmery, XI, 323-324. See for example in Drexl and Pertz, I, 132, the description of the village of Oreine in
6 o AS Nov. IV, 642, ‘‘ Nkaia 1~6AisTohhois pkv ppt8E1 Tois Zlhois Kahois, T$ 6k Bithynia, which belonged to Psellus.
Tpbs &plTOpelaVZXEIV EfiCpVGj, {KKahEiTal TOGS 8TlT7l8EbOVTaST b Xpqpa TpbS k l W T q V . O 0 I n the early eighth century, the forces rebelling against Anastasius I1 were able to
dew K a t TIVES ‘Eppalwv ‘pwhfis ah6ae K C X T O I K O ~ J T EBpnopdag
~ TE x & p v Kal T ~ S capitalize on this factor to raise a large fleet of merchant vessels in this area with which to
&hhqs &q+3ovlas.” Thus Synnada also had a small group of Jews in the ninth century, oppose the emperor, Theophanes, I, 385, “ crvhhapP&vov-rai ITAEio-ra H I K ~ &TE Kal
AS Nov. IV, 629. For a survey of the history ofNicaea, J. Solch, “Historisch-geographische
Studien ilber bithynischen Siedlungen,” B.N.J., I, ( 1 9 2 0 ) ~263-337. A. M.Schneider and
u~b~pv. ,” This rich area exported such items as grain, pottery,
and silk, Procopius, Anecdota, XXII, 1 7 . Mesarites, Netie Quellen, 11, 44; Al-Umari-
K. Karnopp, Die Stadtniauer von Iznik (Berlin, 1938). Schneider, “The City Walls of QuatrPmere, p. 366; Al-Umari-Taeschner, p. 43.
Nicaea,” Antiquity, XI1 (1938), 438. AS NOV. 111, 590, ‘ I , ..
mpicpavfis Kal 671 &yxlahos K a i rr)\+jeos &I TOV
61 Theophanes Continautus, 464, ‘I ~ 6 A i v&pxai6.rrhowTovVal ~ohliavSpov.”
6 2 E. Honigmann, “Un itintraire arabe A travers le Pont,” A.E.P.H.O.S., I V (1936),
vavTq68Ev E ~ Sahfiv Kmaipo6vTwv . , ” K. Lanckorodski, G. Nicmann, a n d E.
Petersen, Stddte Painjlpliens und Pisidiens, (Vienna, 1890), 1.
263 (hereafter cited as “Un itintraire”). I t is quite possible that some of them were AS Nov. IV, ‘‘ 4s &cpoppbv ElhOqcrav 01 TihEicrroi TGV EIS Kb~rpovT O P E U O ~ ~ U V . ”
prisoners taken in war, O3 Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Caerimoniis, I, 659. I b n Battuta-Gibb, 11, 418,
63 Kaidan, “Vizantiiskie goroda,” p. 183. A Conze, Stadt und Landschaft Pergainon mentions springs of cold water and apricots that were exported to Egypt; I b n Battuta-
(1913), 1, 322-324. Defrkmery, 11, 259-260. Al-Idrisi-Jaubert, 11, indicates that later Attaleia was built on a
64B.Leib, Anne Comnhe, Alexiade (Paris, 1g37), 111, 143 (hereafter cited as Anna
Comnena), ‘I.. . -riohwavOpw~oT$rq.”
different site but this is perhaps a confusion with Side.
64 AS Nov. 111, 5 I I .


saracens,05 Jews,” and Italians.07The Arab accounts of the ninth and 2s. 75
tenth centuries describe the district of Attaleia as densely populated and
rich in cereals. Its agricultural produce found ready markets in the less
fertile regions of the Anatolian plateau.08
The northern Anatolian coast was the scene of similarly energetic
- I I
42I d 26
A 27 0 28 C 29 D 30 E 31

commerce and industry. Heracleia engaged i n a brisk trade with
Constantinople” and with Cherson, which needed its grain.70 TO the b Sea,
northeast was Amastris, a more important commercial center. Nicetas d.78
the Paphlagonian, describing Amastris as the “eye” of Paphlagonia, s of
relates that the “Scyths” who lived on the north coast of the Black Sea
were in frequent and intense commercial relation with the inhabitants
ofthe city.71 Its merchants were quite active as early as the ninth century, C

and probably earlier.72The combination of local industry, trade, and the

produce of the soil made Amastris one of the more prosperous towns on I
the Black Sea. 73 Sinope, the site of the church of St. Phocas, was important
as a grain port and naval base,74 and also as the sponsor of the great

055/1id., 590, ‘I ..
. k p a K q V O ? S , Of rohhol r E p 1 T ~ V’A-rr&heiav T & T Q V I K ~ ~ E
0 8 ~ Ankori,
. Keraites in Bymiltiurn (New York, 1g5g), pp. 46-47. Starr, Thd Jews
p. 26.
8 7 Italians were calling at Attaleia at the end of the eleventh century, Tafel and
Thomas, Urkunden, I, 5 2 , but possibly earlier as well. In the period of Ibn Battuta-Gibb,
11, 418, there were Latins, Jews, Greeks, and Muslims in the city,
0 8 Ibn Hawkal, B.G.A., 111, 101-102. Darrouzb, Epistoliers Dyzantins, pp, 198-199,they
exported wheat to the Phrygian district. The region of Synnada, by way of example,
produced only barley. It was at too high an elevation for the cultivation of olive oil or
the vine, and for fuel the inhabitants had to utilize animal dung, @pga~ov,instead of
wood. William of Tyre, A History of Deeds Done beyond the Sea, trans. and annotated by F. A.
Babcock and A. C. Krey, XVI, xxvi, also comments on the fertility of the soil. X. de
Planhol, De la plaine pamphylienne aux lacs phidiens. Nomadisme et uiepaysanne (Paris, 1958),
pp, 03-85. O n Side, east of Attaleia: A. M. Mansel, “Side,” P.W., Supplementband X
(1965),879-918;Mansel, Die Ruinen uon Sida (Berlin, 1963). Eyice, “L’Cglise cruciforme
byzantine de Side en Pamphylie,” Anatolia, I11 (1958),35-42; “La ville byzantine de Side
en Pamphylie,” Actes de X Congrds International d‘ztudes Byzantines 1955 (Istanbul, 1.957)
PP. ‘30-133.
O g Nicephorus Bryennius, 93-94, records the case history of a certain Maurix who,
though of humble origin, became wealthy and great from this maritime commerce.
7 O Constantine Porphyrogenitus, D e Caerinzoniis, I, 2 8 7 .
7l Nicetas of Paphlagonia, P.G.,CV, 421, ‘‘ ’Ap&mpa, 6 ~ f i sIla$,qov[as, pi3hAov
6 i ~ i j Os ~ K O V ~ 6hlyou ~ ~ S , 6EiV, dpBahp6s, EIs fiv oi TE 1.6 Pdpeiov TOG EO$E~VOU pCpos
TIEP~OIKOGVTESZ K N a i , K a l ot rpbs V ~ T O V68 KEI~EVOI, Cjcrmp €75 TI K O I V ~ V O W V T ~ ~ X O V T E S ikia
1pdpiov, T& r a p ’ Q m & v TE uuvEimpCpoual, K a 1 T&V r a p ’ ahfis &.rthapp&oucri.”
’, see
Eyice, “Deux anciennes Cglises byzantines de la citadelle d’Amasra (Paphlagonie),” f the
Cahiers Archkolagique, VII (1954)~ 97-10?. :&as
a1 of
7 z When George the bishop of Amastris had to journey to Trebizond to free merchants

Y , , ,
of Amastris from jail, Vasilievsky, Trudy (St. Petersburg), 111, 43-47. ~

, y::
73 Nicetas of Paphlagonia, P.G.,CV, 421, ‘‘ 0 6 6 ~ v lpiv T ~ V h b y f s 9 Buhauuqs inires
$ ‘ w y l ~ ~ vuravI&Tai*.rr?tcri 6QTOTS EriTq6Etois 6alyihQS E 6 j e w o u p 6 v q , o i K o 6 o C l r j a o l SEA
TE h U N V P O i S K a t TEfXEUl KaPTEPOiS, V a l 6fi K a 1 hlC16Ul K a h O i S K a l O f K j T O P Q I b d E V 35
7 T E p I ~ C N E Q T & T O I $ K E X P ~ ~ ~ VS.~ Vailht,
. ” “Amastris,” D.H.G.E. i 1 I
74 c. Van de Vorst, “Saint Phocas,” A.B., XXX ( I ~ I I ) , 189. St. Phocas was patron
saint of the merchants and seamen, who always dedicated a share of the wheat (in which
they traded) to his church, N. A. Oikonomides, ““Ayios CJ @COKESb ZIVOTE~S. 28 29 30 31 mkish
A W P E K~a l~ 6ia60uis ahjs,” A.ll., XVII (IgsZ), 184-219.

‘4 ‘5
26 A 27 8 28 C 29 D 30 E 31 F 32 G 33 H 34 I 35 J 36 K 37 L 38 M 39 N 40 0 41 P 42 0 43 R 44 s 45

12 - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 12

b c B L A C K S E A b

+I +I













I !1 I I I
I50 200

29 30 31 32 33 34
41 42 43 44

Saraci panegyris, or commercial fair, held on the feast day of St. Phocas.75
tenth Slightly to the southeast was another grain port, Amisus, which traded
rich ii3 41 P 42 P 43 R 44 s 45 r extensively with the Chersonese. ‘O Cerasus, which participated in this
The I \ ‘ I I 7-- maritime intcrcourse with the “Scyths” and the other Pontine cities,
was one of the major textile centers of northern Anatolia, supplying
Constantiriople with linen cloth. 77
Certainly the most important of the Anatolian cities on the Black Sea,
in ternis of population, wealth, commerce, and industry, was Trebizond.78
It was situated in the vicinity of the fertile grain-producing regions of
Paipert and Chaldia70and served as a storage center and market for the
region’s grain.80But significant as it was in the grain trade, Trebizond
was more important as a commercial center in which converged trade
routes coming by sea from Cherson and by land from the Caucasus,
Central Asia, Syria, Constantinople, and Anatolia. There were several
market fairs held each year,el the most important of which was the
panegyris of St. Eugenius, the patron saint of Trebizond, instituted in the
region of Basil I: Merchants and travelers from all parts of the Middle

lo Van de Vorst, “Saint Phocas,” p. 289, “ fiSq y&p uoi K’awTaGOu .rravjyvpls TGV
~ E Y ~ ~ w vI t. was
” . also the site of an imperial treasury in the eleventh century, Anna
Comncna, 11, 64.
7 a Constantinc I’orphyrogenitus, De Adniitiistrnndo Imkerio, ed. G. Moravcsik and R.
Jenkins (Washington, D.C., I 967) pp. 286-287 (hereafter cited as Constantine
Porphyrogcnitus, Dc Adm. In$.). G. Schlumberger, “Sceaux byzantins inbdits,” Revue
Nutnistncitiqtte, 4th scr., IX (rgng), 348-34.9, for the seal of a tenth-eleventh century
con~mcrciariusof Amisus.
?’ Zepos, J.G.R., 111, 381. The silk-garment merchants used this linen to line the so-
caIlccl bombyccne tunics. Al-Idrisi-Jaubcrt, 11, 393.
I’apnclopoulos-~ermaneus, Sbornik v istohiikov po istorii trajezundskai iinpcrii (St,
Petersburg, I 897), p. 58 (hereafter cited as Papadopoulos-Kerameus, 1st. traj. im).)*
(This is from the miracula of St. Eugenius by Joseph the metropolitan of Trebizond.)
“ j w e e i pkv yap 76 .rqviKaka K U I ~ O Gfi Tpa-rregoGs f j 6 ~ Kal mplomos qv K a l ITEplKhU-
705, K a t Tap& ~rrtruqs,U X E ~ ~ yijs V , &O@(ETO* T ~h~i j p x o v 6v a h f j o k
I T ~ O ~ I X O VTE
bhlyoi K a I oTpmili.rai i i d h ~ ~ ~ &mop01 oi, TE nheimoi K a l BAPioi, p o v a l 6 i K a l
ITapOEviSvey 6 i a p E p o q p t v a i K a T h t J K V O l ral xAq8os AaoG O ~ K O WfipSfw5 dp~8poTOV.”
Tlic city also had mining works in the vicinity, Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Xu$oAat E ~ S
TT)V l a r o p h v Tpam[oiivro5,” V.IT,, XI1 (1906)~ 1q.0. Chrysanthos, ‘H kKhqtJk
T Q a I T E < O k J T O ~ ,An., IV-V (1936). H-G. Beck, Kirche wid thcologische Literntur im
/p:anfinisc//en Ileicli (Munich, I 959), pp. I 68-1 70, for bibliography. On the later pcriod,
9. I~nnipros, Bqooaplwvog ~ y ~ t b p l o€15 v T p a m c o i h a v G v T b IT~GTOV~ K & I & ~ ~ E V O V
K W & ~ b vM a p K i a v b v K&61Ka (Athens, I 916 ) .
7 9 I’apntlopoulos-Keramcus,Is(. t r p . imp., p. 56, ‘‘ T&VU ~ 6 f i p 0 ~ 6 ~K a 1 paeaia
KUI ~Cqopos, ” For the seal of the crites of the theme in the ninth-tenth century, see
A. Uryer, ‘‘A Molybdobull of the Imperial Protospatharius Constantine, Krites of the
Thcnlt! of Chnldia,” A.U., XXVII (1966),244-246. See also 0. Lampsides, “NicCtas
~vi.rlucincoiinu dc ‘I‘rkbizonde,” U.Z.,LVZI (1964), 380-381,for an ecclesiastical seal of
tbc clcvcmth and twelfth centuries (or possibly of the tenth century). H. Antoniadis-
nibicou, It‘ecliercfies mr les douanes (2 Byzance, L’ “octaun,” le “konmierkioti” et les commercinires
(Paris, rgG3), pnssirn.
8” I’npii~lo~~oulos-E;cramcus, Ist. trap. imp., pp. 49-50, 81.
81 M;is‘ucli, Les jmiria d’or, fexfc et traduction, C. B. de Maynard and P. de Courteille

(l’aris, I C I I ~ 11, ~ ) 3 (hcreafter cited as Mas‘udi), rcfers to Trebizond as ~!wl-markets.

H Z I’a~~~~clopoulou-Il;cro~ncus, fst. tmnj~in$., pp. 57-59. It was officially observed by the
go\-urrirncntoficials, TOIS Iv T&I, until the end of the elevcnth century when the ‘Turkish
invasions irltcrrup tcci the celebration.
‘4 15

East were to be seen buying and selling goods in Trebizond and visiting cargoes. For
the shrine of St. Eugenius for cures: Arabs, Armenians, Greeks,83 if the Chersonites do not journey to Roumania and sell the hides and wax that
Russians, C o l ~ h i a n s , *Jews,86
~ Georgians,80 and C i r c a s ~ i a n s . ~
~ they get by trade from the Pechenegs, they cannot live. If grain does not pass
Trebizondines were engaged in a vast international commerce between across from Aminsos and from Paphlagonia and the Bukellarioi and the flanks of
the Armeniakoi, the Chersonites cannot live.92
east and west. T h e Kachaks, a Caucasian people, came to the city to
purchase Greek brocades and other textiles.88 The tenth-century Arab Prior to the Seljuk invasions, the Byzantines possessed in eastern Anaiolia
Istakhri relates that most of the Greek textiles and brocades in his day a number of comparatively prosperous commercial towns. One of the
were imported into the Islamic world via Trebizond. Aside from the grain most important of these and located to the southeast of Trebizond was
that Trebizond sent to the imperial capital on the Bosphorus, very impor- Artze, a fairly large townD3inhabited by numerous merchants, including
tant were the perfumes and other exotic items that entered the empire not only local Syrians and Armenians but also many othcrs.Q4The town
via the emporium of Trebizond. The trade of the region furnished a possessed and traded in all types of goods and wares that were produced in
further source of revenue to the state by virtue of the customs duties that Persia, India, and ihe rest of Asia.Q6Theodosiopolis in the vicinity seems
the commerciarioi levied. to have. been a n important caravan town that traded with the Georgians
i in the early tenth century,se Many of its inhabitants moved to the town
Eona and Oenoe were smaller towns of some commercial note, the
latter as a ship building center and naval base.OOThis whole tier of Pontic of Artze where commercial conditions were more favorable, but after the
towns participated in a vital commercial and industrial life, a fact Turkish sack of Artze much of the populace returned to Theodosiopolis.
reflected by such authors as Theophanes and Constantine Porphyro- Ani, one of the most recently acquired cities of the empire in eastern Asia
genitus. T h e former relates that when Constantine V wished to rebuild Minor, was a n important and very populous emporium, with great
the acqueduct of Valens i n Constantinople during a severe drought, he numbers of churches and grain silos.g7At the easiernmost extremity was
transported craftsmen and builders from western Asia Minor and the town of Manzikert, also recently acquired.08 Melitene, a large
Pontus.gl Also, the exports of grain, wine, and other commodities were commercial towng0that had been incorporated into the empire during
not only necessary for Constantinople but were absolutely essential to the the reign of Romanus I, was later repeopled primarily with Jacobite
existence of the Chersonites. The latter, in return for the goods that the O2 Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Adm. Im)., pp. 286-287.
Greek merchants brought them, sent to Pontus such items as hides and O3 .
Attaliates, 148, refers to it variously as “.rrohiTefav, vey&hqv , , x w p 6 1 ~ o h i v . ”
wax which they acquired from the Patzinaks. Constantine Porphyrogen-
.. .
Cedrenus, 11, 577, as ‘ * K W ~ ~ T T O ~ ~ Spupfav6pos Kal rrohbv Tihokrov &ouua.”
Zonaras, m, 638, ‘‘ K W ~ ~ I T O ~6’qv
IS ~ohcp Irhqebs ~’BVSKEI ah?, iv’ O ~ T W Ei.rroIp1,
itus tells his son that in case the Chersonites should revolt, imperial agents K a l drpiepbv irmpf3alvouoa, Ep.rropo~G’fiaav 01 &Opw.rrot K a l I T ~ O ~ T O SJlv a h o i s
should be sent to the coasts of the provinces of Armeniacon, Paphlagonia, a4 Cedrenus, 11, 577.
and Bucellarion to take possession of the Chersonite ships, arrest the O6 Attaliates, 148, “ K a l ITCntTOfWV ChVfOV, 6Ua mEpUIKI] T E K a l ’IV61Kfi K U l fl hOl7Tfi
’ A d a ( p i p , .rrhiieoy o\jK EirapfOvq-rov +pouua.” The situation was much the same
crews, and confiscate the cargoes, The merchant ships of these provinces in the days of Justinian I, Procopius, History qf the Wars, 11, xxv, ‘‘ Kal .rraibla phr
were to b e prevented from going to Cherson with their much needed EVTacea IITTfihaT& t b ‘ l , KGval 6k ITOhhal lTOhUWepoTl’6TaTOl 6KqVTal dr/XWT&T”W
drhh4hais K a l .rrohhol Zp~~opoi KM’ l p y a o f a v Iv -rahais oiKoijoiv. k TE yhp ’Iv8Gv K a l
TGV I T h q u t o x h p w v ’Ipfipwv T&VTWV TE cbs d m i v TGV l v nbpoais @vQv K a l ‘ P w p a l o v
TIVGV~h qopda EO-KO~I@~EVOI BvTaCOa &hhfihois~ ~ ~ ~ & h i h h Ctironique o ~ u i . ~ dc
’ Matthieu
83 Mas‘udi, I, 3. Vasilievsky, Trudy, III,43-47. d’zdesse (gGz-1136)auec In continuation de Grkgoire leprttrejusqu’en 1162, trans., E. Dulaurier
Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Ist. trap. imp., pp. 40, 4.3. (Paris, 1858), pp. 83-84 (hereafter cited as Matthew of Edessa), elaborates on the wealth
86 Ankori, Keraites, pp. 122-125. The earliest mentlon of Jews in Byzantine Trebizond
and numerous population.
O8 Constantine Porphyrogenitus, D e Adtn. Imp., pp. 208, 214.
is I 188, but it is quite possible that they were to be found there earlier.
O’ Matthew ofEdessa, p. 123.Attaliates, 79, ‘‘ v6his E m1p~yirhqK a i .rrohu&vOpw.rros.”
ae Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Adm. Imp., pp. 2 I 6-2 I 7, relates that commerce
O 8 I t is one of the few Byzantine towns whose personality momentarily shines through
flowed from Trebizond to the Georgian town of Adranoutzi. This latter is depicted as a
very busy, prosperous, and extensive emporium with commerce coming to it from the darkness of the sourceless period. In the mid-eleventh century Toghrul attempted to
Trebizond, Georgia, Abasgia. Armenia, and Syria. It collected KOpp6pKiOV h E p V , take the city but after a furious siege that was unsuccessful, he decided to abandon the
enormous customs revenue. effort. The inhabitants of Manzikert then placcd a pig on a hallista and hurled it into
Mas‘udi, 11, 45-47. the sultan’s camp with the cry, “Sultan! take this sow to wife and we shall give you
Ibid. Manzikert as dowry.” Matthew of Edessa, 101-102.Al-Idrisi-Jaubert, 11, 328, describes
8 0 Istahri, B.G.A., I, 188 gb>;r k 2, rj) &.dl d.nj 8“ a commerce of salted fish taken from Lake Van and of clay for crockery.
O 0 Matthew of Edessa, pp. 107 ff., remarks that its population was as numerous as the

$SPI d ~ 3, , Al-Idrisi-Jaubert, 11, 393. W. Heyd, sands of the sea. Theophanes Continuatus, 415, 416-417, calls it in the tenth century,
.;A;$\> &b JI
.. .

Histoire du conzmerce du Levant au moyen age (Leipzig, 1g23), I, 44, “ T b h f O q p O V K a l k&KOUoTOV K a l T & V U 6XUpbV Kal SUVWbV KdtUTpOV .. . ”

o o Al-Idrisi-Jaubert, 11, 393 Melitene and the surrounding towns were quite prosperous, p. 416, .rrohu(p6pou~ TE K a l
Theophanes, I, 440. He brought 1,000builders and 200 plasterers. mo-rdrras odoas Kal oias ~ o h h h s.rrap&Eiv .rrpoa66ou~.” Melitene itself brought in a

16 =7

ChristianslOO and to a lesser degree with Armenians and Greeks.lo1The trade with the Muslim east was transacted in northern and eastern Asia
few remarks tha t emerge from the sources reveal that this town was Minor, a considerable portion of it must have entered into and passed
inhabited by wealthy merchants.lo2 Nisibis and Edessa were coni- through southern and central Anatolia. Anazarba and Podandus in the
paratively populous and wealthy,lo3 obviously dependent far much of tenth and eleventh centuries were populous and prosperous, with thickly
their prosperity o n trade with Syria.lo4Aniioch, though actually not in inhabited and productive clusters of villages in their environs.loOThe
Asia Minor, was very important in the economic life of the empire and highland town of Tzamandus was also wealthy and of good size.lQ7
especially in the commercial activities of the Anatolian towns. It was one Adana, Tarsus, Mopsuestia, and Seleuceia wcre significant towns charac-
of the important points at which commerce flowed between the domains terized by commercial enterprise.lO8 Caesareia, favored by its location on
of Byzantiurn a n d Islam. This trade had no doubt always existed and the the commercial route connecting Mesopotamia-Syria with Anatolia,
wars and ratzius only temporarily interrupted it.106Though much of this the seat of one of the most important Greek metropolitanates and an
rich revenue to the crown, ‘‘ T a h q v oih .. I E ~ SKoupa-rcop[av hoKcc-racT-rfioaS b
important point of religious pilgrimage, was the principal town of
Cappadocia.lo’ Nigde, Archelais, and Heracleia, though certainly not as
pauihE1SS rohhas Xihl&Gas xpuuiou Kai &pywplou ~ K E K ~ VSaopotpopeio8al I-rqolws
I T E T T O ~ ~ ~ K E VG.
, ” Ficker, Erlusse des Putriarcherz van Konstantittopel Alexios Studites (Kiel,
19111, p. 28, .rrirhts piv fi M E ~ I T Tp~yckhq
I‘ - ~ ~ ~ K C C ~rohudrvOpw.rroS, d h l s &pxaia Kal cot6 dcs douaniers de Qargawaih et Dakjur, et sur loutcs les merchandises comme or,
d-irloqpos, Ev K U ~ +cicipos K & J ~ Kal xdpa id a h I j v 6kpfa K a l &yaefi, 06 ToiS argent, brocart grec, soie non travaillte, pierres prCcieuses, bijoux, pcrles, Ctoffes de soic
druayKaiots p6vov EIS PIOv &ih)\h K a i Tais ~ r ~ p l r r o Ei s~ ST ~ P ~ E\jeuvoupivrp.”
I V But fines (sundus), les douaniers imphriaux prtlCveront la dime; sur les ktoffes (ordinaires),
perhaps this culogy was lifted from the legislation of Justinian, see Honigmann, lcs Ctoffes d e lin, les Ctoffes de soie L fleurs de diverses couleures (huzyun), les animaux el
“Malatya,” E I I . autres merchandises, ce seront les douaniers du chambellan et de Bakjur aprts lui qui
l o o Cltronique de Michel le Syrien Patriarche Jucobite d’dntioch, ed. and trans. J-B. Chabot prClCveront. la dime, Aprts eux tous ces drolts seront p e r p par les douaniers impCriaux.”
(Paris, 1go5), 111, 130-131 (hereafter cited as Michacl the Syrian), says that the Greeks For a complete analysis of this treaty preserved in I h m a l al-Din, see Canard, FIain-
refused to settle there and so Nicephorus Phocas asked the Syrians and their church to danides, pp. 833-837. Article twenty-one speaks of caravans coming from Byzantium to the
move to Melitene as they were accustomed t o living between two peoples. domain of Islam. Canard, “Les relations politiques ct sociales entre Byzancc et les Arabes,”
Ficker, Rdasse, passim. Michael the Syrian, 111, 136. D.O.P., X V I I I (1964), 48-55. Aside from the commercial and industiial importance of
l o g Thus, in the elcventh century a wealthy inhabitant of Melitene, a Syrian Christian, Byzantine Mesopotamia, it wa5 also an important producer of wheat, Liudprand, Legatio,
, is said to have ransomed 15,000Christians from the Turks a t five dinars a head, Michael ed. J. Becker in Die Werke Lindpmnds van Cremona, 3d ed., Scriptores reruni geriimicnrum inti st4tii
the Syrian, 111, 146.Matthew of Edessa, pp. 107-108, says it was full of gold, silver, scholaiuin ex Monumentis Genmmzae Historicissel,aratiin editi (Hannover-Leipzig, I 9 I 5), p. I 98.
precious stones, brocades, and people. The C~ironographyof Gregory Abu’l Faraj the Son of loo Cedrenus, 11, 414-415. Zonaras, 111,502. Matthew of Edessa, p. 4 . Cinnamus, 100,
Aaron, the Hebrew Pfpsiciaii commonly known as B a r Hebraeus beitig tfle First Part of fiis Political in the twelfth century still regards Anazarba as ‘‘ T T ~ ~ Iwpiqavij.
V ” Nicetas Choniates,
History ofthe World, trans. E. A. W. Budge (London, 1932), I, 178 (hereafter cited asBar 33, says of Anazarba, ‘‘ K O V ~ O T ~ ~o6aa ~ ~ OKS a i rohuCtv0po.rros.” Al-Idrisi-Jaubert, 11,
Hebraeus), relates the story of the three sons of a certain Abu Imrun who were so rich 133, Anazarba produccd fruit in great abundance. M. Gough, “Anazarbus,” Anatolian
that they struck the imperial gold coinage at their own expense, and, in addition, they are Studies, I1 ( r g y ) , 85-150.
repoIted to have loaned Basil I1 100 centenaria of gold. I n the eleventh century these Unfortunately source niatcrial is lacking here. In eastern Asia Minor information
Syrian Christian merchants of Melitene were very active commercially, trading in ureservcd bv the Islamic.. Svriac,, . and Armenian authors. who are provincial in nature,
Constantinople and in the lands under the sway of the Turks. Both the Armenians and reveals incidental facts about the cities in this area. For northern and western Anatolia
Syrians had their own church and corporation of merchants in Constantinople. In the the saints’ lives, which arc also local in character, have preserved significant information.
reign of Constantine X Ducas the walls of the city (destroyed in the tenth century by the But for south and central Anatolia we have only thc 13yzantine chronicles, and they are
Byzantines) were rebuilt at the expense of the wealthy Syrian inhabitants. Michael the concerned only with the capital.
Syrian, 111, 165.
los Cedrenus, 11, 502, relates that the yearly tax, which went to the treasury at Con-
lo7 Cedrenus, 11, 4.23, ‘‘ 1 ~ 6 h i ~, . dv drrroKpfipVcp-rr.hpq K E I ( ~ TrohU&U8pwTros
~ v ~ ~ Kai
‘rrhohq~mpIppl8fiS.” Zonaras, 111, 54, ‘‘ .rrohUnhq8q -rr6hlv.” Rardas Sclerus during
stantinople was fifty pounds of gold. Edessa is one of the few cities for which there are his revolt was able to raise considerable sums of money from its inhabitants. Zonaras,
population figures. According to Sawiras ibn al-Mukaffa’, ITisto7y of the Patriarclls o f the 111, 541.
Egybtian Church, trans. and ed. A. S. Attiya and Y . Abd al-Masih, (Cairo, 1959), 11, iii, lo8 Nicephorus Phocas recolonized Tarsus after its conquest. Bar Hebraeus, I, 171,
305 (hereafter cited as Sawirus ibn al-Mukaffa’), the city had, in 1071-1072, 20,ooo “And Tars& was (re)built, and was exceedingly prosperous, and the supply of food
Syrians, 8,000 Armenians, 6,000 Greeks, and 1,000 Latins, for a total of 35,000. For therein was so abundant that 1 2 litres of bread were sold for one zGz.4. And many of her
further discussion of the population of towns see below. Edessa was an important textile citizens returned to TarsBs, and some of them were baptized and became Christians;
center and prior to its destruction by the Turks in the twelfth century was inhabited by others remained in their Faith, but all their children were baptized.” Scylitzes, 11, 703,
silk merchants, weavers, cobblers, and tailors. Chabot, “Un Cpisode de l’histoire des refers to Adana as a ~ 6 h 1 vSee
. Tafel and Thomas, Urkunden, I, 52, for mention of the
Croisades,” Me7anges ogerts d M. Gustave Schhmberger (Paris, ~ g r q ) I, , 173-174. Its in- commercial ports of southern Anatolia. Al-Idrisi-Jaubert, 11, 133, refers to A d a m and
habitants resisted the Turks valiantly. Tarsus as large towns with an active commerce and fine stone bazaars. He is either refer-
lo( Matthew of Edessa, pp. 48, 130. ring to conditions of the eleventh century or else to the period of the reconquest and
l o fGibb,
i “Arab-Byzantine Relations under the Umayyad Caliphate,” D.O.P., 1x1 reconstruction of the towns of the area under hlcxius Comnenus. Seleuceia, after being
( I 958), Z ~ O - Z ~ I ,G . Le Strange, Bagfzdad duritig the Abbasid Caliphate f r o m Contemporary rebuilt, attracted Jewish merchants fi-om Egypt as settlers, Ankori, Keraites, p. I 17.
Arabic and Persian Sources (Oxford, 1gz4), p. 149, indicates the presence of Greeks in S. Goitein, “A Letter of Historical Importance from Seleuceia (Selefke), Cilicia, dated
Baghdad. See also Yakubi, Les pays, trans. G . Wiet (Cario, 1g37), p. PZ. There is a par- P I July I 137.” English summary of the article in Tarbiz, XXVII (1958), vii-viii.
ticularly significant mention of it in the treaty concluded between the Byzantines and l o D When al-Harawi, Guide des lieux de &Yerittage, trans. J. Sourdel-Thomine (Damascus
Hamdanids in 969-970, translated from the Arabic text by Canard, Hisstoire de la dynastie 1957), p. 133, journeyed through Anatolia in the latter half of the twelfth century the
des Flamdanides de Jezira et de Syrie (Algiers, 1g51), I, 835. “En ce qui concerne la dime Byzantine hippodrome and baths were still to be seen. For an account of the shrine of St.
prClevCe sur (se q u i vient du) pays des Rum, des douaniers de I’empereur sikgcront tr Basil, see Attaliates, 94.

I a

large as Caesareia, also drew their livelihood from their position on the celebrated sack by the Arabs in the ninth century, was one o f the larger
road system of southern Anatolia. West of Caesareia was the city of Anatolian towns,ll6 and the presence of Jews in the city during the early
Iconium, the administrative, communications, religious, and commercial ninth century is possibly an indication that Amorium was the site of
focal point of south-central AnatoIia.llO Chonae and Laodiceia, west of considerable commercial life.110 It has been assumed that the city had all
Iconium, were urban agglomerates that lived from the traffic passing but disappeared as a result of the Arab destruction. Attaleiates, however,
along the road leading from Iconium to the Maeander River valley. who is very careful in the nomenclature that he applies to cities, towns,
Located near the sources of the river, they were possessed of well-watered and villages, still refers to Amorium as a .rrohiTda in the eleventh
and productive countrysides. The lakes were well stocked with fish, the century.l17 The largest and most important of the plateau towns in
valleys supported livestock and a host of agricultural products which northwestern Anatolia was Dorylaeum. Located at the point of egress from
included liquorice, cardamum, myrtle, figs, and other fruits.11l Chonae, a and entrance to the plateau, its plain watered by the streams of the
town of respectable size, enjoyed a certain commercial prosperity as a Bathys and Tembris, the city enjoyed the advantages that strategic
result of the great trade fairs held at the panegyris of the Archangel location and generous nature bestowed. The fields produced rich harvests
Michael. Merchants traveled long distances to do business at this event, of grain and the rivers abounded in fish, the villages were densely
and the faithful came on pilgrimage to see the great church of the Arch- populated and the city was embellished with stoas, fountains, and
angel with its mosaics.l12Laodiceia, famed for its textiles in late antiquity, houses of illustrious citizens.lls Between Dorylaeum and Nicaea were the
doubtlessly continued to produce these materials during the Byzantine lesser towns of Malagina, Pithecas, and L e ~ c a e . 1 ~ ~
period, for when Ibn Battuta saw the city in the early fourteenth century, The northern rim of the plateau contained a number of towns, the
he observed that the Greek textile workers were still making excellent most important of which was Ankara.lZ0Slightly to the east was Saniana
clothes and materials.l13 (a military base) ,and farther north were Gangra and Castamon. Euchaita,
Northwest of Iconium, along the road to Dorylaeum, existed a series midway between the Halys and Iris rivers, was a center of commercial
of smaller towns that served as administrative, ecclesiastical, and military 116Vasilievsky and Nekitene, “Skazaniia 42 amoriiskikh muzenikakh i tserkovnaia
centers. These included Laodiceia Cecaumene, Tyriaeum, Philomelium, sluzba,” Zapiski inzperatorskoi akademii nauk, ser. VIII, vol. V I l , no. 2, p. I I , “ n6hs
Synnada, Polybotus, Acroenus, Amorium, Caborcion, Santabaris,
pEyfUTq $V Tois &VOTOhlKOiS7 f l S POpa?Kqs hIKpOT€kYS p6pEUIV . .. %dUqp& T€ K a l
mpiqmvfis K a l ~ p b qTQV PET& T ~ VpaaihEOovuav K a l T ~ Vh a u 6 v T T ~ ~ E W V
Nacoleia, Cotyaeum, Trocnada, and Pessinus.l14 Amorium, before its Tp0KU8fipEVnl ~h p&Aio-ra -rrohu&vBpw.rrosK a l ’IrhijOos &pGOq.rov I T O ~ I T I K ~ VTE , . .”
Canard, “Ammuriya,” EI,.
110 Attaliatcs, 135, “ qv y&pT&E .rrhfiOsi TEKal pay6OEi &v6p6v TE Kal olKi6v K a l T ~ V lloTheophanes Continuatus, p. 42.
8AAwv xpqa-rav xal (IlAWT6V 61apipovua, Kal l&ov n a v ~ o 6 m 6 vyIvq rpipowua”. 11’ Attaliates, 12 I . Zonaras, 111,692, the Turks killed large numbers of the inhabitants
W.Pfeifer, Die Pasdanhchaft von Nigde. Ein Beitrag zur Siedlungs-und Wirtschaftsgeogra&hie when they devastated Amorium in the reign of Romanus IV. Al-Idrisi-Jaubert, 11,
van hineranalolien (Greisen, 1957). Zonaras, 111, 693, brvepch-rrwv TE nohrrrrhf@Elav 301, 307, speaks of it as a beautiful town with forty towers, and as a commercial center
&ov Kal T i k I Tois 60Ko~ul ir/aeoiS ~ ~ q v o \ i p w o v . ” As the Seljuk where communication routes meet, but it is difficult to ascertain the period to which he
capital it continued to be a large town. When the members of the Third Crusade passed refers.
by the city they noted it to be larger than the city of Cologne. Al-Idrisi-Jaubert, 11, 310, 118 Cinnamus, zgpzg5, ‘‘ T b 6B Aopbhaiov TOGTO q v plv BTE n 6 h 1 ~ qv paydthq TE
describes it as a beautiful city where routes converged. When Ibn Battuta-Gibb, 11, 430, E ~ E PTIS rQv $v ’Aulq K a l A6you &cfanohhoir. aepa TE yhp T ~ Vx6pov tmarahfi
visited it in the first half of the fourteenth century it was still an impressive town, but it K C l T a T V E i , K a l 7TE6fa ?Tap’ U h f i V TkT-raTal hElbTl)76$ TE ThEiOTOV 4 K O V T a KU\
soon declined. Ibn Battuta-Defrtmery, 11, 281, &pfiXav6v TI IrpopaivovTa K ~ A A o00ro ~, phrroi hirap& K a l o h w s E ~ Y E W ,d~ ~ f i v
ll1 Ansbert, ed. Chroust, M.G.H., S.R.G., Nova Series, V (Berlin, rg28), 75 (hereafter TE ~ 6 a GalyiAq v p&Aima ht6166vai Kal cippbv nap+uOaI &u-raXw. no-ra& ti&
cited as Ansbert). Al-Umari-Quatremhre, p, 355, compared the gardens of the city to those 6th TOO T $ ~ E~ i vCpa , T ~ ~ I T E I K a l i66uOai Kahbs K a l yE\icauOaI fi6rjs. n A f i O q ixelswv
of Damascus. The markets abounded in fruits, grapes, pomegranites, and wine, -rouoiirov 6B tvvfix~~at -roh(tl, doov E ~ S6alyiAeiav I-rois T Q ~ E& ? , I E V ~ ~ E V O VEAAITTQ~
118Nicetas Choniates, 230, “ n 6 h EfiGalyova
~ Kal p~y&Aqv.”With the stabilization 0 6 6 a ~ i jylvauOai. lvTcrirOa MEhiuuqv6v ITOTE Kaiuapi olKfai TE $@pK066p‘()VTUI
of relations between Konya and the Byzantines in the late twelfth century, the panegyris hapnpal K a l KQpar rohv&vOpwnoi quav OEpp& TE aGr6pocra Kal a-roal Kal ~ ~ h u v o l ,
recovered and was attended by the inhabitants of Lydia, Ionia, Caria, Paphlagonia, and K a l Bua &VOpbrroIs ipovfiv &EI, .r&a 67) b x6pos &$ova TUpEiXEV.”
Iconium see chapter iii. The church, with its mosaics, was larger than the church of St. Ramsay, Geograplly, pp. 202, 207.
Mocius in Constantinople, Nicetas Choniates, 523-524. Theodore Scutariotes-Sathas, 388. lg0 Its medieval walls alone would indicate its importance. Bryennius, 6445, says that
For references to the church as a site of pilgrimage, see below. in one of his numerous campaigns against the Turks the brother of Alexius Comnenus was
113lbn Buttuta-Gibb, 11, 425. Ibn Battuta-DefrCmery, 11, n7r-r7na The tradition of captured. In order to ransom him he was obliged to raise several thousand gold pieces.
textile manufacture in the region of Laodiceia was already famous in the time of the This h e was able to d o from the rich of Ankara and the neighboring towns by promising to
geographer Strabo, XII, 8. 16. The gold embroidery which I b n Battuta mentions was a repay the loan with interest, “ lrohhol yhp T ~ ah6pwv V Xpvuiov m-rrbpqauiv &@.”
speciality of the craftsmen of Lydia and Phrygia in antiquity, Broughton, Asia Minor, On Byzantine Ankara, G. de Jerphanion, “Mtlanges d’archtologie anatolienne,”
p. 818. Milunges de I’Universilk S t . Joseph, XI11 (I928), 144-293. Grbgoire, “Inscriptions
11*For a discussion of these smaller towns, W. Ramsay, The Historical Geograp/y of Asia historiques d’Ancyre,” Byzantion, IV (1927-28), 437-468; “Michel I11 et Basile le
Minor (London, 1890) (hereafter cited as Ramsay, Geography), and his The Cities and Mactdonien dans les inscriptions d’Ancyre,” Byrantion, V (Igag), 327-346. P. Wittek,
Bishoprics ofphrvgia, Being an Essaj ofthe Local Histov ofphrygiafronr the Earliest Times to the “Zur Geschichte Angoras im Mittelalter,” Festxchrvt Gearg Jacob (Leipzig, 1932), 329 ff.
*urkish Conquest (Oxford, I 895-97) (hereafter cited as Ramsay, Phfygia). C. Karalevsky, “Ancyre,” D.H.G.E.
20 21

note and evidently of some size. Its fair attracted merchants from afar south to Trebizond in the north. Again, some of this commerce was sea
with the result that the city prospered.lZ1Amaseia, much as Ankara and borne from Trebizond to Constantinople and to other harbors, or from
Euchaita, was a town of importance as a result of its strategic location in I Antioch to Attaleia and other ports. But at the same time a good portion
the mountain passes (Psellus speaks of it as a famous city, “the city rnen- of this commerce found its way into the cities of the plateau via the
tioned by every tongue”.1zz) Its rural neighborhood, though chopped up Cilician Gates and other routes.lZ6
by precipitous mountains, was nevertheless well watered and productive. There is evidence for the existence of well-developed local industry
Like so many other towns in northeastern Anatolia, Amaseia was located in the Anatolian towns. The Anatolians manufactured brocades and
in a metalliferous region and the mines seem to have been worked in various textiles of linen, wool, silk, and cotton; they wove carpcts, pro-
Byzantine and Seljuk times.12% Doceia, Neocaesareia, Sebasteia, Coloneia, duced glassware and pottery, incense, bows, arrows, swords, shields,
Nicopolis, and Argyropolis were important administrative, ecclesiastical, nails, rope, and other naval supplies; and they built ships. Certainly they
and commercial centers of the conventional Anatolian type,la4 must have produced many of the everyday items that they needed in their
Anatolian towns were subject to ever-present and powerful currents of own urban and rural life. Various types of craftsmen, specialized labor,
trade and commerce. I n spite of the aridity of the historical sources, it and merchants are mentioned on rare occasion in the texts and in-
seems quite clear that Greek, Armenian, Jewish, Russian, Chersonite, scriptions.lZ0The peninsula was a major region of the Byzantine mining
Circassian, Georgian, Muslim, and Italian merchants traversed the industry, producing silver, copper, iron, lead, possibly some gold,
maritime and hinterland trade routes. Maritime commerce came to the marble, alum, and semiprecious stones.lZ7Food production played a very
Anatolian coastal cities along the entire Black Sea, Aegean, and
l a bMinorsky, “Marvazi and the Byzantines,” A.I.P.H.O.S., X ( I 950), 4.62-464.
Mediterranean littorals. I n the north the trade followed the coastal
Caravans travel from Syria to Constantinople where they have their depots. Also Nichacl
towns ultimateIy reaching Constantinople in the west or Trebizond in the the Syrian, 111, 185, 166-167. The routes are given in Ibn Khuradadhbih, B.G.A., VI,
east. Much of this commerce must have deployed itself along the river I O I ff. On the import of Byzantine luxury items into late tenth-ccntury Egypt, K. Roder,
“Das M i d im Bericht Uher die Schatze der Fatimiden,” Z.D.M.G., LXXXIX ( 1 9 3 5 ) ~
valleys and mountain passes leading from the littoral to the towns of the
plateau. The maritime commerce of the coastal towns was tied up with laaMinorsky, “Marvazi,” pp. 462-4.64, describes the Byzantines as “gifted in crafts
and skillful in the fabrication of (various) articles, textiles, carpets . . ,” They are second
Constantinople, Cherson, and the Caucasus while the commerce of the only to the Chinese in thcse skills (a theme that reappears in the Mathnawi ofDjalal al-Din
Aegean coastal centers was connected with the Greek peninsula and the Rumi in the thirteenth century). The Christian inscriptions from Anatolia, though,
islands as well as with Constantinople. The sea trade of Attaleia was incomplete (Grbgoire, Recueil des inscriJ%ions grecques clrre’tiennes d’Asie Mineure (Paris, I 922),
I, 2 1 , 27, 91,) contain the epitaphs of marble workers from the regions of tenth-century
supplied by Egypt, Cyprus, Antioch, and the Aegean. The major land Smyrna, eighth to tenth-century Tralles, and of a butcher from seventh and eighth
route from the east entered the various border cities from Antioch in the century Caria. Thc hagiographical and other texts note various craftsmen. The anony-
mous author of the Hudud al-Alam-Minorsky, p. 156, describes Rum (Anatolia) as a
very rich province producing great quantities of brocades, silk, textiles, carpets, stockings,
lal P. deLagarde and J. Bollig, Johannis Euchaitarum mtropolitae quae supersunt in cod. trouser cords, For the export of Anatolian capets and textiles to thc Turks of Central Asia,
vaticano graeco 676 (Berlin, 1882) pp. 131-134, 207 (hereafter cited as John Mauropus- Ibn Fadlan’s Reisebericlrl, ed. and trans. 2. V. Togan in AOlrntzdlungert Jiir die Kunde dcs
I .
Lagarde), “ , -rroAv&vepwrov n6h1v .. .I’ AS Nov. IV, 54. Morgenlandes, vol. XXIV, pt. 3 (Leipzig) p. 64 (hereafter cited as Ibn Fadlan-Togan).
la* Psellus-Renauld, 11, 166, ~b 6$ mkrqs yhd-rrqs j3ocb~avov mbhicrya.” See also Goitein, “The Main Industries of the Mediterranean Area as Reflected in the
Cecatrrneni strategicon et incarti scriptoris de oJiciis regiis libellus (Petropolis, 1896) p. 72 (here- Records of the Cairo Geniza,” J.E.S.H.O., IV ( I ~ G I )175. , The fact that Bokht-Isho Bar
after cited as Cecaurnenus), mentions the existence of an important state prison, the Gabriel, physician of rhe caliph Murawakkil, wore gowns of Byzantine silk would indicate
Mapyapwfi. Alexius Comnenus found himself forced to rely upon the wealthy in- that Byzantine textiles were fashionablc in ninth-century Baghdad, Bar I-Iebraeus, I, 143.
habitants of Amaseia in order to raise the ransom money with which to purchase Roussel The Byzantine products of the silk industry, cspecially brocades, mandils, and material
from the Turks, Anna Comnena, I, 13. “-robs T& ~ p G 1 - acp8pov.ras K a i x p q y b o v for upholstering, were widely demanded in the Mediterranean. On carpet production in
ohopo\sv.ras.” The rich Amaseians, however, incited the poor of the city to riot in eastern Asia Minor, Canard, “Armenia,” EI,. I t is of interest that I-Iudud al-Alam men-
opposition to the suggested loan. Vailhd, “Amaseia,” D.H.G.E. tions Anatolia as an important center of the rug industry. The rugs of Sardes were
las Vryonis, ‘‘The Question of the Byzantine Mines,” Speculum, XXXVII (1962), 7-8. considered to be among the finest in the ancient world. They were highly prized by the
When the Turks first invaded the area the inhabitants sought refuge in the mines, and the Achemenid royal court. Athcnaeus, De@zosoplristae, XII, 5’4, ‘‘ Kal 6 1 f p 6id T ~ S
works were still being exploited in the thirteenth-fourteenth centuries at which time T O ~ ~ Wa2lhiis
V mci)~hro-rieEyhv yAo-rarrLGwv XapGiavwv, icp’ b v OGGEIS txhhos
merchants from the Muslim world came to purchase the metal. E-rrdpcc~v~w fi @aoihah~,”and were associated by the Greeks with excessive luxury ,and
lZ4 When the Turks attacked Sebasteia in the eleventh century, the churches with their efleminacy, VI, 155, , . , Ka-rkmo 6’ tmppMAovcTav ~ p ~ c ipdbt i~p y v p 6 ~ 0 6 0 K ~A ~ V ~ S
high domes were so numerous that the Turks a t first hesitated to enter. It was at that time \j-rr~o-rpwy&q I a p S i a v ~yiAo-rdt-rriGi T L ~ VT&WW TTOAWEAGV.~’ The textile industry of
a city with numerous inhabitants and wealthy in gold, silver, prccious stones, and Anatolia was of great renown in late antiquity. For a detailed listing of the refercnces to
brocades, Matthew of Edessa, pp. I I 1-1 I z.Argryopolis, the Turkish Giimushhane, was thc various cloths and textiles produced in late ancient Anatolia, Broughton, Asin
a mining town, and when the Danishmendids took it, according to Turkish tradition, they Minor, pp. 817-823. See also n. 570 in chapter iii.
struck their first coins from the metal mined there. The mining traditions of the Greeks lZ7 Vryonis, “Byzantinc Mines,” passim. Ahrweiler, “Smyrne,” 18- I 9. Y . Manandian,
of this town were still alive in the nineteenth century, see chapter vii. Bar Hebraeus, I, 0 torgovle i gorodakh Arinenii v sviaei s mirovoi torgovle i drevnikfi vrernen (Erevan, 1g54), pp.
223, mentions cloth merchants in eleventh-century Doceia. 225 ff.
important role in the commerce of the towns, the Byzantine villages provincial aristocracy contributed to the defense and expansion of
being more closely connected to the towns than was the case with many Byzantium in the east. I n the eleventh century, however, this powerful
areas in western Europe.lasThe towns served as markets for the produce class played a crucial role in the decline of the state.132
of the peasants most important items of which were grain, fish, wine,
Dernoprafi 19
fruit, legumes, nuts, livestock, and lumber. Each town had its group of
Unfortunately almost nothing is known about the numbers of the
villages, the inhabitants of which brought these products to town, very
population in Byzantine Anatolia and its towns, for little has survived in
often during the big fairs held on the feast day of the saints.129 Here the
the way of comprehensive tax registers or population figures. The silence
villagers sold their produce and bought the products of local or foreign
of the sources and the thoroughness of the cultural transformation effected
industry.13”Many of these villages were quite large and thriving.131 Thus,
by the fifteenth century have led many scholars to conclude, erroneously,
parallel to the larger movements of trade, there was generated also this
that Byzantine Asia Minor was sparsely inhabited. Estimates, which are
smaller local trade between the villages and the towns, which was just as
really little more than educated guesses, have been made for the size of
important in some respects as the larger scale trade. I n this manner the
Anatolian population in antiquity. These estimates, all based upon
farmers and herdsmen received cash for their goods. The towns in turn
an assumption of commercial prosperity and urban vitality in the period
were able to dispose of the villagers’ produce both by sale among the
of the Roman and early Byzantine Empires, vary from 8,800,000 to
townsmen and by selling it to merchants of Constantinople and other
13,000,000.~~~ J. C. Russell has suggested that the population remained
The following representative list of the estates and domiciles of the Anatolian
Great Landed Families magnates is drawn from a study in progress on the internal history of Byzantium in the
eleventh century. I have not gone into the problem of the relation of this landlord class
One of the critical phenomena in the history of Anatolia was the evolution to the Anatolian towns.
of the great landed families, whose deeds permeate the chronicles and I Cappadocia Anntolicon Paph1agonia
I Alyattes Mesanactes Doceianus
legal literature of the tenth and eleventh centuries. Possessed of vast Ampelas Radenus Souanites
cstates and high official position in the provincial administration and Goudeles Argyrus Theodora (wife of Theophilus)
Scepides Botaniates Ducas
military, they were largely responsible for the social and historical Lecapenus Maniaces Curcuas
development in Asia Minor prior to the Seljuk invasions. Most of the Diogenes Musele Comnenus
Ducas Sclerus Calocyres
families rose to power and eminence via the armies and then consolidated
their position by an economic expansion that was largely, though not I Maleinus
exclusively, based on the acquisition of great land holdings. These
Leichudes Gabras
magnates, by virtue of their control of the provincial armies, wielded Coloneia Melissenus
great power. Very often the exercise of the strategeia in a particular Cecaumenus Ducas Meso,bolatnia
Charsianon Palaeologus
province tended to become semihereditary in a particular family, as in Bitilynia Argyrus
the case of the Phocas’ and the theme of Cappadocia. Aside from control Maurix Maleinus Iberia
Ducas Boilas
of these thermatic armies, the large estates of the aristocracy enabled Maleinus Lycandirs Pacurianus
them to maintain large bodies of private troops. So long as the government Melias Apocapes
was able to check their more extreme political and economic abuses, this Cibprheote
Screnarius Artiieniacon
Ducas Dalassenus
les S. Runciman, “Byzantine Trade and Industry,” Cambridge Economic History Maurus
(Cambridge, 1952), 11, 86-87. Ostrogorsky, “Agrarian Conditions in the Byzantine J. Beloch, Die Beuolkerung der griechiscli-rornisc~ie~IWell (Leipzig, 1886), pp. 277.ff.
Empire in the Middle Ages,’’ Cambridge Economic History (Cambridge, 1941), I, zoo. Broughton, Asia Minor, pp. 812-816. For more recent remarks on the methods of arriving
Often the chroniclers describe the main Anatolian cities in conjunction with the clusters at population figures in the ancient and medieval world, see H. Bengtson, Griechische
of villages around them: Attaliates, 81,Ani had rohlxvia and halepa; Attaliates, 95, Geschichte von der Anfdngen bis in die romische Kaiserreit, I d ed. (Munich, 1960), p. 421.
Antioch had its KOkai; Attaliates, 131,Chliat had 7h Imb T O ~ O Vrohlxvia; Drexl C. Roebuck, Ionian Trade and Colonization (New York, 1959), pp. 21-33. J. C. Russell,
and Pertz, 11, 54, Euchaita had its x w p t d . , & [ Y ~ o I K ~ K &Zonaras,
; 111, 502, Anazarba “Recent Advances in Medieval .Demography,” Speculum, X L (1965)~84-101; Late
and Pondandus had xapih mhu&vBpw.rr&TE K a \ rawcpopa; Anna Comnena, 11, 279, Ancient and Medieval Population, Transactions of the American Philosophical Socieb, vol. XLIII,
Iconium had its K W ~ O T T ~ ~ E OBryennius,
U; 58, Caesareia had its K W ~ O T ~ ~ E I ~ . no. 3 (Philadelphia, 1958), p. 81,proposes a population of 8,800,000 around the year
lZ8 Zepos, J.G.R.,I, 271-272, regulates affairs having to d o with these fairs.
IOO A.D., and I 1,600,000 for Anatolia in the fifth century of the Christian era. The most
13n Drexl and Pertz, I, 133, describes this for Nicomedeia.
13‘ such for example were Cryapege near Caesareia, Attaliates, 146; Oreine, Drexl,
and Pertz, I, 132.
I recent survey of Byzantine demography is P. Charanis, “Observations on the Demography
of the Byzantine Empire,“ Thirteenth International Congress of Byzantine Studies, Oxford,
rg66, vol, XIV.
at the comparatively high figure of 8,000,000 during the middle I included on the list of episcopal seats. The canon law and the commen-
Byzantine period but that it declined to 6,000,000 by the beginning of the tatorsmakeitplain that the approintment of a bishop to a place depends un-
thirteenth century and the Turkish period.la4 ..
equivocally and exclusively upon the ‘* . -rrhijOoscivflph-rrwu. . . Bishops
There are indications that by the tenth and eleventh centuries the popu-
are to be ordained ‘‘ , E ~ CKduas
S ..
T&S I T ~ ~ E .I S T&S -rrohuavOp6nous . . .”

lation of Anatolia was growing. That there was a certain stability in ..

A bishop may never be appointed to “ . 6Aiyqu I T ~ A I UKai u6pqu.”1s0
Anatolian demography emerges from the survival, en masse, of the ancient During the course of the tenth and eleventh centuries new bishoprics
towns.135 These towns were comparatively safe and shielded from the appear and former bishoprics are promoted to archbishoprics or metro-
massive upheaval that enveloped urban society in much of the Balkans. politanates. The increase is due in part to the rise in population and
As late as the eleventh century, such important cities as Melitene,
I prosperity of the Anatolian provinces as well as to new conquests in the
Sebasteia, and Artze were unwalled despite the fact that they were close ea~t.1~0
to the Muslim l a n d ~ . l 3
~ trade routes (actively plied by Muslim and The chronicles and histories of the period refer to a large number of
Christian merchants) going through the towns, and the presence of dense the towns by a nomenclature that differentiates them sharpy from
village clusters in the environs of the cities are also factors that would villages. The sources use the terms &mu, T ~ ~ I STohiTda, , pqTpd-mohiS,
tend to support the assumption of a certain demographic vitality. The I
KC~OTPOU to differentiate the town from the village, ~ c j p ~ ~l ,w p i o v . 1 ~A1
active policy of transplanting peoples to Anatolia certainly contributed 1
130 K. Rhalles and M. Potles, Zliv-ruypa T ~ V 0dwv K a l IEPGVKavdvwv (Athens,
to the growth of the population,137and there are other testimonials to an I 1852-59), 111, 222-113, 245-248 (hercafter cited as Rhalles and Potles).
incrcase in population in the two centuries prior to the Seljuk invasions. I 140 F. Miklosich et J. Mtiller, Acta et dipolmatn g r a m medii aeui sncra etprgana (Vienna,
1860-go),XI, 104 (hereafter cited as Miklosich et Miiller). De Jerphanion makes this
The older tax system, by which the c a p was tied to the iugum because of
the insufficient labor force, was relaxed, and in the middle Byzantine 1 observation in regard to Cappadocia, Une nouuelle Irouince de l’art byrantin: Les iglises
rzlpestres de Capbadace (Paris, 1925-42), 11, li-lxii; lI,, 397-400 (hereafter cited as de
Jerphanion, Cappadoca). I n southern Anatolia Cybistra was raised in rank to an arch-
period the system underwent a transformation by which the head tax bishopric in the eleventh century, W. Ramsay, “Lycaonia,” Jahreshefte des dsterreichischett
and land tax were separated. The replacement of the reciprocal unit of the Archbologinhen hstiluts, VTI (1904),Beiblatt, I 15. For a more detailed treatment of this
two taxes with a separate collection presupposes that the earlier scarcity of point see chapter iv.
141 As early as the reign of Justinian I ~ 6 h i ands ~ h o ~ p owere v used interchangeably,
agricultural labor had disappeared, a conclusion supported by the Nauella CXXVIII, c. 20. These terms are used in the same manner by Constantine
growing land hunger of the landed magnates in the tenth century.138 Porphyrogenitus, De. Adin. Imp., pp. 1 9 8 ~ ~ 0where 0 , Artze is referred to as a K&UTPOVand
-rrohirdav. Attaliates, 28, 46, 89, go, 166,174, 199,201,206, 245, 249, refers to Adana,
A further indication of demographic stability and growth is the Amaseia, Manzikcrt, Rhacdestus as K&o-rpa a n d -rdAhaig. Smyrna is called both K & U T ~ O V
evolution of the ecclesiastical administrative structure in Asia Minor. and IT MI^, Anna Comnena, TI, 117, 118,as is Ephesus, AS Nov. 111, 554,Rudikov,
The Byzantine requirement that each town should constitute a bishopric Orerki, p. 74, has attempted to equate K & U T ~ O V only with -rrohJxvq instead of 1~6his.
llbhiapa, -irohfXviov, and q~polipiovare generally employed lo designate settlements inter-
was observed as late as the twelfth >century.The basic stipulation for the mediate between towns and villages, which often have fortifications. But this differ-
existence of a bishopric was that an inhabited area should be sufficiently entiation is not as rigidly observed as that between n6Ais and K h p q . Cedrenus, 11, 423,
678,calls Tzamandus both d h i s and -rr6Aiupa. Kwpd~rohisand &yp6-rrohig1 seem to be
populous to be considered a town. If it were too small it could not be applied to a settlement larger than a village but scattered and not formed according to a
synoicismus. These could be rather large affairs and were not restricted to essentially
134 Russell, “Recent Advances in Medieval Demography,” p. gg. 0. L.Barkan, “Essai agrarian establishments. Important commercial emporia could have the form of a
sur les donntes statistiques des registres de recensement dans l’empire ottoman aux K W ~ ~ I T O ~ Thus
IS. I S , heavily populated and a rich center of
Artze, though a K W ~ ~ T T O ~was
XVe et x V I c sikles,” J.E.S.H.O., I (1958)~20, 24, estimates the population of Anatolia commercial exchange of goods from Persia and India. Zonaras, 111, 638, “ K C O ~ ~ ~ O ~ I S
in the early sixteenth century at about 5,0oo,ooo on the basis of the tax figures. The 6’fiv TOGTO, -rrhr@t; 6’ ~ V Q Kalxdj,
EI iv’ oCrrws E ~ I T O I ~ KU\ &pi0pbv hEppUhOWUU,
decline of the population is, according to Barkan, due to the unsettled conditions in the
provinces. With the comparative pacification and normalization that ensued in the six-
teenth century, the population increased considerably.
I I,
gp-rropo~6’ fiouv ot &0pw-rroi, KUI nhoirros fiv a h o i s i ~ ~ p i r r d s .I”t had no walls,
however. Phrygian Laodiceia was formed of several scttlements or villages scattered about
the lower slopes of the mountain. I t was not a centralized town with extensive walls.
Ostrogorsky, “Byzantine Cities,” pp. 61-62,reproduces a list of the more important Nicetas Choniates, 163,“ o h h i ofiaav w v o ~ ~ o w p ~c5s q vVGV kcbpa-rai, 036’ E & ~ K &
towns that Theophanes mentions after the beginning of the seventh century for Asia VpuyvvpBvqv rEIXEcri, KWU 6Q KcbpaS E K K E X U ~ ~ V ~ Vm p l ~ h sO-rrwpEiaS T ~ V~ E ~ U E
Minor. Abydus, Adramyttium, Acroenus, Amaseia, Amastris, Amida, Amorium, h k a r a , ( ~ o w v ~ v .X”w p d ~ o h was
i ~ used to refer to a n ordinary village community. Dolger,
Antioch of Pisidia, Attaleia, Caesareia, Chalcedon, Charsianon, Chrysopolis, Cyzicus, Beitage zur byzantinischsn Fitiantuerwaltung, besonders des 10. und II. Jahrhundert (Leipzig-
Dorylaeum, Edessa, Ephesus, Germaniceia, Iconium, Martyropolis, Melitene, Mop- Berlin, I927), pp. 66, 126, 134-135.The term xwpb~ohiscould refer to a settlement
suestia, Myra, Nacoleia, Nicaea, Nicomedia, Pergamum, Perge, Prusa, Pylae, Samosata, next to a town, which was separated from the town by walls. Xwp6.rrohis was thus
. Sardes, Sebasteia, Sebastopolis, Sinope, Smyma, Syllaion, Synnada, Tarsus, Theodosiana, possibly the equivalent of IT~O&UTEIOV or pai-r&riv. Constantine Porphyrogenitus, Be
Theodosiopolis, Trebizond, Tyana. Adm. Imp., p. 2 16,Adranoutzi is a K&IYT~OV, but also has a considerable suburban area.
I3O Matthew of Edessa, pp. 83-84, I I 1-112.
“&TI Tb K&UTpOV Tb ’ApGaVoirrSqv 6UTlV 6xWpbV T&VW, iXE1 6QK a l paTf&rIV &a &s
13‘ For the details see
. below.
138 Ostrogorsky, “Die Steuersystem in byzantinischen Altertum und Mittelalter,”
Byrantion, VI (193I),23 1-234.
i ~ o p d n o h i v . ”Honigmann, “Charsianon Kastron, Byrantion, X (1935),148-149.Rttaliates,
148,and Zonaras, 111,638, indicate that TIOAITEIa and xwp6lroAis were interchangeable

number of the towns are described by epithets (Toicxhq ~ ~ b h~rE ~

Y &, A T , Thud Melitene was probably a town comparable i n size to Edessa. There
. r r o ~ u & u e p ~ ~ opupiav6pos
~, nohbv T~OGTOV Exouc~a, dtvepcj.rrov T E is some indication as to the size of a comopolis in the twelfth century. When
.rroh~hfieElav Zxov, IT~AIS mpiqavfis, -duavepw.rroTdrrq, ~EYLOTT), the Seljuk sultan attacked the two comopoleis of Tantalus and Caria in
vohi,av6poS, 1~hij0os Aaoij) which indicate that the contemporary observers western Asia Minor, he took away captive 5,000 of the inhabitants. This
considered these towns to be large by the standards o f the day.142But just would indicate roughly 2,500 inhabitants for each of the two comopoleis.
how large was .rrohvdrv0p~~os ? The city of Edessa in the year I 07 I was said But Caria had been sacked on a previous occasion and was to suffer
to have 35,000 inhabitants. When the Muslim Nur al-Din captured the city devastation and enslavement a third time. Thus its popuation was larger
three-quarters of a century later, 30,000 were killed, 16,000enslaved, and than 2 , 5 0 0 , ~perhaps
~~ about 5,000.1~0
only 1,000escaped.143 The total population prior to the fall of the city, The indirect evidence for an increase in the Anatolian population of the
47,000,indicates that the population had increased, a phenomenon to be tenth and eleventh centuries and the few figures for town population
explained by the flight of the agrarian population to the safety of the would indicate that the epithet 1~0hu6~8pw.rro~ as applied by Byzantine
walls over a long period of time. The city of Tralles, which was rebuilt sources to the cities has some numerical substance. A large city could
and recolonized with 36,000 inhabitants by the Byzantines in the have as many as 35,000 inhabitants, though it is likely that most of the
thirteenth century (1280),was said to be ~roh~&tv0pw.rros.l~~ The number towns were smaller. One may assume that towns had populations
of captives taken from Anatolian .towns in the twelfth century will varying between 10,000 and 35,000.~~0 Caria, which was not a full-
perhaps assist in giving some idea as to the size of towns. I n the mid- fledged town in the twelfth century, probably had a population of about
twelfth century, Yakub Arslan carried away 70,000 Christians from 5,000.Dorylaeum had been one of the prosperous towns of the eleventh
Gaihan and A l b i ~ t a n , lOf
~ ~ the captives that the Turks took from century. As a result of its destruction during the Turkish invasions, it was -
Melitene in the eleventh century, 15,000were ransomed by the merchants inhabited by only 2,000 Turkmens in the twelfth century, a figure that
of that city,lcBand c. I 124-25 during the course of a six-month siege of the historian Cinnamus considers to be insignificant when compared
the city the inhabitants are said to have perished by the “thousands.”’47 with the former size of the city.lS1Though th‘e evidence is very scant, one
148 Nicetas Choniates, 655-657.
A perusal of the texts of Bryennius, Zonaras, Attaliates, Psellus, Cedrenus, Cinnamus, The word KWM6lTOhls here may mean a large village, though it also has the meaning
Anna Comnena, Cecaumcnus, Constantine Porphyrogenitus reveals approximately of a town scattered over a large area.
seventy inhabited areas referred to as towns by these various terms: Manzikert, Perkri, lfioDolger, “Die byzantinische Stadt,” p. 12, has given a similar, though slightly lower
Chliat, Artze, Kars, Theodosiopolis, Adranoutzi, Lycandus, Tzamandus, Amaseia, estimate of between 5,000 and ZO,OOO. L. Torres Balbas, “Extension y demografia de las
Ankara, Antioch, Abydus, Lycian Adrianople, Anazarbus, Castamon, Acroenus, ciudades hispanomusulmans,” S.Z., 111(1955), 55-57, on the basis of area measurements,
, Doryhum, Gangra, Iconium, Neocaesareia, Pracana, Pounoura, Trebizond, Oenoe, gives the following population estimates for eleventh-twelfth century Spain: ,
Sozopolis, Adana, Amorium, Pisidian Antioch, Edessa, Nicaea, Nicomedeia, Philo- Toledo 37,000 Zaragoza I 7,000
melium, Euchaita, Side, Syllaion, Synnada, Chalcedon, Podandus, Ani, Chonae, Almeria 27,000 Malago 15-20,000
Germaniceia, Hierapolis, Melitene, Mopsuestia, Praenetus, Pylae, Sebasteia, Tarsus, Granada ~6,000 Valencia I 5,000
Caesareia, Coloneia, Ephesus, Basilaion, Matiana, Parnassus, Sinope, Argaous, Amara, Mallorca 25,000
Tephrice, Samosata, Zapetra, Larissa, Abara, Ticium, Chelidonium, Chrysopolis, Attaleia, Barkan, “Les donnkes statistiques,” p. 27, furnishes reliable figures for some of the Ana-
Cyzicus, Cius, Smyrna, Seleuceia. T h k of course does not exhaust the possibilities, for the tolian towns in the years c. 1520-1530 (based on tax registers):
notitiae episcopatum have not been utilized. Bursa 34,930 Tokat 8,354
14a For the references to these towns and territories see the material above on Adana,
Ani, Antioch, Artze, Iconium, Anazarba, Podandus, Tzamandus, Adramyttium,
Amid 18,941 Konya 6,127
Ankara 14,872 Sivas 5,560
Amaseia, Dorylaeum, Sozopolis, Strobilus, Nicaea, Basilaion, Attaleia, Amastris, Though the similar magnitudes of the Spanish figures (arrived at by area measurement)
Trebizond, Melitene, Edessa, Chonae, Euchaita and Sebasteia. and the Ottoman figures (results of reliable tax registers from a later period) when com-
143 Sawiras ibn al-Mukaffa’, TI, iii, 305. Bar Hebraeus, p. 273. Chabot, “Episode de
bined with the Byzantine estimates do not necessarily prove anything, it is interesting
I’histoire des Crusades,” pp. 176-177, when Zangi first captured the city two years earlier,
that the size of the towns tend to range between similar extremes.
in 1144, beween 5,000 and 6,000 were killed and io,ooo youths and maidens were taken Byzantium 5-10,000 to 36,000 (perhaps 47,000)
captive. Zangi is said to have delivered the 10,000from captivity. Matthew of Edessa, p.
Spain 15,000 to 37,000
289, refers to an earthquake that killed 40,000 at Marash in the eleventh century. The
sources are not to be taken literally. Ottoman Empire 5,560 to 34993(3,
See also Russell, “The Population of Medieval Egypt, Journal of the American Research
Pachymeres, I, 469. For the date, I. gevcenko, & i d e s sur la polhique entre Thdodore Center in Eglpt, V ( 1g66), 69-82.
Metochife el Nicdphore Choumnos (Brussels, 1962), pp, 137-138. 161 Cinnamus, 295. Ztinerarium Willelmi de Rubruc, ed. A. van den Wyngaert, in Sinica
14’ Matthew of Edessa, p. 344. When the Turks sacked the city of Artze in the eleventh Fransiscana, ( I gzg), I, 327 (hereafter, cited as William of Rubruq-Wyngaert), reports that
century, Cedrenus, 11, 578, exaggeratedly reports that 150,000 of the inhabitants were an earthquake killed more than IO,OOO people in Erzindjan in the mid-thirteenth century.
slain. Bar Hebraeus, I, 426, relates that in 1256-57 the Mongol Baidju slew 7,000 in Ramon Muntaner, Chronique d’dragon, de S i d e at de Grhe, trans. J. A. C. Buchon in
Albistan. Chroniques dtrangEres relatiues atix expdditions franjaises pendant le XIIP sidcle (Paris, I 841 ),
l“Michae1 the Syrian, 111, 146. I n 1145, 15,000 captives were taken from Tell p. 419, (hereafter cited as Ramon Muntaner-Buchon) relates that in the early fourteenth
Arsanias. century (before the Turkish conquest), the peninsula of Artake (Cyzicus) had zo,ooo
14’ Matthew of Edessa, p. 315.
habitations, houses, farms, etc.

must conclude on the basis of this material that not only did the pop- separating the coastal region from the central plateau, and then traversed
ulation of Asia Minor increase by the tenth and eleventh centuries, but the plateau itself. Thus one route skirted the northern rim of the plateau
the population of the towns and province as a whole was significant in going through Amaseia and Coloneia, another route cut through the
absolute terms.152 Thus it would be incorrect to speak of Anatolia as central plateau region via Saniana and Sebasteia, and a third skirted the
semidesolate or depopulated on the eve of the Seljuk invasions. southernmost reaches of the plateau going through Iconium to the Taurus.
The most important of these was the great military highway used by the
Road System emperors when marching out to meet the Arabs on the eastern borders.
The large land mass of Byzantine Anatolia was closely knit by the system I t led from Nicaea via Pithecas, Leucae, and Malagina to Dorylaeum
of roads which the empire had largely inherited from the days of the where the road climbed through the mountains onto the plateau. Then
Roman Empire. There was some readjustment of the system which it proceeded through Trocnada and Pessinus, across the Sangarius River
occurred with the transferral of the capital to Constantinople, but aside over the Zompus Bridge, through the town of Gorbaeus to the south of
from that the road system persisted in its principal form down to Turkish A n h r a , across the Halys River to the town of Saniana. Here the road
times.163 forked, the branch leading to the southeast going through Mocissus and
The organization and maintenance of the road network was essential for then branching again, the two branches going to the great Cappadocian
the Byzantines in Asia Minor inasmuch as it was the means by which this center of Caesareia and to Tyana and Tarsus respectively. The other road
province could be more tightly integrated into the empire. I t facilitated leading from Saniana went almost directly east to the city of Sebasteia.
the movement of Byzantine armies and ensured areas threatened by the Once more the highway branched into three routes : the northernmost
enemy with a more rapid defense. The roads also made easier the relative leading to Nicopolis and Coloneia; the central branch going to Tephrice
efficiencyof the bureaucrats who administered the provinces and who, and Theodosiopolis; the southeast artery pushing to Melitene where it
at the same time, remained under closer supervision of the central joined the road from Caesareia. A critical juncture of this highway was
government as a result of these roads. Of equal importance was the Saniana, for it was from this town that the three main branches went to
accessibility of the major Anatolian towns and cities to merchants, the regions of the Taurus, Cappadocia, Melitene, Sebasteia, and
caravans, and currents of trade as a result of this arterial network.lj4 The Coloneia.lj5
ffequent use of these highways by the armies, officials, merchants, pilgrims, There was a number of large military stations or camps along this high-
and others, is copiously noted not only by the Byzantine historians and way, at which standing camps the armies of the various themes gathered
hagiographers but also in the accounts of the Arab geographers and and joined the emperor as he marched eastward to the borders.lj0 These
travelers. military bases, or aplecta as they were called, were often important towns
The major routes ran in a northwest to southeast direction, though there located on the main highway or within easy reach and were supplied
were smaller routes running in a north and south direction. The northwest- with all the necessities for provisioning troops. The tenth-century emperor
southeast routes generally ascended rrom the coastal region of northwest Constantine VII mentions six aplecta. The first, at Malagina east of
Anatolia at some point along the Sangarius, cut through the mountains Nicaea on the banks of the Sangarius, possessed the cxtensive stables of the
152 This estimate of Anatolia’s demographic condition generally coincides with the
emperor, an arms depot, and storehouses with provisions for the arrnya16’
results that Russell (“Population of Medieval Egypt,” pp. 81, gr-gg), has attained by This was probably the mustering center for the troops of the theme of
entirely different methods. He suggests, on the basis of the area contained by the medieval Optimaton. Dorylaeurn, the gateway to the central plateau, was the
fortress, that eighth-century Ankara may have had between 25,000 and 30,000 inhabi-
tants. We must, at any rate, think oftown populations in terms of their size in late antiquity
rather than in modern times, Thus the population density of Asia Minor in the eleventh lS5 Ramsay, Geography, pp. I 99-22 I .
century contrasts with the assertions of certain scholars that the peninsula was semi- 158 G. Kolias, “TlEpl ~ A ~ ~ K T O W E.E.B.E.,
,’’ XVII (194I), 144-184. J. B. Bury, “The
desolate on the eve of the Turkish invasions. M. Koprulu, Les origines de l’etnpire ottomatl &lThrjKTa of Asia Minor,” Bu(Qv-rfs, 11 (191 I ) , 214-224.
(Paris, I 9351, p. 60. F. Siimer, O&zlar (Turkmenler). Tarilileri-boy tefkildti-destnnlari 15’ Constantine Porphyrogenitus, DeCaerinioniis, 1,444-445,459, and especially Ramsay,
(Ankara, 1967)~p. XII. Geography, pp. 202 ff., for certain emendations of the text. Ibn Khuradadhbih, B.G.A., VI,
153 Ramsay, Geography, p. 74. For the Seljuk and Ottoman routes, K. Erdmann, Das I 12-1 13. J. R . Sterett, T h e W o & Expedition t o Asin Minor, Papers ofthe American School of
atiatoWie Karauansamq des 13. Jahrliunderts (Berlin, 1961), vol. I-II; Taeschner, Das Classical Studies at Athens, I11 (1884-85), 5, published a bronze tablet found at o r e n Koy
anntolische Wegenetr naclr osmanischen Quelleii (Leipzig, I 924-26) I vol. I-II. For a reference in southeast Asia Minor. The inscription on the tablet was the identification of an animal
to the survival of the Romano-Byzantine roads in western Anatolia, in the Turkish period from such a stable.
see Hans Dernschwarn’s Tagebuch einer Reise nacfi Konstantinopel tirid Kleinasien (1553/55), ed. ZGou Giaq(6pov)
P. Babinger (Munich and Leipzig, 1923), p. 238. TQ edy &cppa$v(~~)
la’ On the merchant khans throughout the empire, P. Koukaules, Bu$av-rlvGu pi05 .rrpoo-ra$u KW& e(E)i(ov)
K d ~ O h ’ l o Y 6 s(Athens, 1941), II,, 128-140. d m o v (6 )I’ &yyap((w)

30 3’
gathering place for the troops of the Thracesian and Opsicion themes.
Amaseia and down to Caesareia. Undoubtedly, there were similar roads
Ibn Khuradadhbih reveals that the emperor had constructed seven large
leading inland from such Black Sea ports as Heracleia, Amastris, Sinope,
bathing arcades over the hot springs of the city, and that each could
and Trebizond. I n the east, the road from Sebasteia went through
accommodate 1,000men, no doubt intended for use by the armies. The
Tephrice and Theodosiopolis to Manzikert, while Arabissus was similarly
third aplecton, the bishopric of Kaborkeion, was slightly to the south of
joined to Melitene in the east and to Germaniceia in the south via the
the highway. The troops of the Anatolic and Seleuceian themes, together
passes of the Anti-Taurus while Germaniceia was in turn connected with
with those troops under the Domestic o f the Scholes, assembled at
Kaborkeion, a site amply fed by the sources of the Sangarius River, and
Of particular importance was the busy road from Attaleia via Cotyaeum
then marched to Trocnada on the military highway where they fell in
and Malagina to Constantinople. An official of the post system, who
with the advancing army.ls8 The fourth aplecton, Saniana, was on the
resided in Attaleia, supplied horses and transportation for travelers going
eastern bank of the Halys, again a well-watered spot and thus capable of
overland, or passage by ship to those going by sea. Ibn Hawkal states that
accomodating large numbers of men and horses. I t was here that the road
while the journey took only eight days on the highway, the sea voyage,
forked, going on the one hand to Sebasteia, on the other to Caesareia 4!
provided the winds were favorable, required fifteen days.lo3Side and other
and the Taurus mountains. If the emperor were marching to Cilicia, then
towns of Cilicia were similarly connected by traversible roads to the main
the troops of all the eastern themes joined him at Saniana. But if he were
highway system going through Iconium. I n western Asia Minor the roads
marching directly east toward Melitene, only the troops of Bucellarion,
for the most part seem to have followed the coastline and the river
Paphlagonia, and Charsianon met him at Saniana, while the troops of
Cappadocia, Armeniacon, and Sebasteia met him at Caesareia, the fifth
Anatolia was effectively served by this system of major roads, which
aplecton. The sixth aplecton was that of Dazimon. Here the troops of the
went generally in a west to east, or west t o southeast direction. This
Armeniacon were mustered, and when the emperor was marching to
network was intersected by numerous smaller roads, entering from the
Sebasteia and points east, they joined him at the station of Bathys
coastal areas of the northwest and west, and also by a smaller number of
Rhyax .l6
north-south routes cutting over the plateau. That the armies frequently
A second trans-Anatolian highway skirted the southern confines of the
used these roads goes without saying. Merchants, including Jews and Arabs,
Anatolian plateau, a route often referred to as the pilgrim’s route, though
seem to have followed the great networks for commercial reasons with the
it was also animportant military and commercial artery. It too commenced
result that knowledge of all the major land routes appears in the texts
at Malagina and progressed through Dorylaeum, Polybotus, Philomelium,
of the Arab ge0graphers.1~~ The roads were extensively traveled by
and Iconium to the Cilician Gates.looThere were at least two variations
pilgrims-pilgrims who visited not only the Holy Land but also the
of this route to Iconium: one athat went via Malagina-cotyaeum-
numerous shrines of the greater and lesser Anatolian saints.1o6
Acroenus-Polybotus-Philomelium-Iconiumand the other that traversed
Malagina-Dorylaeum-Amorium-Laodiceia-Iconium. There was a third la*Zbid., pp. 242-279. Honigmann, “Charsianon Kastron,” p, r5G.
road that avoided Iconium altogether by going from Dorylaeum- Ia3 Marquart, Osteuropaische und ostasiatische Streifiiige (Leipzig, 1go3), pp. 208-109.
By way of example, al-Mukaddasi describes the journcy of a Muslim who traveled
Pessinus to Archelais and then south through Tyana to the Taurus. from Mayaferrikin via Coloneia, Neocaesareia, across the Ponlic region to the Sangarius
Another highway left from Nicomedia and went through Ankara, south to River (Honigmann, “Un itinCraire,” pp. 263-267, 268). I t is of some interest thqt his
itinerary followed the northwest route described abovc and that when he arrived in the
Archelais, Tyana, and the Taurus.lsl Nicomedia and Ankara both served region of the Bucellarion theme he remarks that there was an inn for Muslims. This was
as important points of departure for the roads going across the northern one of the Byzantine @vo6oxEia, hostels, which existed far travelers. Constantine
Porphyrogenitus mentions such institutions in the region of the Sangarius, at Nicomedeia,
regions of the Anatolian plateau. One route led from Nicomedia through and a t Pylae (De Caerimoniis, I, 720). But undoubtedly they existed throughout the
Gangra (or an alternate route slightly to the north of Gangra), Euchaita peninsula. Al-Mukaddasi describes a second journey that led from Amid via Melitene,
(on the more southerly route), Amaseia, Neocaesareia, Coloneia, and Tzamandus, Caesareia, Ankara, Sangarius, Nicomedeia to Constantinople (Honigmann,
“Un itinbraire,” p.270). It is significant‘that this information comes from a Muslim rather
Satala. Another road ran from Ankara to Gangra, Amaseia, and so on. than a Byzantine source and so one is able to deduce the commercial importance of these
There were also some important roads running north and south, perhaps Anatolian networks. The presence of a hospice for Muslims in the Bucellarion theme is
important evidence for inferring the presence of Muslim merchants in Anatolia. The same
the most prominent being the route from the coastal city of Amisus to author mentions that there were Muslims in the cities of Bithynia, Trebizond, and Na’din
168 Ramsay, Geograpfty, pp. 213-214, an-Nuhas (Honigmann, “Un itintraire,” p. 263).
lo6 Quite illustrative of this type of itinerant was St. Lazarus (d. 1054) who performed
lbSIbid., pp. 219-221.
Zbid.,pp. 197 ff. the pilgrimage both to the Holy Land and to various sanctuaries of Asia Minor. In his
lblIbid., pp. 197-198, and accompanying map,
first journey Lazarus set out from the coastal town of Strobilus for the shrine of the Arch-
angel Michael in Chonae. En route he fell in with a group of Cappadocian pilgrims, also

T h Church suffragant bishoprics. In.tlic tenth century there had been approxilnatcly
37 I bishoprics subordinate to tliein,109 and by the eleventli century tlicrc
Anstolia had an elaborate ecclesiastical organization of metropolitanates, was a significant increase in their number170 due largely to the cxpai1sion
arclil~islioprics,and bishoprics subordinated to the patriarch of Con- of the rroiitiers in tlic east.171 The rnctropoIitans were the ccclesiastical
stnntinople.le* I n the earlier centuries this provincial organization
lords or largc areas and usually of a number of towiis as well as villagcs,
of the church had followed the pattern of the imperial administrative
over which towns were the bishops. The powcrs and influcnc:c of tliesc
orgaiiziation. Thus the town, or polis, became the seat of the bishopric.
hierarchs in thcir respective provinccs were considerable, not only in
By the eleventh century, Asia Minor possessed approximately forty-five
the spiritual dornain but also in the sphere of administration and in the
nietrop~litanates,~~~ ten archbishoprics,fGB and a great number of
courts.172 It was the metropolitans and archbishops who linked the
on their way to the shrine, and before arriving at the town, another pilgrim (a PaPh- provincial administrative structure of the church to Constantinopl(~,
lagonian monk) joinctl the party. After a number of distractions, Lazarus finally made his patriarch, and emperor, They had the right to participate in t h c iiiectiugs
Y I’alestine whcre he visited the various shrines and churches. He then returned to
W ~ to
Antioch. I r o m Cilicia he took the road going north by Mt. Argaeus to Caesareia where of the synod i n Constai~hopleand also to participate in thc election ol‘
he prayed at the church of St. Basil. There he followed the northern route to Euchaita, the patriarch. The elaborate structure 01’ I n c ~ r o p o l i t a n a t ~ s - l ~ i s l i ( ~ ~ ~ r i ~ s -
the center of the cult of St. Theodore Teron, and departing from Euchaita m a d e his w a y
through the .inatolic theme to Chonae, once more to the church of the Archangel. T h e indeed or tlic whole ecclesiastical institution-was supported by cxtensivc
last Irg of his long pilgrimage was from Chonae to Ephesus where Lazarus went to the properties and certain cash incomcs,l‘~It was with thcsc inc:om~sthat tllc:
church of St. ,John the Theologian (AS Nov. 111, 517-518). Ephesus remained a favorite
pilgrim site through its Byzantine life, I n I 106-07 the Russian abbot Daniel (P.P. T.S., metropolitans and bishops provided for guestliouses, pourliousL.s,
I”, ~ - 6 )visited
, the tomb of St. John and relates that on the anniversary of the latter’s orphanages, hospitals and to a certain extent, local education. ’llw
drath n holy dust arose from the tomb, which believers gathered as a cure for diseases.
He visited the cave of the Seven Sleepers, the remains of the 300 holy fathers, of St. ecclesiastical as wcll as thc bureaucratic, adini~~istrativc pcrso111i~tWCTC
itlexander, the tomb of Mary Magdalene, the coffin of the Apostle Timothy. He saw t h e recruited from the local population aid Constantinoplc, so t h a t tllc
imagc of the Holy Virgin used to refute Ncstorius. Ramon Muntaner-Buchon (pp. 425,
465-+66), \\itnrsscd miracles at the tomb in 1304,and remarked that the exudations of
priesthood and liicrarchy represented Xiotli the capital and tlic proviuc:cxs.
the tomb were beneficial for childbirth, fever, and when thrown on the stormy sea would Asia Minor was not only the most itriportalzt 13yzantiilc province
calm it. After the Turks took Ephesus they traded three of the relics of his cult t o Ticino militarily and economically, but also it was so in the rcligialls domain.
Zacaria of Phocaea for grain. These included: a piece of the true cross taken b y St. John
himrelf from the place where Christ’s head lay, and which was enclosed in gold a n d prec- Anatolia possessed tlic riclicst, most ~ O ~ U ~ O mctropolilan~~t~’s
U S ol’ h:
ioub stones and which had hung from the neck of St. John on a golden chain; a cloth t h a t cmpirc. Their importance relative t o that of tlic European mr.tropc)li-
hfary had made and given to St. John; a book of the Apocalypse written in gold letters by
St. John. tanates is clcarly reflected in the onicial lists, the ~ ~ ~ l i ~]hco@rm~,
l i n ~
In 1%) the famous Georgian monk, George the Hagiorite, accompanied by his composed for purposes of‘ protocol, where the melropo1itan;ltcs are liqtctl
hiographer, journeyed from Antioch to Caesareia, and thence to the shrine of St. Theodore
where they were graciously received by the archbishop. They then journeyed to t h e port in order of thcir rank. Of the first twcnty-seven mctropolitaiiatcs listed
of Amisus on the Black Sea and set sail for the Caucasus. P. Peeters, “Histoires monasti- in a notitia of thc elevc~ithcentury, only two werc located ill E u ~ o ~ thl:c ,
Wes gkorgicnnes,” 8.4., XXXVI-XXXVII (1917-~g),I Z I - I Z ~ . H.Delehaye, “Euchaita
et la ICgende de S.Theodore,“ in Anatolian Studies Presented to Sir William Mitchell Ramsay remailling twcnty-five were situated in Rn:t~olitt.~7‘J‘I’his c n ~ r g r sI W ~ C
(Lolld’Jn, 1923)1PP. 133-134 (hereafter cited as Delehaye, “Euchaita et S. Thtodore”). clearly when 0 1 1 compares
~ thc number or bishops to l x J b ~ u ~ iii c l lhc ~ t v o
For other referenccs to these Anatolian pilgrimages, AS Nov. I, 343; F, Halkin, “Saint
lintoinc Ie Jeune et Petronas la vainqueur des Arabes en 863,” A.B., LXII (1944). regions of the cnipire. In tlic first half of thc tenth century, thcrc \VC‘L‘V
18?-22ja 218; 1’- Laurent, La Uie mrueilleusc de Saint Pierre d’&oa 837 (Brussels, 1956), about 371 bislio~~rics in Asia Minor, 99 in Ih~ropo,18in thc Argeaii islvs,
PP. 87,9c)-lOr.
Pilgrimages to the great shrines of Anatolia must have been commonplace. Notice and 16 in Chlabria and Sicily.175Also, a i d most importallt, Asin Miimr
that on his way to the shrine of the Archangel, Lazarus met other pilgrims from as far
away 21 Cappdocia arid Paphlagonia. These pilgrimages were not limited to the ancient
and rqtablishcd centen, for Lazarus was himselfvisited by many pilgrims on Mt. Galesium,
iiicluding nut only Cheek Christians from the vicinity, but also by a Georgian, a baptized
hfuslint, and by Jews. T h e rtnatolian road system saw a certain number of Latin pilgrims
o n their way to the Holy Land, though most of them probably went by the sea route
that skiited the westf‘rn anti southern coasts of the peninsula. BrChier, L‘e’glise et Z’Oridnt
ou tnqeri-cige (Paris, 1gz8), pp. 43-47,
’‘* Sonic churches in sauthmtern Anatolia were subordinate to the patriarchate of
Antkxh. Ikck, K k h e und tlteologische Literattrr, pp, I 90-1 96.
’@’ 4skald.tnovi& Gosudarslco,pp. 404-418.Gelzer, “Ungedruckte und wenig bekannte
Ilisturr~ervcrzcichriissrdcr orientalischen Kirche,” B.Z., I (1894), 253-254. Caesareia,
EPhesus, -“hkara, c+iCUS, Sardis, Nicomedeia, Nicaea, Chalcedon, Side, &bast&,
Amns% bfelitelle, ‘rYana, Gangra, Claudiopolis, Neocaesareia, Pessinus, Myra,
StauroPoli%Lnotiiceia,SYnndi, Iconium, Antiocheia, Pisidia, Perge, Mocissus, Scleuceia,


was strewn with sanctuaries and cults of numerous saints. Some of the educated in Trebizond, while the illustrious twelfth-century archbishop
cults centered on the martyrs, others on the personages of later saints, and of Athens Michael Acominatus and his brother the historian Nicetas
still others on the personalities of “mythical” saints. Asia Minor had been Choniates were from Chonae. These men of Anatolia, who are so illus-
one of the earliest provinces of Christian missionary activity, intimately trative of the influence and importance of Anatolia as a spiritual reservoir
associated with the personality, activity, and writings of the Apostlc Paul. of Byzantine society, are not unique.
The cults and churches of the various Anatolian saints were famous Less spectacular, perhaps, but of equal importance was the significance
not only among the Greek Christians but also among Latins, Georgians, of these cults for the integration of the majority of the Anatolians into a
Slavs, and others who visited them on the pilgrimage, and these cults generally homogeneous society and culture. These cults were absorbed by
were, of course, very important in the everyday life of the Byzantine the Byzantine church, an institution that played such a critical role in
inhabitants of Asia Minor. The list of the sanctuaries located in Anatolia unifying the empire. Though the church tended greatly t o regularize the
is a long one, and some of these were especially popular.170 I n the western- practices attendant upon these cults in consonance with the Orthodoxy
most regions the important cults included those of Tryphon at Nicaea, of Constantinople, many local strains were so firmly entrenched that they
Polycarp at Smyrna, John the Theologian a t Ephesus, Nicholas at were simply accepted.l78 It has been repeatedly stated that the bishops
Myra, and the Archangel Michael at Chonae. O n the Black Sea coast and metropolitans, and the clergy in general, attempted to care for both
were the shrines of Eugenius at Trebizond, Phocas at Sinope, and the spiritual and physical needs of their flocks, and the local saints , in the
Hyacinthus at Amastris. The most famous of the martyrs’ sanctuaries in eyes of the provincials, did much the same thing. I t was this close attach-
the hinterland included those of St. Theodore at Euchaita, the Forty ment of the provincial peoples to the saints which forced the church to
Martyrs at Sebasteia, Mercurius and Mamas at Caesareia, and the accept many of the anomalous practices attendant upon their cults. T h e
various shrines of St. George i n the regions of Paphlagonia. Of equal principal city or town of the saint was usually identified with that in
importance were the churches of the fourth and fifth-century saints Basil which his bones rested, though of course there would be numerous churches
of Caesareia, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Amphilochius and shrines (to say nothing of bones) associated with that particular saint
of Iconium, all of whom had played such an important role in determining elsewhere. Usually the saint was the possessor of a special town, and the
the evolution of the Eastern church. inhabitants of that town thought ofthe saint almost as their co-citizen, and
New sanctuaries continued to arise about the personalities of newer they naturally conceived of him as being partial to this city. In such a
holy men, a fact that intensified the sanctity of Anatolia as a repository of spirit an eleventh-century citizen of Trebizond addresses St. Eugenius as
T& &yia for the Byzantines. Ioannicius (d. 846) of Mt, Olympus in q$,6.rrohi, c p t A 6 . r r a ~ p t One
. ~ ~ ~ of the most important functions of the saint
Bithynia, Michael Maleinus (d. 961) in Bithynia, Lazarus (d. 1053) was to protect his city from devastating invasions of various foreign
on Mt. Galesium near Ephesus, Philaretus the Merciful (d. 792) of peoples, which came to be such a salient feature of Byzantine life. The
Paphlagonia, George (d. C. 802-807) of Amastris, Nicephorus (fl. tenth miracula of the various saints credit them with considerable success in this
century) of Latmus in the district of Miletus, Paul (d. 955) in western respect. St. Theodore is said to have routed the Arabs, who were besieging
Anatolia, Luke the Stylite (d, 979) in Chalcedon, Blasius (d. c. 911-912) Euchaita i n 934, by appearing before the gates of the city on horseback.18o
of Amorium, the Forty-two Martyrs (d. 838) of Amorium, and many St. Eugenius performed the same task for the Trebizondines by inter-
others were evidence of the intensity, if not the variety, of religious life in ceding from abovc and turning away and smashing the bows and swords
Anatolia during chis period. From these holy men came a considerable
portion of the monastic, hierarchical, and missionary leaders. It was an
l V 8 This is a phenomenon that needs further study. T w o examples of this phenomenon,
Anatolian monk, St. Nicon tou Metanoeite, who in the tenth century left animal sacrifice and absorption of pagan deities into the Christian cult of saints, are
Asia Minor to convert the Muslims of newly reconquered Crete and the among those that have been studied in some detail, F. Cumont, “L’archevkht de
Ptdachtot et le sacrifice du foan,” Byzantion, VI (IgsI), 521-533. A. Hadjinicolaou-
Slavs in the Mores.'-'? The great Athonite father and organizer St. Morava, Saint-Mamas (Athens, I 953). See also M. Nilsson, Creek Popular Religion (New
Athanasius was born and educated in Trebizond. The eleventh-century York, ig47), pp. 13-18, on the continuity of pagan practices, and on the link between
professor of law a nd patriarch Xiphilenus was also born and partially the pagan cult of the heroes and the Christian cult of the saints.
17B Papadopoulos-Kerameus, 1st. Ira). in$., p. 51.
AS Nov. IV, 53. The eleventh-century metropolitan of Euchaita, John Mauropus-
170 For a n extensive catalog of the cults of the Anatolian martyrs, Delehaye, Les Lagarde, p. I 16, describes Theodore as “ ~ b v i v h e p o v &pXov-ra K a l T ~ vS~ p ~ x d p o u
origines du c d l e des marlyres (Brussels, 1933)~
pp. 145-180. -rahqs K ~ ~ ~ O G XKOa i V-rrpom&rqv K a i Iqopov.” P. 132, he is ‘‘ b TOG X ~ I ~ W V ~ C ~ O U

177 Lampros, “ ‘ 0 pros N~KCOVOS TOG ME-ravoEi-re,” N.E., 111 (1906), 151-152, haoir ~ci-rkPappCrpwv v p o ~ o h ~ ~ C ; ) This
v . ” same phenomenon is to be observed in the
200--902. miracula of the Muslim holy men of Seljuk Anatolia, as in the case of Djalal al-Din Rurni
who saved Konya from the Mongols.

of the godless barbarians.lsl George of Arnastris, while still living, went drought or floods destroyed the crops, one invoked the saints with special
out of the walls of that city, gathered as many of the Christians in the prayers and invocations.1eg
neighborhood as he could, and then brought them to safety within The subject of religious conversion does appear in the hagiographical
while the Arabs were raiding the area.ls2St. Amphilochius is credited with texts, though the accounts are not often as precise as onc would desire.
turning away the Ismaelite army from the walls of Iconium.~83But these St. Nicholas, at least accordillg to his miracula, was known as far afield as
saints, not always content to remain on the defensive, often took the Muslim Egypt and Syria.lD0St. George -ipo.rraioirxos is credited with the
offensive, even leading the imperial armies to victory in foreign lands. conversion oC Muslims in Syria.lD1St. George of Amastris was responsible
The Archangel Michael js credited with helping Heraclius defeat the for the conversion to Christianity of the pagan Russ who, while raiding
Persians,le4 and John Tzimisces as a result of the victory over the Amastris, broke into his sanctuary in order to steal the rich treasures they
Russians in the Balkans, which he attributed to the intervention of St. believed to be buried under his casket.lg2 Indeed, one of the tenth-
Theodore, rebuilt the saint’s church in Euchaita.Ts6The saints also figure century Anatolian saints St. Constantine was himself a converted Jew.lDB
quite prominently, at least in their miracula, in the repatriation of St. Lazarus converted a village of heretics, probably Paulicians, i n the
Christians taken prisoner by invaders. Accordingly, Saints Theodore, vicinity of Philetis in Caria,lg4 and the same hagiographer describes the
Nicholas, and George answer the prayers of the local inhabitants of Caria, conversion of a Saracen in Ephesus. The references to conversion are
Paphlagonia, and Euchaita who have lost relatives to the Arabs, and then scattered and few in number, but there is no reason to doubt that the
secure the return of these relatives from Crete and Syria.ls6 Some of the Church, through the shrines and sanctuaries, exerted a considerable
cults were particularly close to soldiers, those of the so-called military proselytizing and missioning force upon the non-Christians and heretics
saints, Theodore, George, and Mercurius.l87 of Anatolia. This role of the saints and their shrines as vital integrating
The saints are frequently alleged to have intervened with Byzantine forces in society is more forcefully illustrated by the activities of St. Nicon
administrative authorities, and especially with the tax collectors, on behalf in Crete and Sparta and by the mass program of conversion which John
of their co-citizens.lss The most numerous miracles and services, however, of Ephesus implemented in the sixth century.105
attributed to the saints are those that have to do with healing. In a period The shrines of the saints, as indeed the whole of the ecclesiastical
of history when knowledge of medicine had not progressed sufficiently, institution, were intimately involved in the economic life of the Anatolians.
particularly in the more remote provinces that might be even less well The saints and their churches were the sponsors of the local fairs (some
equipped medically, it was to the local saint that the ill came, or some- of which were of an international character) or panegyreis held on the
times they would travel long distances from their own villages and towns feast days of the saints. Such were the panegyreis of St. John at Ephesus,lfl6
to the shrines of particular saints whose medical reputations were wide-
1 8 0 An especially spectacular performance in this respect was that attributed to St.
spread. A steady column of lepers, epileptics, paralytics, and cripples
Eugenius of Trebizond. On one occasion when Trebizond had had a particularly severe
marches. through the countless pages of the miracula on their way to the winter with violent storms on the sea accompanied by heavy snows, the city was without
shrines in hope of cure. The provincials also appealed to the saints to sufficient grain supplies. As the winter storms made the seas too dangerous for the grain
ships, the Trebizondines were threatened with starvation. St. Eugenius, however, inter-
still the dreadful forces of nature. If disease came upon their livestock, if vened and calmed the seas so that the ships were able to bring grain to the starving city
la’ Papadopoulos-Kerameus,1st. Imp.imp., p. 76, Eugenius is “ T ~ KolvfiS
S j u 6 v V6hEwg (Papadopoulos-Keramcu~,Ist, trafi. imp.,pp, 49-50). St. Nicholas intervened to procure
Tm.rlOi K d nmpi60S 6ITdlTTa K a \ lTP6PaXE KUi ‘ppOUpi KCri KOlVbV
TpOUT&TU KUi T&@l 1(
grain for the starving inhabitants of Myra (Anrich, Hngios Nikolaos, pp. 132-133).
i u i v Iviptqqpa.” l o o Anrich, Hagias Nikolaos, pp. 408-409,415. His hagiographer reports the story of one
Vasilievsky, T r u 4 , 111, 38-40. Syrian mule merchant who wore a golden likeness of the saint on his chest as a result OF
Bibliogrflpl&z Hflgbgra$hicn Groeca, 3d ed. (Brussels, 1957), I, 2 2 , having been saved by St. Nicholas whcn he was lost on ajourney to India. In another case
j S 4Drexl and Pertz, I, 125,
a Muslim fisherman from Egypt, threatened by storms while at sea, promised to become
185 Zonaras, 111, 534. Christian if St. Nicholas would save him. As a result of the saint’s intervention, the fisher-
A. Sigalas, ‘‘ ‘H 6iau~~ufi TOG h b TOG xpucri-rr~owrrapaSE6op6vwv 8awclrjrrwv man and his small boat entered the harbor of Attaleia safely, and he became a Christian.
1-06 ‘AYlQu @ E o ~ ~ p o u ,E.E.B.I.,
” I (rg24), 314-315. AS Nov. IV, 78. G. Anrich, Ibid., p. 415.
l o 2Vasilievsky, Trudy, 111, 65-69.
H&‘S Ni.blflos. Der hi& Nikolaos in der grzecliischetz Kirche (Leipzig-Berlin, 1913), I, I 71-
1733 175-r81,189-195,286. J. B.Aufhauser,MiraculaS. Georgii (Lcipzig, 1g13),pp. r3-18. AS NOV. 1V, 629-630.
Delehaye, Les &vdes grecques des snints inilitaires (Paris, 1909). S. Binon, Doclcments LO4 Ibid,, 111, 512, 54.3, 580,
grecs inidi:dilselntifS ri S. Mercure de (Louvain, 1937). In one of the miracula of St. Theodore 1 0 5 Lampros, “Bio5 NIKWVOS,” pp. 150-151, 100-202. John of Ephesus, The Third
Of Euchait% a soldier of the region previous to a military expedition Went into the
Part g t h e Ecclesiastical History of Johrt cf Ephesus, trans. R. Payne Smith (Oxford, 1860),
sanctuary and prayed to St. Theodore t o protect him, After the campaign the soldier pnssini (hereafter cited as John of Ephesus-Payne Smith).
and as an offering of thanks presented his sword to the saint. Sigalas, “AIaQKEufi” lSRTheophanes,I, 4.69. On the ancient Greek panegyreis and their survivd as a
p. 328. religioeconomic institution in modern times see Nilsson, Greek Pojmlar Religion, pp. ~ ? - I o I .
1u8 Vasihvsky, Trudy, III, 37, 43-47. For a good description of a pagan, religious-commcrcial panegyris in Comana durlng the
ancient period, Strabo, XII, iii. 36.
38 39

St. Eugenius at Trebizond,lo7 St. Phocas at Sinope,l** St. Theodore at profits from their commerce.20oMerchants and craftsmen are constantly
Euchaita,le* St. George throughout the lands of Paphlagonia,200and streaming through the shrines of these Anatolian saints,207 as are also
Michael at Chonae.201 These fairs were important for the church of the soldiers, government officials and, of course, the poor farmers and
particular saint, a nd for the town and rural environs as well, by virtue of herdsmen.no8 The merchants and wealthy classes donated generously to
the economic activity and economic prosperity that they brought. These the saints (one well-to-do family in Myra gave I O O gold pieces annually
panegyreis attracted great numbers of people, both from the neighborhood to St. Nicholas) ;20s the common folk gave more modestly. In the nziracula
and from far away. T h e Trebizondine fairs were international and of St. Theodore a soldier presents his sword, a farmer gives an ox, and a
attracted traders and goods from the whole of the Islamic and Indic poor woman is saving a chicken for the saint.210Gifts of such a nature
worlds. Even farther inland, at such a town as Euchaita, John Mauropus were brought to the saint not only by the inhabitants of his town but very
remarks that a great host of people came to the celebration.202H e states often by Christians living in another part of the empire.211
that it was the great fame of the shrine of St. Theodore and the panegyris The saints’ shrines, and indeed the church as an institution, were
that had made it into a great, prosperous, and populous full of cIosely connected with the economic life of the provinces, whether as the
stoas and marketplaces.BO4 possessors of large landed estates and serfs, or as,the recipients of con-
The pious from all classes of society made lavish gifts to the various siderable wealth i n cash and kind, or as the sponsors of the large pane-
saints in return for the services that the saints performed. The offering of gyreis.212T h e presence in a town of a saint’s shrine, of the bishop and his
the emperor John Tzimisces has already been mentioned, I n the eleventh staff, were of great significance for any settled area.
century John Orphanotrophus was cured of a serious illness by St. One must also keep in mind that from the seventh century until the
Nicholas, so he lavished gifts on the church and built a wall around the foundation of the coenobitic institutions of Mt. Athos, Asia Minor was
city.20EThe middle classes were equally attached to the cults of the saints. also the basic monastic province of the empire, the monastic foundations
Sailors and maritime merchants pIedged wheat and other items from their and traditions of Anatolia going back to St. Basil of Caesaieia and his
cargoes to saints Lazarus, Nicholas, and Phocas if they would guard them
during their dangerous sea voyages and enable them to reap financial zoo AS Nov. 111, 531-533, a merchant promises one-half of his cargo to St. Lazarus.
Anrich, Hagios Nikolaos, pp. 130-131, 167-170, 415. Van de Vorst, “Saint Phocas,” p.
289, “pEpi6a UOI ptau ol ~cnrrihhdpavoi ... -riOkaui.’’
2 0 ’ Sigalas, “AIaomufi,” pp. 312, 319, at the shrine of St, Theodore. AS Nov. 111,
Papadopoulos-Kerameus, 1st. trap. imp., pp. 57-58. 532-533, 537. Van d e Vorst, “Saint Phocas,” p. 289. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Zst. trap.
I’8 Van der Vorst, “Saint Phocas,” p. 289. N. Oikonomides, ‘‘ “Aytos 00~6s 6 imp., p. 58, at the shrine of St. Eugenius.
XIVOT~E~S,” pp. 184-219; “Kavhv ’Iwu$-pTOG ‘Ypvoyp&~ouE ~ S “Ayiov @,w~dvT ~ V
One rather humorous anecdote from the miracula of St. George is quite illustrative
Z i v o d a , ” A.D., XVIII (1g53), 218-240. of the incidental and anecdotal nature of these sources. There was a famous church of St.
John Mauropus-Lagarde, pp. I 34, 207-208. George in Paphlagonia known as Phatrynon. A group of young boys was playing next to
Aufhauser, Mirncula S. Georgii, p. 18.
the church and during the course of the games one boy contiilually lost, Finally he
zol Lampros, Mtxaj’h ’AKopivbl7ou TOG Xovidrrou T& uo3(6pma(Athens, 1879), I, 56
appealed to St. George promising to give him a cake (acpoyy*ov) if the saint should help
(hereafter cited as Michael Acominatus-Lampros),
John Mauropus-Lagarde, p. I 3,1, ‘‘ .. . iK .rrav-rbs EOvou5.”
him to win. After his luck changed, the boy did not forget his vow; he promptly marched
a03 Ibid., p. 132, ..
, Bpqpfas aPdrrou vohu&vOpwnov -rr6A1w.”
zo4 He describes the brilliance of the celebration when the local people and officials
off to his mother, obtained the cake, and placed it in the church as his offering to St.
George. Soon afterward four merchants passing through the city came to the church to
pray. Spotting the fragrant cake, they remarked that inasmuch as St. George could not
have come together to chant, burn incense, pray, and, very important, to bring gifts to the
saint. John Mauropus-Lagarde, pp. ,I3+ 207. Delehaye, “Euchaita et S. Thkodore,” eat it, they would eat it and give the saint 0ulJ.Idrpcrra.So they consumed the cake but
p, 130. An industry that catered to pilgrlms as well as to the religious heads of the local then found themselves unable to get out of the church. They thus became somewhat morc
population was the manufacture of black incense and gomphytis in the coastal towns of generous and each gave one miliaresium to the saint, but to no avail. They raised the
offering to one nomisma and finally to four nomismata beforc the church doors opened.
Macri and Myra. Daniel, P.P.T.S., IV, 6-7; “Makri and all the country as far as Myra
produce black incense and gomphytis. It exudes from the tree in a viscous state, and is O n departing they remarked, ‘‘TQ & ~ I ErahpyIE K V I T ~ nmheiS T& crpoy~drr& UOU, Ka\

collected with a sharp-edged piece of iron. The treeiscalled zyghia and resembles thealder. f i p ~ I?IK~ uoi? &hho o k & ( Y O ~ & ~ O ~Aufhauser,
EV.” Miruculu S, Georgii, pp. 103-107. The
Another shrub, resembling the aspen, i s called raka-storax. A huge worm, of the large anccdote is of interest in showing the presence of itinerant merchants, of the offerings
caterpillar species, bores through the wood beneath the bark, and the worm-dust, which made even by children and, finally, that the saints were shrewd businessmen.
comes away from the shrub like wheat bran, falls to the ground, as a gum similar to that Anrich, Hagios Nikoloas, p. 286.
210 Sigalas, “AI~~oxEu~~,” pp. 328, 333, 317.
from the cherry-tree. This is gathered and mixed with produce of the first tree, and the
211 T h e inhabitants of Gangra In Paphlagonia sent one pound of gold as an offering,
whole is then boiled in a copper vessel. Thus it is that they produce the gomphytis incense,
which is sold to the merchants in leather bottles.” Strabo, XII, 7.3., says that this same Kapnopopia, to the church of the Archangel Michael in Chonae. Aufhauser, 121iracttlfl S,
product was used by Anatolians in the worship of pagan Gods! It was still an important Georgii, pp. 108-113. St. George is not a t all jealous, in this particular incident, that his
product o f the district of Attaleia in the eighteenth century, P. Lucas, Voyage du Sieur Paul followers are making the gift to the patron saint of a different area. In fact, he intercedes
Lrtcas failpar ordre du roi dam la Grdce, E’Asie Mineure, la Macidoine el 1’ Afigue (Amsterdam, to save both the gold and its purveyor from robbers so that they may reach Chonae safely!
21z For the church as a legal custodian of the property of others, there is the case of the
1714), 1, 244.
206 Cedrenus, XI, 512. church of St. Theodore of Euchaita which served as a guardian of the dowry of il recently
deceased woman. Sigalas, “Aiamwfi,” pp, 322-333.
40 4.1

institution of a monastery a t Annesoi. The regions of Chalcedon, Mt.
Auxentius, as well as the whole of the Opsicion theme, were important character. The actual process by which Greek language and Greek
Christianity had come to predominate was a long one, and one that has
monastic centers. Mt. Olympus, Prusa, Nicaea, and the entire Propontid
coast were literally strewn with these establishments. In thc south, Mt. not been documented in siificient detail.
T h e process of Hellenization in terms oflanguage and culture had begun
Galesium, near Ephesus, and Latmus, i n the vicinity of Miletus, were the
centuries before thc pre-Christian era and continued long afterward.
scenes ofvigorous monastic life. I n the district of Iconium, on the present
The linguistic situation or pre-Greek Anatolia, or rather of Anatolia in the
day Kara Da& monastic communities thrived down to the Seljuk
first millenium of the pre-Christian era, has been compared to that of the
invasions. 213 T h e bishopric of Hagios Procopius (Urgiip) was the centcr
Caucasus i n later times as “the meeting place of a host of unrelated
of the famous troglodyte monasteries, while at Trebizond and the
languages.” 3l7 1t had hosted Urartians, Hetites, Phrygians, Lydians,
environs were located the famous monasteries of St. Eugenius, Vazelon,
Lycians, Carians, Cappadocians, Isaurians, Armenians, Kurds, Greeks,
and Sumela. Many of these monasteries had existed for centuries when
Jews, Cimmerians, and Persians, to name only the bettcr known ethnic
the Seljuks first arrived in Anatolia, while many were founded from the
groups. These peoples brought their own languages, for most of which there
ninth through the eleventh century, At the moment of the Turkish in-
vasions, the monasteries were thriving.214 are extant remains, which in some cases are suficient to permit classifi-
cation of the languages.218The majority of the people in western Anatolia
Ethizograjlly seen1 to havc come from Europe and thc Aegean isles, whereas those in
eastern Anatolia apparently came from both Europe and Asia.
Perhaps the most interesting, and certainly the most perplexing
Of all thc languages and cultures of pre-Christian Anatolia, it was *
problems facing the historian of Byzantine Anatolia are those that have
Greek that showed itself to be the most dynamic. Greek colonies came to
to do with the languages, religions, and ethnic groups of the peninsula at
be established on the coasts of western and southern Asia Minor as early
various times. There has been considerable discussion, debate, and
as the Mycenaean period, seemingly for commercial purposes.21D By
disagreement on all three of these items in regard to the inhabitants of
800 B.C. thc Aeolisns, Ionians, and Dorians had founded colonies along
Byzantine Asia Minor in the eleventh century. Some scholars have
the western coast in considerable number, and these in turn colonized the
maintained that the Byzantine population of Anatolia was only lightly
shores of thc Black Sea, This second wave of settlement was fateful not
and superficially Hellenized and was, in fact, indifferent to the language,
only for the coastal regions but in the long run for the hinterland of Asia
church, and government of Constantinople.216 Others have asserted that
Minor as well, for it was the basis of a vast process of Hellenization which
the population of the peninsula in the eleventh century was the same which
was to continue as late as Byzantine times. It is interesting that the
had inhabited Anatolia since the days of the Hetites.210But from the point
of view of language and religion, the principal discernible elements i n the
progress of Hellenization at this early stage in a sense depended less on
culture of eleventh-century Anatolia, there is little that would lend weight the numbers of settlers than upon the consequences of the economic and
to these suppositions. The dominant language of western, central, and cultural superiority that these emigrants developed in Anatolia. Their
eastern Anatolia to the confines of Cappadocia was Greek, and the influence i n classical times was centered on the coastal arca, for the
dominant religion was that of the Greek or Byzantine church. In the a17 A. H. Saycc, “Languages of Asia Minor,” Atintalian Slirdies Presented to Sir William
regions of Anatolia east of Cappadocia this Greek element, though Milcllell Ramsay (London, I g23), p. 396.
a18 A. Goetze, Kultrrrgesc/ric/ite des alkw Orients. Kleitiasietl, 2d ed. (Munich, 1957), pp,
Present, was very weak in comparison with the non-Greek elements. 180-183,193-194, ao[-204, 202-209. D. C. Swanson, “A Select Bibliography of the
Anatolia, however, had not always possessed this predominantlv Greek Anatolian Languages,” Bulletir~of the New York Public L i b r a y (May-June, 1948),3-26.
D. Masson, “8pigFphie Asianique,” Orientalin, nov. ser. XXIII (1954)~ 439-442. J.
Friederich, Kleiriaszattsclit S’rachdedtnalcr (Berlin, rg3z)). M. B. Sakellariou, La 7nzgrntton
grecgrie eii Ionic (Athens, 1958), pp. 414-437.More recently Ph.J, Howink ten Cate, The
Liiwian Population Groups ofLycin and Cilicia Aspera d u h g the Helltitistic Period (Leidcn, 1961).
G. Neumann, Uiiteisuchiirzgeti zum Weiterleben Iielhitischetr zrnd lrlwisclreri Spracligtltes it1
liellcnistischer wid roniischer Zed (Wiesbaden, 1961).L. Robert, “Inscriptions inCdites en
langue carienne,” Nelletiictr, V I I I (1950), 1-38, Some rather humorous incidents have
occurred in the search for the remnants of these languages in modern times. One phil-
ologist claimed to have found Hetite spoken in an Anatolian village in the twentieth
century. He announced this sensational discovery and promised a forthconling grammar
of modern Hetite. But PriederiLh, “Angebliche-moderne Reste alte Kleinasiatischer
Sprachen,” Z.D.M.G., LXXXVIII (1934)~ pointed out that the language in question was
Circassian and spoken by Circassians who had Bed the Russian conquest of the Caucasus.
B 1 O Goetze, Kultu,geschic/ite dds allen orients, pp. 182-183.

geographical nature of Anatolia combined with the Persian domination comparatively large numbers of men of letters who appeared there i n
of the plateau to limit Hellenization to the maritime regions.2a0 Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine But the literary aspect of
The penetration of Greek cultural influence inland continued at Hellenic culture was largely an urban phenomenon, and if its presence
a slow rate, nevertheless, in the period from the sixth to the fourth does show the degree to which many of the cities and towns had been
century of the pre-Christian era. The Lydians had been particularly Hellenized, it does not reflect at all on the rural areas, Even though Greek
receptive to this culture, as were the fourth-century dynasts of was the official as well as the literary language, it had not yet conquered
Caria and Lycia, the inhabitants of the Cilician plain and of the regions the countryside.
of Paphlagonia.221 The slower rate of Hellenization of rural Asia Minor is reflected i n the
After the conquests of Alexander the Great and the establishment of the survival of a number of the “Anatolian” languages as late as the sixth
Epigonoi, the tempo of Hellenization greatly accelerated and henceforth century of the Christian era, although even here Greek cultural influence
Hellenism acquired the prestige of political domination and empire. The of a type is to be seen in the rural areas and in their languages.z26 A
Hellenistic monarchs pushed the process through the foundation of study of thefortleben of these Anatolian tongues (one is not concerned here
Greek cities, while the more ambitious of the local population found with Armenian, Georgian, Kurdish) demonstrates the losing nature of the
their desires for advancement a stimulus to learn Greek. The indigenous battle they fought against the progress of Greek. The nature of the sources
urban settlements and villages of Anatolia in many places coalesced, on and the archaistic use of ethnic epithets often make it dificult to ascertain
their own initiative, to form cities in the Greek manner. The Attalids whether a linguistic or ethnic term is being used purely geographically
were active in promoting Greek cities in western Asia Minor; the local rather than culturally. Consequently, the interpretation of what are
kings of Hellenistic Anatolia adopted Greek as their official language and apparently geographical terms as denoting ethnic groups has been more
sought to imitate other cultural forms.222 I t was in the towns that harmful than helpful.
Hellenization made its great progress, the process often being synonymous One of the better known cases of linguistic continuity is that of the
with urbanization. I n contrast, the rural areas were far less affected and language spoken by the Isaurians, who played such an important part in
retained more of the pre-Greek culture, as reflected in languages and the fifth-century history of Byzantium, and whose language seems still to
religious practices.22s Urbanization continued under the Romans, have been spoken as late as the sixth century.229There is evidence that
so that i n a sense Rome maintained the traditions of Hellenization in the Cappadocian was still known and spoken in the fourth century; Gothic
peninsula.224The geographer Strabo, himself an inhabitant of one of these
Hellenized Anatolian towns (Amaseia) , comments on Hellenization by 221 In Hellenistic times Perge in Pamphylia was associated with the mathematician
remarking that Lydian was no longer spoken in Lydia (though i t survived Apollonius, Soli in Side with the phlosophcr Chrysippus and the poet Aratus. Mollus
for a while among the isolated Cibyratae), and he implies that Carian produced the grammarians Crates and Zenodotus. Tarsus contributed the poets Dio-
scurides and Dionysidcs and the town became one of the chief centers of philosophy,
was in the process of dying,225the language having acquired large num- rivaled only by Alexandria. Greek poets, rhetoricians, historians, grammarians, biogra-
bers of Greek words.22@ The degree to which Hellenism had penetrated phers, doctors of note in thc Hellenistic and Roman periods arose in such Hellenized cities
as Sardes, Alabanda, Tralles, Mylasa, Nyssa, Amaseia, Nicaea, Laodiceia, Pergamum,
in the towns and cities of large portions of Anatolia is reflected in the Nicomdeia, Anazarba, Prusa, Samosata, Caesareia, Aphrodisias, Cotyaeum, Laranda,
Tyana. For this summary, Jones, 2% Greek City,pp. 280-283.
2 2 8 It has been customary to speak of these rural areas as completcly unaffected by the
2ao Ibid.,pp. 210-21 I . By the late sixth century o f the pre-Christian era, Anatolia, the
penetration of Hellenism, as for instance Jones, The Greek Cip, p. 288. But it is not only
meeting ground of East and West, was subject to two rival processes, Ncllenization and, through the linguistic medium that a group or society is influenced. Certainly linguistic
Iranization. change is the most striking evidence of cultural change, but the other facets of human
221 Ibid., p. 209. Jones, The Greek City, pp, 1-2,27-29.
society (law, religion, art, etc.) can be receptive to outside influence independently of
2 2 2 S. K. Eddy, T h e King is Bead (Lincoln, Feb., 1961), pp. 163-182.
linguistic considerations. I t is also highly probable that in many areas where native
Jones, The Greek City,pp. 40-50.
tongues survived, the inhabitants were bilingual (Strabo, XIII. 4. 17). For modern
Ibid., pp. 51-67. examples one may cite certain Greek villages that speak both Greek and Arvanitika, but
236 Strabo. XIII. 4. 17, “-rh-rapoi 6$ yhhrrais ~ ~ G V 01 T OK$vp&at, -rij
in which the cultural consciousness is exclusively Greek. Also there is the example of
n1001kfl,Tq .%‘dPWV, Ta ‘EAAqvh, -rq AuSGV.” Thus Greek had also penetrated
these more isolated areas. Strabo also remarks, “ T ~ S(yhb-5) AvSGv S i ob6’ lxvos certain Anatolian towns and villages in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries which
spoke Greek and Turkish. For other examples of Anatolian bilingualism in late ancient
BOT~V PV A u S ~ ~ . ”On the Hellenization of Lydian names and religion consult,
Robert, Noms indigt‘nes duns 1’Asie Mineure grecoromaine (Paris, 1963); L. Zgusta, and early Byzantine times, C. Holl, “Das Fortleben der Volkssprachen in Kleinasien im
AnatoEische Personennamen (Prague, I 963) ; A. Laumonier, Les cultes indiglnes en Carie (Paris, nachchristlicher Zeit,” Ilcrmes, X L I I I (1908), 243-244, For an example of thc spread of
1ar;dl. Greek, Theodoretus, P.C., LXXXII, 1488D, “ 6 S& ~g ‘EAA&& X P T ~ ~ ~ cpwvfi. E V ~ SKih15
,. z
yhp ~b ykos hT3yXavEv bv.”
210 Strabo, XIV. 9 . 28, uses the verb ~api&iv in a fashion parallel to O O ~ O I K ~ [ E I V , a20 On what follows, Iloll, “Das Fortleben dcr Volkssprachen,” pp. 248-254. For the
showing t h a t though the Carians spoke a n impure Greck, they spoke it extensively. On
Carian, Robert, Hellenica, pp. 1-38. economic specialization of the Isaurians, C. Mango, “Isaurian Builders,” PO&C/t70Rioll.
Fedsch$t Franz Dolger zit 75. CeOurtstag (Hcidelberg, 1966)~pp. 358-365.
44 45

i n the fourth century; and Phrygian at least into the third ~entury.2~0But term that refers to nothing more than a geographical district. The second
these languages were for the most part dead or moribund in the sixth language to which he refers is probably Greek. That this is so, and that the
century of the Christian era.281Of these languages spoken in Anatolia, passage has nothing to do with the Phrygian language, emerges from the
Neo-Phrygian has received the greatest amount of scholarly attention parallel text in Sozomenus which is much more explicit as to what this
because of the survival of the Neo-Phrygian inscriptions. Those who have second language of Selinus was. Sozomenus narrates that Selinus was able
proposed a more lively continuity of these hnatolian languages i n western to deliver sermons “not only in their national language [Gothic] ,but also
Asia Minor during the Byzantine period have concentrated on the case of in that of the Greeks.” 234 Both texts indicate the following. The Goths,
Neo-Phrygian. The principal literary texts that have been brought to bear w h o settled in Phrygia i n the fourth century, still preserved their national
on the question are the ecclesiastical histories of Socratcs and Sozomenus, tongue i n the fifth, and so Selinas their bishop often addressed them in
the contents of which refer to eveiits in the fifth century. Holl (and those Gothic. But, as his mother was a non-Goth, a n inhabitant of the district
who have followed him) has concluded as a result of two passages in these of Phrygia, he could also speak Greek, the inhabitants of Phrygia having
texts t ha t Phrygian was a spoken and understood language as late as the been Hellenized i n their speech. Thus, he used both languages, Greek and
fifth century.232Let us look then at these two texts on which so many Gothic. This passage, then, does not prove the vigorous survival of
scholars have relied. Phrygian into the fifth century. Rather it shows the process of Hellen-
Socrates mentions that the bishop of the Goths in Asia Minor, a certain ization at work among the Goths through intermarriage and religion.235
Selinus, was the son of a mixed marriage, There is also the question of the body of Neo-Phrygian inscriptions.
He was a Goth f r o m his father a n d a Phrygian through his mother. And These are the latest texts o f the Anatolian languages (third century of
because of this he t a u g h t in both languages, readily, in the c h u r ~ h . 2 3 ~ Christian era), which have survived. As of 1956 the known and published
This passage has been interpreted as meaning that Selinus addressed his number of such inscriptions was an even I O O , ~and ~ ~ practically all these

congregation in both Gothic and Phrygian. But the real question is the ~ ~ is the significance of this
have been dated to the third ~ e n t u r y . 2What
meaning of dr~cpo-rkpa~s Tais ~ I C L ~ ~ K T O “in
I S , both languages.” Does this material ? Would i t justify the proposition that Neo-Phrygian underwent
mean that he really spoke both Gothic and Phrygian? Or, is the word a renaissance and that it was the living language of the people in a limitcd
Phrygian in the text simply a reference to the fact that his mother was from area of Anatolia? The majority of these inscriptions contain the epitaphs
the district of Phrygia ? Here again one is faced with an archaistic use of a and names in Greek, with a curse on the would-be violators of the tomb
written in Phrygian, Though a very few of the epitaphs are in Phrygian,
230 Holl, “Das Fortleben der Volltssprachen,” p. 241, mentions Mysian and Lycaonian they are usually in Greek, and in both cases the Greek alphabet of the pe-
as possible languages in this period. But thcse two terms seem to be geographical rather
than linguistic. I-Iarnack, D i e Mission iind Azis6reitutzg des Cht istenturns, 4 th ed. (Leipzig, riod is employed. The curses themselves seem to be rigidly formulated with
Igq.), 11, 764, n. 4, maintains that Lycaonian was actually Phrygian. Jones, T h e Greek little variation.238 Thus Neo-Phrygian survives in these third-century
CiQ, p. 366, n. 43, rejects Mysian as a language. Strabo, XII. 8. 3, indicates that already
by Roman times people were not sure as to what Mysian was, “pap-rupEiv 6k K a l T ~ V 234 Sozomenus, 1’. G., LXVII, 1468, “ K d h i &KKhTlUhs I K W @ 6I8&UKEIv, Oir p6vov
SI~AEKTOV ~ I ~ O A ~ ~yapI O V- r r q Ebai K a i pi@qdrylov.” This indicates, in contrast to Ka-r&+p TUTPIOV a h i j v rpwvfiv, &?Ahyhp K a i T ~ V‘Ehh~vwv.”
13011, that Mysian was no longer a spokcn language. See also J. G. C. Anderson, “Explor- 236 Their descendants were still known as ror0oypaiKor (and not as Gotho-phrygians)
ation in Galatia Cis Halym,” J.H.S., XIX (1899), 313-316. in the eighth century, and the geographical term is mentioned in the late eighth
231 11011, “Das Fortlebcn der Volkssprachen,” pp. 243-244, drawing upon an incident
century; Theophancs, I, 385. “Acta Graeca SS. Davidis, Syniconis et Georgii,” A.B.,
in the Iife of St. Martha, AS Mai V, 418-419, attempts to show that “Lycaonian” was a XVIII (18gg), 256. Charanis, “On the Ethnic Composition of Byzantine Asia Minor in
vital language in the sixth century. This incident has to do with the cure o f a man who was the Thirteenth Ccntury,” npbacpopa E ~ SZdh’iTwVU 17. KuprmIGqv (ThessaloIlike,
speechless. Upon being cured h e spoke in hisown tongue, ‘%TE T?J Big 8iaAiK.rc; ~ (hereafter cited as Charanis, “Ethnic Composition,”). Aniantos, “ro-r0oypaiKol-
1 9 5 3 )141
60@hoyGv T ~ V8Ebv &bay” But in effect this does not prove the vitality of “Lycaonian” ro-reoypmla,” ‘Ehhqvi~tr, V (1g32), 256. AL an earlier period the Celts had been
(whatever tongue this may have been). The remainder of the story indicates just the oppo- similarly I-Iellenized and were called rahhoypaiKo1. Galatia was also called rahhoypaiala
site. The healed man felt compelled to relate the wonder to others. But as he spoke no Strabo, XII. 5 . I . Appian, Mithradates, I 14,. Diodorus Siculus, V. 32. 5. Ammianus
Greek, “ofi yap ~~TT~UTCXTO T+ ‘EAhjvwv yh&mav,” he obtained the services of a Marcellinus, XXII. 9. 5. On the absorption and Hellenization of the Celtic nobility in the
bilingual interpreter who knew Grcekinaddition to “Lycaonian,” “8lqyEiTo T T E i~~~d t v 7 0 v early Christian era Bosch, “Die ICelten in Ankara,” Jnhr6tlclr Jir kkinnsinlischer2 Forschurig,
TOrh-WV, &T6POu UUVbVTO5 a h + y l V d U K O V T O S T f i V ‘EAA~vIK~~v p V j V K a i 6p~r(VEiiOVTOS
I1 (1g52), 283-291. See also the remarks of L. Mitteis, Reichsrccht ~ i Volksrecht d in den
?a m p l ahoc.” I n his desire to communicate, the healed Lycaonian was drawn into
ostliclien Prouitzzen des rornischen Kniscrreichs (Hildesheim, 1963), pp. z Z - Z ~ . On the use of
a society where the customary linguistic medium was Greek. The translator, a bilingual, rpaida to designate the Byzantine Empire see the interesting studyof P.Speck,“TPAl KIA
symbolizes the process by which Greek was spreading.
und ’APMENIA. Das Tatigskcit cines nicht identifizierten Strategcn irn friihen 9. Jahr-
232 Holl, “Das Fortleben dcr Volkssprachen,” pp. 247-248. W. M. Caldcr, M.A.M.A.,
hunder,” J.O.B.G., XVI (196?), 71-90.
VII, xv, xxxii. Priederich, “Phrygia,” P.W., pp. 868-869. 2 3 a Calder, At.A.M.A., p. xxix.
a33 Socrates, P. G., LXVII, 648, “ . . &hr(vEs 6 TGV r o r 0 i j v ~ T ~ U K O V O &t)p
a a 7 Ibid., p. ix, one is actually dated to the year 259 A.D. Calder attributes R few of the
idprlc-rov iixwv 76 yivos. rheas u h fiv b ~ m p 6 s .Opric 6 i K U T ~ Hqidpa. K a i 61&
inscriptions to the end of the second century.
TOGTO 6pToTiPaIS Tais 8lah6KTOlS h o l ~ w cKa-rh ; ~ f i vkKhquiav Bui8aoxe.” a 3 8 Priederich, “Phrygia,” p. 870.

46 47

monuments for the most part in fixed ritualistic, formulaic curses. due to the fact that there was in existence a relatively strong and organized
One is not convinced, as a result, that Phrygian existed as a vital living state to the east, first the Sassanid monarchy and later the caliphate, SO
language among the people. W. M. Calder, the foremost student of these that Anatolia had something of a buffer against the peoples of central
inscriptions, has a t one point stated that these inscriptions “represent an Asia.
artificial revival of the epigraphical use of the Phrygian language by the Though there were no large migrations of new peoples into Anatolia
Tekmoreian Society.” The powerful influence of Greek is evident i n from the East, the Byzantine emperors over the centuries introduced
these inscriptions. Aside from the alphabet, there is the fact that most of non-Greek, as well as Greek, populations into their Anatolian provinces
the epitaphs are in Greek, as are most of the names. Though the number of on numerous 0ccasions.~44The reasons for this transplanting of peoples
these Neo-Phrygian inscriptions is in itself considerable (xoo), one should were closely linked to state policy. In some cases the foreigners brought
keep in mind the fact that in eastern Phrygia alone there were some 1,076 to Anatolia had been causing trouble for the empire in other provinces.
inscriptions found. Of these, 18 are i n Latin, 38 in Neo-Phrygian (or Hence they were removed from their familiar social and ethnic environ-
Greek and Phrygian), and 1,000in Greek.240Certainly some knowledge of ment, placed in a strange one, and subjected to Hellenization (often
Neo-Phrygian existed in the mid-third century. But there is some evidence indirectly) and to Christianization (or i n the case of heretics, to Ortho-
for the assertion that it was artifically revived and that Greek probably doxy). On other occasions the transferred populations were brought for
was, already in the third century, decisively victorious in Phrygia.241 military purposes, or were Christians fleeing the conquests of the Arabs.
One may assume that by the sixth century the Greek language had I n this way the Goths were settled in Phrygia in the fourth century, thc
triumphed over the various indigenous tongues of western and central Greek Cypriots were moved to Cyzicus by Justinian 11,245 and t h e
Anatolia (to the regions of Cappadocia) .242 At least references to these Mardaites were sent to Attaleia.Z40 Similarly, odd groups of Armenian
early languages are, so far as it has been possible to ascertain, lacking in soldiers were settled in various parts of Asia Minor. Constantine V settled
thc sources. It is true, however, that in the easternmost parts of Anatolia, one group on the eastern borders,247 seventh-century Pergamum possibly
Armenian, Syriac, Kurdish, Georgian, Arabic, and possibly Lazic not had a n Armenian but the cmperor Philippicus (71 1-713)
only survived but were spoken by the overwhelming majority. Political expelled a considerable number of Armenians from Byzantine Anatolia,
factors in the Byzantine period contributed to the victory of the empire’s causing them to settle i n Melitene and Fourth Armenia.249
language. In contrast to the Balkan peninsula, which from the sixth The settlements of Armenians were most numerous in the easternmost
century and even earlier, received large numbers of migrations and
settlements, Asia Minor was shielded from such large ethnic movements of
peoples who might have changed the linguistic pattern, until the migra-
I regions of Byzantine Anatolia, as in the regions of Coloneia and Neo-
caesareia, where by the latter part of the seventh century they must have

tions of the Turks in the eleventh century.B43Perhaps this was partially

Calder, “Corpus inscriptionurn neo-phrygiarum, 111,” J.H.S., XLVI (1gz6), 12.
I existed in considerable numbers.260 Probably there also was settled a

a30 244 For the general practice of transplanting populations, Charanis, “The Transfer of
See also his “Philadelpheia and Montanism,” B.J.R.L., VII ( x g q ) , 352. Population as a Policy in the Byzantine Empire,” Comparative Studies in Sociely and Histop,
p 4 0 Calder, B .J.R.L., VII, xxx. I11 (1961), 140-154 (hereafter cited as ‘Transfer,”). On the general ethnographic
241 Calder suggests that ;he Phrygians were bilingual in the third century, “Corpus picture the samc author’s “Ethnic Composition,” pp. 140-147; “Ethnic Changes in t h e
inscriptionuin neo-phrygiarum, I,” J.H.S., XXXI (191I), I 63. He also supposes that the Byzantine Empire in the Seventh Century,” D.O.P., XI11 ( ~ g s g ) ,25-36 (hereafter
Phrygians ofGalatia had been completely Hellenized by the third century, for no Phrygian cited as “Ethnic Changes,”) ; “Slavic Element in Asia Minor in the Thirteenth Century,”
inscriptions have been found in Galatia. In M.A.M.A., VII, xiv, and in Anatolian Studies Byzantiunz, X V I I I (1948), 69-83. Rambaud, L’etnpire grec, pp. z48 ff.
Presented to Sir William Mitchell Ramsay, p. 76, n. 4, he speaks of a fourth-century inscription m46 Theophancs, I, 365. Charanis, “Transfer,” pa 143.
from Phrygia, in Greek, which mentions the word Phrygia. R e postulates that this usage a’*o Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Cnerimoniis, I, 657, 668. I t is not recorded w h e t h e r
is indicative of the fact that the inhabitants of the area still felt themselves to be Phrygian. the five detachments of cavalry which Justinian sent to fight on the Persian front (Pro-
But the usage is more likely geographical, with perhaps no linguistic connotation, much in copius, History of the Wars, IV, xiv, 17-18), settled in Asia Minor or not. Theophanes,
the same manner in which Socrates used the term Opbk. This archaistic geographical I, 364. Amantos, “MapSaf-ral.,” ‘EAAUVIK&, V (1g32), 13-136.
nomenclature was used throughout Byzantine history. Constantine Porphyrogenitus’ use 247 Charanis, “Transfer,” p. 144, but these were later removed by the Arabs. Agapius
of these terms led Rambaud, L’empire grec au dL4me sidcle (Paris, 1870), pp. 152-253, to d e Menbidj, Kitab al’ Unvnn. Histoire universelle ed. and trans. A. Vasiliev, P.O.,V I I I ( I 912) ,
conclude that all these linguistic groups existed to the end of the empire. Strabo, XII. 8. 531,538.
z I , in his day already bore witness to the process in which the Phrygians were disappearing 2 4 8 Charanis, “Ethnic Changes,” p. zg. Gelzer, Pergamon unter Byznntinern zmd Ostnnnen
as an ethnic group, for he mentions the disappearance of a number of Phrygian tribal Abhand. der kotz. prauss. Akad. der Iyiss. (Berlin, 1go3),pp. 41 ff.
divisions. 2 4 0 Theophanes, I, 382.
243 Jones, The Greek Cib, p. 294, and Taeschner, “Anadolu,” EIz, who have studied Z6O O n the Armenians of Byzantium, Charanis, “The Armenians in the Byzantine
this problem from the Hellenic and Turkish sides, share the view that Anatolia was Ernpirc,” B.S., X X I I (1g61),196-240; “Ethnic Changes,” p. 29. Grtgoire, “PrCcisions
effectively Hellenized, gkographiques et chronologiques sur les Paulicicns,” Acadhnie rojale de Belgiqrte, Bulletin
a 4 3 Rambaud, L’empire grec, pp. 244-245. On the Laz, A. Bryer. “Some Notes on the de la classe des lettres et dcs sciences niorales et kolitiques, 5” strie, X X X I I I (1947), 297-298
Laz and Tzan.” B.K., XXI-XXII ( 1 9 6 6 ) ~174-195. (hereafter cited as “Prtcisions,”).

48 4.9

number of Armenian soldiers in the Armeniac theme,251 and it was military force of 30,000 from among them. But when lie marched against
customary to post Armenian contingenis in various parts of western the Arabs with his armies, 20,000 of these Slavs deserted to the enemy.
Anatolia. In an expedition against the Arabs of Crete during the reign Justinian was so infuriated that on his return he slew the remainder of the
of Leo VI, there were mustered 500 Armenians from Platanion in the Slavs with their women and children a t Leucate on the Gulf of
theme of Anatolicon and 500 more from Priene.252Under Constantine Nicomedia.200 T h e largest Slavic or Bulgaro-Slavic colonization in Asia
VII the tagmata of the east were bolstered for another Cretan expedition Minor seems to have occurred during the eighth century. In the reign of
by the addition of 1,000 Armenian troops,2ts whereas Goo Armenians Constantine V many Slavs fled the Balkans and were allowed to settle
(possibly those of Priene) were to guard the shores of the Thracesian in the region of the Atarnas River not far from the Bosphorus. Nicephorus
theme.25*All these references, however, are to scattered contingents of mentions that their number was 2 0 8 , 0 0 0 . ~Though
~~ this figure is doubt-
soldiers posted on the shores of the western Anatolian coast or on the lessly exaggerated in the manner of medieval chroniclers, nevertheless
eastern borders to fight the Muslims. Most of the large scale transplanting after one has allowed for the exaggeration, this must have been the largest
of Armenians from their homeland b y the Byzantine emperors, at least Slavic settlement in Asia Minor.202
up to the tenth century, seems to have been made to the European That the Slavs were still to be seen as a n ethnic group in this north-
western corner of Anatolia i n the ninth century is recorded in Theophanes
Other groups were sent to Anatolia, such as the several thousand Continuatus.%68These are the last references to major Slavic settlements in
Persian soldiers who deserted to Byzantium in 834 and were then settled Anatolia prior to the Turkish invasions. Constantine Porphyrogenitus
throughout Asia Minor.250In the course of the seventh and eighth does mention the presence of Sthlavesianoi i n the Opsicion theme in the
centuries, the emperors transplanted considerable numbers of Slavs to the tenth ~entury,~04 for i n his reign they hrnished 220 men for the expedition
northwesternmost corner of the peninsula.267There are references to the to Crete.205Their numbers are comparatively small as revealed in this
presence of Slavs in the seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth centuries. The
first such mention would seem to be the 5,000 Slavs who deserted to the Theophanes, I, 366. T h e exact interpretation and translation of this rather impor-
Arab invaders of Anatolia in 665.268Almost a quarter of a century later, tant text has excited some disagreement. Some have interpreted this passage to mean that
in 688, Justinian I1 sent the Slavs, whom he had taken prisoner in Justinian destroyed the remnants of the Slavic colony and that the colony therefore
disappeared. A. Maricq, “Notes SUP les Slaves dans le PtloponnCse ct en Bithynie,”
Europe, to the theme of Opsicion,260and i n 692 he was able to raise a Byzantion, X X I I (1952), 348-349, commented that in fact Justinian did not exterminate
*a1 Charanis, “Ethnic Changes,” p. 35. the whole colony, for such reasoning neglects the exaggeration with which it is always
252 Constantine Porphyrogenitus, D e C a e r b m i i s , I, 652, 655-657. necessary to reckon in narratives of this type. Therefore the testimony of Theophanes
a6316id., pp. 666-667, but it is not clear whether they were settled there, or simply as to the complete disappearance of this Slavic settlement must be discounted as the
assembled and paid with the -viy[ycIcnaTfjs ’Avcrrohij~. exaggeration of a medieval chronicler. Ostrogorsky, Gescliiclite, I 10, has rejected
254 Ibid., p. 666. Charanis, “Ethnic Composition,” pp. 142-143. Theophanes’ testimony on the extermination of this group as being an exaggeration.
a55 Charanis, “Ethnic Changes,” p. 30. However he does accept the numbers of Theophanes, I, 432, of a slightly later Slavic
250 Theophanes Continuatus, I I Q, I 24-125. Symeon Magister, 625-627,647. Cedrenus, settlement as being exact and accurate figures. Whether one interprets Theophanes
11, 1 3 1 . Vasiliev, Eyzmceet les Arabes, I, 92-93, 124-126. There existed a mosque in ninth- literally or makes allowance for exaggeration, the Slavic settlement under Justinian I1
century Ephesus (Ibn Khuradadhbih, B.G.A., VI, 106);in tenth-eleventh century Athens was a considerable one, but at the same time it must have been greatly depleted if not
(G. Miles, “The Arab Mosque in Athens,” Hesperia, XXV (1956), 3zg-344), as well as in exterminated. It is possibly to the Slavs that the author of the life of St. Peter of Atroa
Constantinople. These were probably for Muslim captives, merchants, and inhabitants. refers by the phrase, ivQiJAia EOvq, Laurent, L a vita retracta et les miracles posthumes de
In the eleventh century the metropolitan of Ephesus h a d an interpreter for the Saracens Saint Pierre d’dtroa (Brussels, 1958),
.. . pp, 41-41.
(AS Nov., 54z), and he converted a Saracen in Ephesus. Aside from the settlcment of 261 Theophanes, r, 431.
Persians in ninth century Anatolia, and the settlement of the tribe of Banu Habih O n the exaggerated nature of the number, Charanis, “Ethnic Changes,” pp. 76-78.
(Canard, Hamdanides, I, 737-739), a Christian Arab monk is mentioned in an inscription Theophanes Continuatus, 50, refers to Thomas as of Slavic origin, though his origin
of onc of the Cappadocian troglodyte monasteries (de Jerphanion, Cajpadoce, II,, 243- is elsewhere said to have been Armenian, Charanis, “Ethnic Changes,” p. 79, n. 3. This
2 4 4 ) . These monasteries feature considerable pseudo-kufic decoration in their frescoes. -snurce
_ .... remarks on the continued existence of a Slavic element in Asia Mlnor. See also P.
Muslims are mentioned in the cities of Bithynia, Muslim merchants in Attaleia, Trebi- Lemerle, “Thomas le Slave,” Travaux et Mimoires, I (Paris, 1965), 257-297,
zond, Coloneia, Neocaesareia, Melitene, Tzarnandus, Caesareia, Ankara, and Nico- Constantine Porphyrogenitus, D e Caerimoniis, I, 622.
medeia (Honigmann, “Un itinhire,” pp. 263-270). AS Nov. 111, 590. Canard, a65 Ibid., p. 666, but on p. 669, he mentions that there were only 127 in the Opsicion
“Quelques’ ‘A-catt’ de l’histoire des rclations entre Byzance et les Arabes,” Studi theme. I n regard to the continuity of the Slavic settlements of the seventh and eighth
orientalistici in anore de Gioriio Leui Della Yida, I (Rome, I 956), 98-1 19. centuries the question has been raised whether these Sthlavesianoi were their descendants
257 There is an extensive literature on this subject, most recent of which are tlle follow- or not. I t i s difficult to answer this question from the text of Constantine Porphyrogenitus.
ing items. Charanis, “Transfer,” pp, 14.3-144; Charanis, “Ethnic Changes,” pp, 42-43. It is conceivable that these tenth-century Sthlavesianoi might have been moved from
OstrogorskY, Geschichte, pp. 108-109. Charanis, “Ethnic Composition,” pp. 141-142; ..
Europe and posted in the Opsicion theme. The text reads “ . OI ZBAapquiavoi 01 KaOi-
“The Slavic Element in Byzantine Asia Minor,” Byzantiotz, XVIII (1948), 69-83, and the u6dvTq ds -rb ’ O ~ ~ K I OIVt would
.” seem a little strange that a tenth-century author would
COmnentS of G. Soulis, E.E.E.2,, X I X (1949), 337-340. rcfer to them as KaeloOivTES if in fact they had been there since the seventh and eighth
2s8 Charanis, “Ethnic Changes,” p. 42. Theophanes, I, 348. centuries. Amantos, ZKAU~OI,~ K A a j h p a v o \ K a l p&ppapoi,” ~ ~ ~ K T IT?5 K &
*” Charanis, “Ethnic Changes,” p. 42, Theophanes, I, 364. ’AKaSqpIuS ’AOqvGv, V I I ( 1 9 3 2 ) 333-335.

50 51

text, for they furnished much smaller numbers of troops than the Arme- however, if these tenth- and eleventh-century groups were permanently
nians in western Anatolia. After this their presence is no longer noted, and settled in a n area, or were simply temporarily quartered in Anatolia during
it is quite probable that they were Christianized and Hellenized.200 the period of their military service. Contingents of Russ were sent to the
A group about which comparatively little is known, but which was regions of Trebizond i n the region of Romanus 1,271 and in the mid-
no doubt of commercial importance i n Anatolia, was that of the Jews. eleventh century one tagma of RLUShad their winter quarters in northeast
BY the time of the Roman Empire, the Diaspora of the Jews had resulted Anatolia, as did two tagmata of The eleventh-century docu-
in Jewish establishments in over sixty Anatolian cities and towns.267 ments list a bewildering variety of ethnic military groups in thc various
From the seventh to the eleventh centuries there are references to Jews i n provinces ofthe empire-Russians, Kulpings, English, Normans, Germans,
Nicaea (tenth century), Abydus (10961, Pylae (eleventh century), Bulgars, Saracens, Georgians, Armenians, Albanians, Scandinavians, and
Ephesus (eleventh century), Mastaura in the regions of the Maeander other^.^'^ I t is very dificult to ascertain the numbers of these groups,
(eleventh ‘century), Amorium (ninth century), Cappadocia (seventh their location, and whether they were permanent or temporary settlers.
century), Neocaesareia (eighth century), and i n the border town of It was, however, the eastern regions of Byzantine Anatolia which
Zapetra (ninth century). Five more Anatolian towns are mentioned as contained the majority of the non-Greek populations-Kurds, Georgians,
having settlements of Jews during the twelfth and early thirteenth Lazes, Syrians, and Armenians. The eastern expansion of the tenth and
centuries, and it is probable that Jews had lived in some of these towns eleventh centuries incorporated areas into the empire which were non-
even earlier. Theseinclude Chonae (c. I 150), Strobilus (eleventh century), Greek in speech and non-Chalcedonian. The Kurds were numerous in
Seleuceia ( I I37), Trebizond ( I I ~ o ) and
, Gangra (1207).208 The reference such regions as Amid, Mayaferrikin, Chliat, Manzikert, Ardjish, and in
to the Jews in these Anatolian towns is quite important, especially when the regions to the northeast of Lake Van. 274 Georgians and Lazes were
one recalls the Constantinopolitan nature of the Byzantine sources. I t is to be found in the southeastern districts of the Black Sea coast. Of these
highly probable that there were many more such towns but they simply eastern peoples i n eleventh-century Anatolia, the most important were
have not been mentioned. In most cases they must have been in direct line the Syrians and the Armenians. In the tenth century the emperor
of descent from the communities founded during the Diaspora, though a Nicephorus Phocas, i n an effort to revive the city of Melitene which had
number of arrivals probably entered the empire during the late tenth been incorporated as a result of‘ the Byzantine reconquest years earlier,
century, following the Byzantine expansion to the east and the religious asked the Syrian Jacobite patriarch to repeople the areas of Melitene and
persecutions of the eleventh-century caliph al-Hakim.2Bg These Jews were
Hanazit with Syrians and to establish his patriarchal seat in that area.
settled primarily in the towns along the great roads of Anatolia along
I n this manner an extensive emigration of Jacobite Syrians to these
which flowed the commerce of the empire, and it is clear that they were
regions took place. By the eleventh century they seem to have come in
actively engaged in commerce and the crafts. There is, however, no
considerable numbers and possessed bishoprics in a large number of the
indication as to their numbers.2’0
eastern and southeastern towns: Zapetra, Tell Patriq, Simnadu, Saroug,
The Practice of settling foreign military contingents (Mardaites, Slavs, Mardin, Gcrmaniceia (Marash), Laqabin, Hisn Mansur, Goubbos,
Armenians, and Persians from the seventh through the ninth century) in Gaihan-Barid, Callisura, Mayefarrilcin, Arabissus, Melitene, Anazarba,
Anatoh not only continued in the tenth and eleventh centuries, but the Tarsus, Amid, Edessa, Kaisum, Nisibis, Tell Arsanias, Claudia, Hisn
military troops settled increased in ethnic variety, I t is not always clear, Ziad, Caesareia (at least by the twelfth century if not earlier), Samosata,
esoF.Dvornik, Les Slaves, Bjzunce et Rome (Paris, 1gz6), p. 103. Charanis, “Ethnic and Gargar. They spread as far north as the Armenian town of Erzindjan
Cbanges,” pp. 78-82. Vryonis, “St. Ioannicius the Great (754-846) and the ‘Slavs’ of
Rithynia,” Bymittion, XXXI (1961), 245-248. where they possessed a monastery. Active i n Anatolian commerce, from
zo7 J. Juster, Les Juys dans l’embire romain (Paris, 1 9 1 4 )I,
~ 188-194. which they acquired considerable wealth, the radius of their caravans
See the basic work of Starr, The Jews,pnssim. Ankori, Keraites,passim. A. Andreades,
“Les Juifs et le fisc dans l’empire byzantin,” Mdlarges Charles Diehl (Paris, 1930)~I, 7-29; comprehended the lands of the Turks in the east and i n the west
‘‘Oi‘EPpcilolhT@ PV[WTIU@ K P ~ E I , ”E.E.B.E.,VII (1927),3-23. Ahrweiler, “Smyrne,”
p. 20. Chronique de Denys de Tell-Mahe, trans. J. 13. Chabot (Paris, 1895), p. 24. Beneievid, 271 Papadopoulos-Kerameus, 1st. trap. in!., pp. 40 ff.
“K istorii Evreev v Vizantii VI-X v.,” Eureiskii Miysl, I1 (1gr6), 197-224, 305-318, was z7a Cedrenus, 11, 624-625. The Normans Roussel and Herve had their estates in Asia
not available to. mp Minor. Eleventh-century Edessa had 1,000 Latins, and the Armenian adventurer
aoo Ankori, Keraites, p. 167. Philaretus based his political activity in Cilicia on a force of 8,000 Latin mercenaries in
”’ Starr, The Jews, pp. 27-30, Figures are given for the Jewish communities of the the eleventh century:
Balkan lands of the empire in the twelfth century by Benjamin of Tudela. The early tax 273 G. Rouillard and P. Collomp, Actes de Laura (Paris, I937), I, 83,. I I I.
registers for Ottoman Anatolian show almost no Jewish population at all in the sixteenth e 7 4 Minorsky, “Kurds,” EI1. For the Merwanids of Dlyarbeklr in the tenth and
century, see chapter vii. eleventh centuries, H. P. Amedroz, “The Marwinid Dynasty a t MaylfLriqin in the
Tenth and Eleventh Centuries,” J.R.A.S. (~gos),pp. 123-245.


Constantinople itself. They were also important as physicians and in


Finally in 1064 Gagik-Abas of Kars received lands in Tzamandus,

the translation of the Greek texts.276 Larissa, Amaseia, and C ~ r n a n a Though
. ~ ~ ~ large-scale emigrations are
The most significant movement of peoples into the Anatolian provinces specifically mentioned in only two instances, it must be assumed that all
ofthe empire was, however, that which brought in the Armenians during these princes and nobles were accompanied by considerable numbers of
the tenth and eleventh centuries. This transplanting of large numbers of followers. So extensive was the number of Armenians in this diaspora that
Armenians is closely connected wilh the Byzantine eastern expansion and by the middle of the eleventh century there wcre three Armenian military
the somewhat later western movement of the Seljuks. As a result of these corps stationed i n the cities of Sebasteia, Melitcne, and Tephrice.284 One
two converging forces, Byzantium annexed Taron (968), Taiq ( IOOO), of the principal Byzantine sources of the eleventh century Michael
Vaspuracan ( I O Z I ) , Ani (I045-46), Kars (1064). The expansion of I Attaliates remarks, ‘(the Armenian heretics have thronged into Iberia,
Byzantium into the east was accompanied by a large-scale emigration of Mesopotamia, Lycandus, Melitene, and the neighboring places.”285
Armenian princes, nobles, and their retinues to the lands of the empire. Michael the Syrian confirms this in remarking that once Senecherim-
There had previously existed settlements of Armenians in these provinces Hovhannes had been installed in Sebasteia, the Armenians “spread
between Tephrice and Melitene, and the Armeno-Byzantine general throughout Cappadocia, Cilicia, and Syria.”28o
Melias had organized the newly formed theme of Lycandus in the early
tenth century and colonized it with Armenians. As a result of the
Byzantine conqucst of Cilicia and northern Syria, the government As important as the ethnic configuration of eleventh-century Anatolia
brought large numbers of Armenian colonists to both regi0ns.~7~ The and, in a sense, more dificult to reconstruct, is the religious and sectarian
newer emigrants were often posited upon the older stratum of Armenian picture of the peninsula. The history of the Byzantine church in Anatolia
population. In the tenth century the Taronites family received cstates in as well as a comprehensive history of Anatolian heresies and their
Celt~ene;~~’ the nobility of Taiq, after its absorption, acquired lands at significance remain to be written. Paradoxically, Anatolia was at the
Labaca, Arnasaciou, and Martisapao in the theme of Armeniacon (also same time the strength of the Orthodox church during the period between
at Ani, Tais, T z o ~ r r n e r e )In ~ ~ Basil I1 transplanted the population
. ~ IOZI the seventh and the eleventh centuries, and also the nest of a number of
of Baaean to Chaldia,279and with the annexation of Vaspuracan, there smaller and larger heresies. The Greek church of history is in a sense the
took place a significant emigration of Armenians. When Senecherim- church of Asia Minor.287
Hohvannes and his son David received landed possessions in Sebasteia, Christianity, brought by such distinguished preachers as Paul and John
Larissa, Abara, Caesareia, Tzamandus, and Gabadonia in the theme of
Cappadocia, they were accompanied by 14,000 men (and presumably by
1 of the Apocalypse, spread to hnatolia very early, and, up to the period
of the first ecumenical council, it was, next to Egypt, the Christian land
their families).280 In 1045-46 Gregory Bahlavouni exchanged his lands for KaT’ C ~ O X ~ V Hellenism
. had spread on a significant scale in Asia h/finor,
estates in the province of Byzantine MesopotamiazB1and in the same year and in many provinces local culture, the ethnic languages, and memories
Kakig of Ani gave up his kingdom and settled within the empire, acquiring of ancient independence were so weak that they offered little resistance to
estates in the themes o f Cappadocia, Lycandus, and Charsianon.z82 Christianization. The presence of the large number of Jewish communities,
a’a Michael the Syrian, 111, 130-146, 160. Bar Hebraeus, I, 169-178, 204. Honigmann, the mixing of Judaism and paganism in thought, the spread of Greek as a
“Malatiya,” EII. Chabot, “Les bvbques jacobites du VIIIe au XIIIe sitcle d’aprts la universal medium of communication were all factors that prepared the
chronique de Michel le Syrien,” R.O.C.,IV (1899), 443-451, 495-511; V (‘goo), 605-
G3G; VI ( I ~ o I )189-219.
, region for a new religious syncretism. Though there were significant
J, Laurent, Byzance at 1es Tiircs seldjoucides dans C’Asie occidentalejusqu’en 1081 (Nancy- religious cults in Anatolia, they were not serious obstacles to the pene-
Paris-Strasbourg, ~grg),pp. zg, 71..R. Grousset, Hislorie de l’drtnenie des origines ci 1071
(Paris, 19471, PP. 489,529. Asohk, Hutoire ztniuerseEle, trans. F. Maeler (Paris, 186g),II, 1 4 2 .
tration of Christianity.288 The Christianity that emerged in Anatolia,
2 7 7 Cedrenus, 11, 375. Grousset, A m e n i r , p. 492.

*lB I-Ionigmann, Die Oslgrenze des byzantitizschen Reiches uon 363 bis 1071 nach griechischen,
arabischen, syrischen und armenischen Quellen (Brussels, I 935), pp. 222-226. Cedrenus, 11, Grousset, Armenie, p. 616. Matthew of Edessa, p. 126. Honigmann, Oslgret~re,p.
447-448. I 88.O n the general absorption of the Armenian east, A. hkulian, EinuerleiDur~gannenisclren
Grousset, Armenie, p. 548. Territorien durch Byznnt iin XI. Jnhrhrmdert; ein Beitrag zur vorseldsclutken Periode der armenische
”’ I-Ionigmann, Oslgrenze, p. 173. Grousset, Armenie, p. 553. Michael the Syrian, 111, Geschichle (1912)~-
133. Aristaltes of Lazdivert, Histoire d’drmenie, trans. Prud’homme (Paris, 1864) pp. 284 Laurent, Byzance et les TWCS, p. 33. Cedrenus, 11, 626.
32-38 (hereafter cited as Aristakes). Cedrenus, 11, 4 6 4 Attaliates, 97.
Aristakes, pp. 32-38. Grousset, Armenie, p. 580. Dolger, Regestert, I,, no. 873. ISG Michael the Syrian, 111, 133.
la* Grousset, Armenie, p. 581. Cedrenus, 11, 557-559. Honigmann, Oslgrenze, pp. 168, 287 Harnack, D i e Mission, 11, 734.
175. Matthew of Edessa, p. 78. 288 Ibid., pp. 732-733.

54 55

however, bore the marks of t h e absorptive process. O n the one hand, heresy), Lycaonia, and the environs.293 This Phrygian heresy
because Hellenism was the dynamic culture of the peninsula Hellenism continued to exist for a number of centuries, though its vigor seems to have
and Christianity fused, as is evidenced i n the philosophy and theology of been spent early.294The sect is mentioned in the laws of Justinian I,
the Cappadocian fathers. On the other hand, though paganism seems to and Procopius records that during the general persecution or heretics by
have been effaced without too great a struggle, in disappearing it re- that emperor, the Montanists of Phrygia locked themselves in their
appeared within the Many of the significant developments churches and set them afire, destroying both themselves and the
and struggles of the early church had appeared in Anatolia: the contest edifice~.~~5A sect that bore the name Montanist existed in the early
between the itinerant and local organization of the church, the struggle eighth ccntury, a t which time its members refused to be converted and
with gnosticism, the rise of monasticism, and the development of the baptized in consonance with the decree of Leo I11 (72 1-722), and so once
metropolitan-episcopal structure. Asia Minor also witnessed a strong more they locked themselves in their religious buildings and consigned
development in the cult of the relics. themselves to the The sect had by then probably become
In the first century of the Christian era, Christian communities arose insignificant .2s7
in such towns as Pcrge, Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Derbe, Lystra;
Bardy, “Montanisme,” I).T.C., pp. 2358-2370. Calder, in a most suggestive article,
in the regions of Galatia, Cappadocia, and Bithynia; in Ephesus, Colossae, “The Epigraphy of the Anatolian Ilercsies,” in Anatolian Studies Presented to Sir William
Laodiceia, Phrygian Hierapolis, Smyrna, Pergamum, Sardes, Phila- Ramsay (London, I 923), 59-91 (hereafter cited as “Epigraphy,”), has described a n inter-
delpheia, Thyateira, Troas, Tralles, Magnesia ad Maeandrum, and esting group of Greek Christian inscriptions from Phrygia which date from the late second
and the third century. These inscriptions included a number that are addressed as follows,
others.200 A continuing expansion is observable in the second century,291 Xpeioriavoi XpElomavois, Christians to Christians. According to Calder this is almost
and by the third and fourth centuries Christianity had not only won over unique, for Christian tombstones revealing so openly the rcligious afiliation of the deceased
belong to the postpersecution era. Prcvious to the period of toleration, with the exception
the Hellenes and Hellenized of the towns but had begun to absorb the of Rome, Christians did not dare to reveal so openly their religious identity. Therefore
cults of the rural areas. All this is reflected in the complex network of the unique appearance of these second and third century inscriptions is due to the activity
of the Montanists in Phrygia. Calder repeats his ideas in “Philadelphia and Montanism,”
bishoprics and chorespiscopates established on Anatolian soil by the
B.J.R.L., V I I (1923), 25-38. Grtgoire, who formerly accepted this view, had more
church. Paganism did not completely disappear, and even when it did recently, Les Pkrsecutions (1951), p. 18, denied that thcse Christian epitaphs are to be
vanish as the accepted or dominant religion of a particular locality, it attached to the Montanists. H e declared them to have been the work of “phancro-
chrttiens,” as opposed to Crypto-Christians. Though Calder has not proved his point
quite possibly entrenched itself in some one of the heretical or schismatic conclusively, one is nevertheless imprcssed by the striking coincidence of the dating of the
sects that arose over much of the early Christian world. Some of the sects inscriptions, their uniqueness in the Christian world, and their chronological coincidence
with the appearance of the Montanists. H e goes on to generalize (“Epigraphy,” p. 64),
were indigenous to Anatolia, others were imports from different areas of that these inscriptions also bear witness to a sectarian struggle in central Phrygia in this
the em~ire.2~2 period. By that time the Phrygian heretical movement had been defeated by the church
The most important of these early indigenous Anatolian heresies was in central Phrygia, a n area teeming with Hellenized towns. So the heresy at the beginning
of the third century turned north toward the more rural regions of the Tembris valley,
that of Montanism. Founded in the second half of the second century by a n area he assumes to have been only slightly affected by I-Iellenism. J. G. C. Anderson,
Montanus (according to tradition a converted pagan priest, and possibly “Paganism and Christiantity in the Upper Tembris Valley,” Studies in the History atid Art of
the Ensterit Prouinces of the Emlire (Aberdeen, 1906), pp. 183-227.
even a former priest: of Cybele), the heresy seems to have incorporated m‘1 Two sixth-century inscriptions were found which shed some light on the hierarchical
certain religious characteristics generally (though not exclusively) structure of the sect, GrCgoire, “Du nouveau sur la hierarchic de la secte montaniste,”
associated with the regions of Phrygia. These included a particular Byzantion, I1 (1925), 329-336. Caldcr and Grtgoire, “Paulinus, K O I V W V ~ de ~ Stbaste de
Phrygia,” Acndimie royale de Belgique, Biilletiii de la clnsse des lettres et des sciences morales e t
emphasis on the role of ecstatic prophecy, as well as the general emotional politiques, 5c ser., X X X V I I I (1952)~
206 Cod. Imt., I. v. 20. Procopius, Atiacdota, XI. 14. 23.
or “enthusiastic” approach to religion. The heresy apparently spread most
a g o Theophanes, I, 401.
effectively in Phrygia (it was known as the Phrygian or Cataphrygian 20’ The use of the term Montanist survived, however, in thc archaism so prevalent in

Byzantine literary and intellectual monuments. I t would be difficult to prove that its
recurrence in later years was anything more than a n archaism. I t is repeated in the
2En Ibid., pp. 734. Ecloga of Leo I11 and Constantine V where Manichees and Montanists are condemned
2so {bid., pp. 735-736. to perish by the sword, XVIII. 52 (Zepos, J.G.R., II,61), where it would seem to apply to
281 Sinope, Philomelium, Parium, Nacoleia, Amastris (and other churches of Pontus),
actual conditions. In the eleventh century it is used by a scholiast to denote someone who
Hieropolis, and possibly Ankara, Otrus, Pepuza, Tymium, Apamaea, Comana, Eumenea. has left Judaism. Starr, The Jews, pp. 177-178. For further confusion of Jews and
Ibid., pp. 737-738. Montanists in the eighth century, Starr, The Jews, p. 92. Gouillard, “L’htrtsie,” Travnux
For an introduction to Anatolian heresies, J. Gouillard, “L’htrtsie dans l’empire et Mimoires I, 309-310. They are mentioned in canon 95 of the Council in Trullo (692)
byzantin des origines au XUe sitcle,” Trauaw et Mkmoires, I (Paris, 1965), 299-324; as Phrygians. Some scholars feel that by the ninth century what remained of the sect
“Le synodikon de I’Orthodoxie: Cdition et commentaire,” Travaux et Mkmoires, I1 may well have merged with the Paulicians. Charanis, “Ethnic Changes,” p. 27. A.
(19671, 1-316. Scharf, “The Jews, thc Montanists, and the Emperor Leo 111,”B.Z., L I X (1966), 37-46,
indicates that these eighth-century “Montanists” were actually a Jewish messianic sect.
The ecclesiastical authors a n d inscriptions of the fourth and fifth I! Thus Byzantine Anatolia had, by the time of the losses to the Arabs of
centuries mention numerous less well-known and smaller heresies that t
Syria, Egypt, and North Africa, enjoyed a respectable history of heresy.
had appeared in Anatolia, in the regions of Cilicia, Pisidia, Phrygia, I One is struck by the number of sects and also by the continuity of heresy in
Paphlagonia, and Lycaonia. These included Catharioi, Encratitai,
Saccophoroi, Apostatitai, Tatianoi, Hypsistarioi, Euchitai, Novatians, and
ii certain parts of Anatolia, but opinion has varied as to the degree the
Anatolian population was heretical or orthodox. I t is a question that can-
0thers.2~8 Of these the more important, the Euchitai and Novatians, were
examples of nonindigenous heresies, heresies that had entered Anatolia
not be answered definitively. Certainly in the third, fourth, and fifth
centuries heresies were numerous and common throughout many of the
from points farther east and west respectively. It would be a mistake to 1. lands where Christianity was establishing itself, including Syria, Egypt,
think of Byzantine Anatolia as the spawning ground of the majority of and Asia Minor, but also North Africa, Italy, and other parts of the
those heresies that eventually made their appearance there. The Western world as well. One must view the presence of heresies in Asia
Novatian schism, begun in third-century Rome, made its way to Anatolia Minor at this time partially against this background. On the other hand
where its rigorist doctrines may have h a d some appeal to a portion of the some of these heresies (Montanism, Novatianism, and Messalianism)
inhabitants. Novatians are mentioned i n Paphlagonia, in the towns of seem to have persevered longer and to have left a more marked coloring
Cyzicus, Nicomedia, Nicaea, Cotyaeum, Ankara, and they came to be on subsequent Anatolian heresies.
particularly strong in Plirygia and Paphlagonia, possibly due to the fact T o what degree the presence of heresy can be related to the survival
that they built on top of the remnants of much of the Montanist heresy.z9g of non-Greek languages is yet one more of those “dificult” problems.
They seem to disappear by the eighth century, a t least in the sources. i The principle h a d been enunciated by Holl (and subsequently followed
The Euchitai (Messalians), so-called because of the preponderant by others) that the heresies in Anatolia were toughest to cradicate in
emphasis that they placed upon prayer at the expense of certain sacra- i those areas where the Anatolian languages survived longest. Thus, he
ments, apparently originated in the Mesopotamian region of Osrhoene, I
stated, the heretical sects found support in the local languages.303This is
and by the second half of the fourth century entered Anatolia. During the I
1 so general a statement that i t glosses over many important points. First,
course of the fourth and fifth centuries, the heresy appeared in Lycaonia, , all surviving tombstones of Anatolian heretics are i n thc Greek language.
Pamphylia, Lycia, Cappadocia, and Pontus. But its later history is
veiled in obscurity, and whether the use of the term in the elcventh
century is archaistic, or due to the fact that the later sects were in some
way similar to the Messalians, or due to the actual continuity of the
And yet, earlier pagan tombstones have survived which have been in-
scribed in Phrygian. Why then, have none of the carly heretical Christian
inscriptions, including those of the Montanists, been inscribed in one of the
indigenous Anatolian tongues ? If, in fact, Holl’s dictum were strictly valid
original sect, is not clear.300 i
one would have expected to find epigraphical testimonial to this con-
The great heresy of Mani also made its appearance in fourth-century
Cappadocia, Paphlagonia, and Lydia.so1 Later Anastasius I and Justinian
jectured relation between the survival of heresy and that of indigenous
languages. Obviously many of the pagan Anatolians were Greek-speaking
I took severe measures against the heresy, and by the eighth century the (prior to their conversions to Christianity), and so wcrc great numbers of
term is used to describe other similar dualistic movements, in particular I
Christian heretics. The process of Hellenization had been operative for a
that of the PauIicians.302
1 long time previous to the birth of the Christian religion. I t is virtually
impossible to substantiate Holl’s thesis that the heretical and linguistic
2 0 8 For a detailed description of the inscriptions and the literary sources see Calder, i lines i n central and western Asia Minor coincided to any significant
“Epigraphy,” passim; C. Bones, “What are the Heresies Combatted in the Work of 1 extent.So4I t is quite possible or even probable, however, that an indigenous
Amphilochius, Metropolitan of Iconium (c. 341-345-c. 395-400) ‘Regarding Falsc
Asceticism’ ” The Greek Orthodox TheoloEical Review, IX ( I 963), 79-96; Holl, Amphiloclrius sect such as the Montanists, and nonindigcnous sects such as the Mani-
van Ikonium in &em Vedallnis zzi den grossen Kafpadoriem (Tiibingen-Leipzig, I 904), pp. chaeans and Messalians, had a marked effect on the subsequent religious
23 ff.As late as the ninth century there is mention of Nestorians (whether they refer to the
fifth-century Christological heretics i s not clear) in the villages at the foot of Mt. Olympus
of Bithynia. Laurent, La uie merueilleuse de Saint Pierre d’dtroa 037 (Brussels, 1 9 5 6 ) p.
~ 66. Holl, “Das Fortleben der Volkssprachen,” p. 253.
A. Amann, “Novatiens,” D.T.C., pp. 816-849. 304The Cappadocian speakers in the flock of St. Basil were Christianized long bcfore
‘O0 Bareille, “Euchaites,” D.T.C., pp. 1455-1465. the Greek-speaking population of the southern Peloponrlese who were converted only in
E. dc Stoop, E d sir le dtJiusion du ManichPisme dans l’enzpire romain (Gand, I SOB), I the ninth century. Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De. A d m Imp., trans. R. J. H. Jenkins, p.
pp. 63-69, He mentions the heresies of t h e Priscillians and Eustathians in Asia Minor. I 237; “The inhabitants of the city of M a h a are not of the race of the aforesaid Slavs, but
of the ancient Romans, a n d even to this day they are called ‘Hellenes’ by the local in-
‘Oa Papadopoulos-Kerameus, A.I.2, IV, 382, for mention of a wandering Manichee in
the region of Prusa in the first half of the ninth century. G. Bardy, “Manichbisme,”
D.T.C., pp. 1841-1895. ! habitants, bccausc in the very ancient times they were idolaters and were worshippers of
images after the fashion of the ancicnt Hellenes; a n d they were baptized and became
Christians in the reign of the glorious Basil.”

development in Anatolia and that they left a rich legacy which was The Paulician heresy had also appeared in parts of Anatolia farther
partially incorporated by later sectaries. to the west. In the upheavals among the members of the Paulician com-
Heresy in Asia Minor during the middle Byzantine period is closely munity, one of their leaders, a certain Joseph, moved to Chortocopaeum
linked first with the Pauliciaiis (and to a lesser extent with the Athinganoi in the vicinity of Pisidian Antioch in the first half of the eighth century.300
and Iconocla~ts)~~5 and then in the eleventh century above all with the The Paulicians of western Anatolia survived as a sect for a considerable
Monophysites. The Paulician heresy, having entered Anatolia from period, and they appear in the hagiographical literature of the tenth and
Armenia, would seem to fit much more closely the paw$ that Holl has eleventh centuries. St. Paul the Younger (d. 955) removed the most
suggested in the relationship of national language and heresy, though important and dangerous of these “Manichaeans” from the districts of
even here it would be wrong to describe it as a “national” heresy, for the the Cibyrrheote theme and Miletus.31a A century later St. Lazarus of
Armenian church fought this sect (as well as that of the Thondralti) with Galesium converted a village of heretics in the bishopric of Philetis (under
as much energy and violence as did the Byzantine Further, Myra), and though the heretics are not mentioned by name, their
Once the heresy entered Byzantine territory i t also attracted segments of geographical location (identical with that of the Manichaeans of St. Paul
the Greek population. By the mid-ninth century the sect was strongly the Younger) and the fact that St. Lazarus converted a Paulician in his
established as a border principality in the regions of Melitene, Tephrice, own monastery311 would seem to indicate that these heretics were also
Pontic Phanaroia, and C ~ l o n e i a . ~After
~ ’ the destruction of their state by Paulicians. As late as the tenth century the Paulicians were numerous in
Basil I, the Paulicians abandoned many of these regions and sought the regions of Euchaita wherc they seem to have caused the metropolitan
refuge farther to the east. I t was not untiI the region of John Tzimisces considerable
that the Byzantine eastward drive incorporated sufficient numbers of The history of the Paulicians of Byzantine Anatolia becomes compli-
them to cause further concern. At this later date many of them were cated and obscure in the eleventh and twelfth centuries with the appear-
transplanted to T h r a ~ e . ~ ~ ~ ance of the term “Bogomil” in the lexicography of the Greek theologians
3D5 Starr, “An Eastern Sect, the Athinganoi,” Haruard Theological Review, X X I X ( I 936),
and historians. Euthymius, a monk from a Constantinopolitan monastery,
93-106. records that he had bcen present a t a trial of certain heretics in Acmonia
The appealance of a considerable literature on the Paulicians in the postwar era of Phrygia sometime between 976 and 1025.H e relates that these sectaries
indidates that the interest in this heretical sect has, if anything, increased. The best guide
to this literature is to be found in the studies of M. Loos, “Oh en est la question du were known by two names: i n the theme of the Opsicion they were called
mouvement paukien?” Izuulia tia inslitula za isloriia, XIV-XV (1964), 357-371 ; “Gnosis Phundagiagitai, but in the Cibyrrheote they went by the name of
und mittelalterlicher Daulismus,” Listy Filulugicke, X C (1967), 116-1 27; “Zur Frage des
Paulikianismus und Bogomilismus,” Byzanlinische Beitrage, ed. J. Irmscher (Berlin, 1964),
pp. 313-333; “Le mouvement paulicien ?t Byzance,” B.S., XXIV (1963), 258-286; XXV 309 Runciman, Manichee, p. 35. Theophanes, I, 488, possibly indicates that they were to

(1964), 52-68; “Deux contributions A l’histoire des Pauliciens. I . A propos des sources be found in Phrygia and Lycaonia in the carly ninth century where along with the Athin-
grecques rkflktant des Pauliciens,” E.S., XVII (1956), 19-37; 2 . “Origine d u nom des ganoi they appear as the befriended of Nicephorus I.
Pauliciens,” B.S., XVIII (1957), 2 0 2 - 2 17. R . M. Bartikian, Zstznik dlia izGeer2iia islorii 310 I. Sirmondi, “Vita S. P a d Iunioris,” A.B., XI ( I @ ) , 156, “ ’ A T T ~ ~ E ITGV
dpqpkvov al ~mCrTGV pavlxalwv a h o G a~row6al.dv -robs BntaqpodpovS K a l T+
pavlikianskogo dviienia (Erevan, 1961), reviewed by Loos in B.S., XXIV (1963), 135-141.
PAC~~TEIV -rriBavwTBpous, TQV dplwv K i ~ w ~ ~ a i b T-r6 o u~ q p iKal M I ~ ~ ~ T OpLaJp &
In this, and other studies (“Petr Citseliiskii i ego istoriia Pavlikian,” V.V., X V I I [1961],
~KTET~TIKE.” The use of the word Manichee is archaistic and by this time it came to sig-
323-358; “K voprosu o pavlikianskom dviienii v pervoi polovine VIII v,,” V.V., V I I I nify Paulician, Theophanes, I, 488, “TO, 66 MaviXaLwv, TGV vijv llavhlKlavGv
[1956], 127-131) he discusses among other things the Armenian sources and the reasons KaAowpBvwv.” Also, Grumel, Regislres, Ia, 223.
behind the westward movement of the Paulicians in the eighth century. See also his 311 AS Nov. 111, 5 1 z, 543. The saint’s life gives a vivid picture of the heretics’ hatred for
“Eretiki Arevordi (Syna Solntsa) v Armenii i Mesopotamii i poslanie armianskogo the Orthodox. They are described as a numerous group with their center in one of the
katolikosa Nersesa Blagodanogo,” in Ellinisiiieskii Bli&ii Vosiok, Vizanliia i Iratz (Moscow, mountain villages.
1967),pp. 102-1 12. S. Runciman, The Medieual Mcniclzee (Cambridge, 1955)~places the 312 This emerges from a letter of the mid-tenth century addressed to Philothcus, mctro-
Paulicians in the broader movement of dualistic heresies throughout the late ancient politan of that city (Darrouzb, &pistoliers, pp. 274-176). The sender of the letter, Theodore,
and medieval periods. Further literature includes, J. E. Lipsie, ” I “Pavlikianskoe dvLenie v metropolitan of Nicaea, opens by remarking that he sympathizes with the condition of
Vizantii v VIII i pervoi polovine I X v.,” V.V,, V ( 1 9 5 s ) ~49-72; Ozerki islorii uizaniiiskogo Philotheus. The latter’s condition, or rather that of his ecclesiastical district, is the presence
obsceslua z’ krtliury (VIIIperuia polouina IX v . ) ) (Moscow-Leningrad, 1961), pp. 166 ff. F.
of heretics, ‘%I 66 uoi rhqebs alpmG6v-rwv -rrapowai&aav-rl 71-poumAdtoaoa . . .”
Scheidweiler,“Paulikianer-probleme,”E.Z., X L I I I ( I gso), I 0-39. Grkgoire, “PrCcisions,” Theodore then lists the necessary procedures for recciving into the Orthodox Church,
Arians, Macedonians, Sabbatians, Novatians, Aristeroi, Tessareskaidekatitai, Apolli-
PP. 189-324; “Autour des Pauliciens,” Byzanlion, XI (1936), 610-614; “Les sources de
narians, Eunomians, Montanists, Sabellians, Jacobitcs, and Panlinislai. Without going
l’histoire dcs PauliCiens, Pierre d e S i d e est authentiquc et Photius un faux,” Billleiin dc into all of these, it would seem that Theodore is simply repeating an age old procedure
l’ficodhie de Be&/fle, XXII ( 1 936), 95-1 14; “Pour I’histoire des kglises pauliciennes,” without specific reference to conditions at Euchaita. However the phrase, “, . . K a l
O.C.P.,XI11 (1947), 509-514. K. Ter-Mkrttschian, Die Paulikianer i m byzanlirziscltetl
TO~OWS & ~p,i d v UOI 6 -rrA~iwvh6yos,” indicates that Philotheus
61) -rob< - r r a u h ~ v ~ m m
Kaiwreich u t d uerwtndte Erscheinungen in &&en (Leipzig, I 893).
had written at length to Theodore about the Paulinistai, and it is they who have caused
*” Rullciman, Maniche% pp. 35-39. Grkgoire, “PrCcisions,” pp. 291-297, him concern. No doubt .rrcrvhlvlmai (a fourth century sect) is an archaizing reference
308Runcin1an,Monicltee, p. 44. Cedrenus, 11, 382. Zonaras, 111, 52 1-522.
to .rravAlKlavol, Paulicians.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ iItl is~ possible

. 3 1 9 that these Phundagiagitai and Bogomils of probable that the Paulician tradition in Asian Minor played some role in
Anatolia were either the older Paulicians under a new name, or the movements variously referred to as Messalian and Bogomil at this
else they represent a mutation resulting from the grafting of Balkan later date.
Bogomilism onto the Paulician sect in a manner paralleling the relation The most important influx of heretical Christian populations occurred
of paulicianism and Bogomilism in the Balkans.314 In 1143 the Con- i n the latter part of the tenth and in the eleventh century. Thcse were
stantinopolitan synod condemned Clement of Sasima, Leontius of largely composed of Armenians and Syrian Monophysites, who came in to
Balbissa, and the monk Niphon for spreading Bogomil practices in the eastern Anatolian provinces as a result of the Byzantine policies of
Ca~padocia.3~~ The terms Bogomil and Messalian, however, had comc transferring populati0ns.~1’ I t is possible that the Thondraki may have
to be used as exact and interchangeable equivalents in the twelfth come i n at this time,318 and that heretical Jewish Keraites entered
century so that the question is once more obscured.310I n any case it is Anatolia in the tcnth century.310Attaliates remarked upon the influx of
Monophysites, relating that the Byzantine districts of Iberia, Mesopo-
318 G.Ficker, Die Phundogiagilen (Leipzig, rgo8), pp. 62-63. T h e twelfth-century metro-
politan George Tornices reports the presence of heretics in Ephesus. R. Browning, “The tamia, and Melitene were full of them.320The important city of Melitene
Speeches and Letters of Georgios Tornikes, Metropolitan of Ephesos (XIIth Century),” a n d its surrounding terrirories became the center of the Syrian Jacobites, \
&es du XII“ congris internntional d’lttudes byzarilines (Belgrade, 1964)~ 11, 424.
rlnD. Obolensky, in his very useful book, The Bogomils. A Study i n Balkan Neo- whereas the Armenians had come as far west as Cilicia, Cappadocia, and
fi[anichneistn (Cambridge, 1948), pp, 174 ff, concludes that as the heresy appears under a Armeniacon. The Monophysites constituted by far the majority of the
Bulgarian name (Bogomil) and at a comparatively late date (976-1025), and bccausc or
the possible Bulgarian origin of one of its propogandists (John Tzurillas) the heresy was heretical population of Byzantine Anatolia in the eleventh century, and,
brought to Anatolia by the Bulgars in the latter half of the tenth century. H e feels that of course, here linguistic differences coincidcd with heresy or religious
this was all the more likely because of the “close” connection between Bithynia and
Opsicion with the Balkan Slavs. T h e writings of Euthyrnius, Obolensky continues, describe
a fusion of Paulician and Messalian teachings, a fusion that characterized Bogolimism. The narrative at this point has focused on the two cardinal points of the
Thus the Bulgarian origin of the doctrines he attributes to John Tzurillas is confirmed by languages and religions of Byzantine Anatolia. As these were the salient
this double influence, Paulician and Messalian. For, he says, it was only in Thrace
(inhabitcd by Paulicans and Messalians) that such a fusion could have takcn place, and so aspects of cultural differentiation, it is by their definition that the cultural
Tzurillas must have brought these from Bulgarian lands. character of Anatolia can best be described. Unfortunately, many of the
This view, however, of the origins of the Bogomils and Phundagiagitai in weslern
Anatolia encounters certain obstacles. The term Phundagiagitai (carriers of a sack or pursc) smaller details of this cultural picture have disappeared. There is every
is not of Slavic origin (though the Slavic torbeski appears later in the Balkans), and there reason to believe that i n the late tenth and the early eleventh century,
is a good Anatolian precedent for this term in the so-called saccophoroi of the fifth century.
Though the word “Bogomil” is of Slavic origin, it is possible that the term came to be prior to the transplanting of the bulk of the Armenians and Syrians, Asia
applied to these Anatolian sects because of certain doctrinal similarities with the Bogomils Minor to the eastern portions of Cappadocia, Trebizond, and to the north-
of the Balkans. Byzantine usage OfhereticaI nomenclature had, by this time, become quite
loose. The comparatively late date (976-1025) of Euthymius’ reference to the Bogomils ern confines of Cilicia was predominantly Greek-speaking and of the
and Phundagiagitai in western Anatolia does not necessarily prove that because of the Chalcedonian rite. But Anatolia had not been so in late Roman and early
time sequence the doctrines entered the peninsula from Bulgaria. For if the Bogomils-
Phundagiagiati are in reality the Paulicians, they were present in western Anatolia much
Byzantine times. How, then, did such a cultural transformation come
earlier. Even the argument based on the supposition that a fusion of‘ Paulician and about ? The processes operative had, to a certain degree, come into being
Messalian doctrincs, which so characterized Bogornilism in the Balkans and the Bogomils before the foundation of the Byzantine Empire. Hellenism, either as a
and Phundagiagitai in Anatolia, could have taken place only in the Balkans is not at all
certain. Not only were the Paulicians present in western Asia Minor (from the eighth linguistic or institutional phcnomenon, had by the time OF Constantine I
through the eleventh century) but also the Messalians in Paphlagonia and Lycaonia in the existed in Anatolia in one form or another for over a millenium. During
first half of the eleventh century. Thus the fusion of Paulician and Messalian could have
taken place in Anatolia as well as in the Balkans (Grumel, Registres, 112, 263-264). the Hellenistic and Roman periods the Hellenic tradition had struck
Finally, to speak of “close” connections between Bulgaria and Bithynia-Opsicion in the profound roots i n Asia Minor and the local languages and cults were
eleventh century is to attribute to the eleventh century circumstances that may, or may
not, have existed in the eighth century.
”’ v,
R h a h and Potles, 80-9 I . Grumel, Regisires, I,, 88-93. Papadopoulos-Kerameus,
byzantin des I I C et I Z C sikcles,” B.S., X X V I I I (1967), 39-53, also shows reason to doubt
the Bogornil affiliations of these personages.
“BOyOIJlhlKd,” V.V., I1 (1895)~ 720-723. On this see the articles of Loos and Gouillard.
317 Vryonis, “Byzantium: T h e Social Basis of Decline in the Eleventh Century,”
R h a h and Potles, 11,531-532, speaks of the OQahEvTivcawol as “01 EfipEe6VTE5 KW&
d v Kaipbv TOG Ofi&Aevroy TOG pacrchBo5 Boydythoc, ~ ~ T OMaaahhlavoi,
I K a l Ehi-ral, G.R.B.S. XI (1g59), 169-173. Charanis, “The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire,”
xai ’Ev6outrracrral.” VI,408, “ l l ~ p l MccooaA~~GvTGV v$ poyovlhov.” Also, B.S., XXII (1961), 231-234.
v, 80. On this onomastic confusion in the tenth and eleventh centuries, H-C. Puech and 318 Bartikian, “Otvetnoe poslanie Grigoriia Magistra Pakhlavuni Siriiskomu Katoli-
A. Vaillant, Le trait4 contre les Bogomiles de C O ~ ~ le ~ QPrdlre
S (Paris, rg45), p. 293. The kosu,” P.S., VII (196z), 130-145.I<. N. Yuzbashian, “Tondralcitskoe dviienie v Armcnii
Sermon of the thirteenth-century patriarch, Germanus 11, on the Holy Cross and the i Pavlikiane.” Izu. A k a d . Nauk. Arm. SSR, no.% (1956), pp. 31-44. A-G. Ioanisian,
Bogomils does not specifically refer toBogomiIsin theNicaean Empire,P.G., CXL, 62 1-644. ‘‘Dvigenie f’ondrakitov v Armenii (IX-XI vv.),” voprosy Zslurii, no. 10 (1954), pp.
Rather it is a homily on the holiness of the cross and at the same time excoriating the I 00-108.
Bogomils because of their doctrine on the cross. Loos, “Certains aspects du Bogomilisme 31° Such at least is thc assertion of hnkori, Keraites, passim.
aao httaliates, 97.

strongly affected. By the time of Constantine I, Anatolian city life, within I n Anatolia the representatives of the government were largely Chal-
the above-described geographical boundaries, was largely Greek. The cedonian and most frequently Greek in tongue. Whether the Anatolian
native languages had either died, by the sixth century, or would soon provincial served in the local military levies, or in the local administration,
expire. o r went to the local courts for his business, or pursued learning and litera-
Christianity had also made considerable progress in Anatolia by the ture i n educational institutions-Greek was the usual language for the
time that Constantinople was founded. I t had come to be one of the most relevant transactions. T h e language of the church in Anatolia was largely
extensively Christianized of all the Roman provinces. Again it was in the Greek. The Greek language enjoyed the prestige attendant upon any
towns, apparently, that the new religion first spread and conquered. When language used almost exclusively by governmental, ecclesiastical, and
Christianity expanded it came into contact with two general cultural pedagogical institutions. I t was also the usual language of commercial
milieus. First, it encountered the Hellenic or Hellenized urban popu- intercourse, and consequently the peasants coming into the urban areas to
lation, and then, gradually, it spread to the less Hellenized, rural b u y and sell were also exposed to Greek. Undoubtedly, the church must
population. Though Hellenism had partially penetrated the rural areas, have contributed to the Hellenization of the rural areas, though here it is
these latter remained far less affected than the towns. I t was here, quite difficult to speak with certainty. From the bishoprics in the urban ccnters,
often, that the local cultural forms struggled the longest against both t h e Greek-speaking church of Anatolia spread its organization and doctrine
Hellenization and Christianization. The development of Christianity in into the rural areas. A. H. M. Jones has gone so far as to make the
Anatolia from the second to the sixth century reflects the product that seducing proposition that whereas it was the spread of the Hellenized
resulted when Christianity confronted these two cultural types, the urban type of urban center which Hellenized the cities and towns of Anatolia,
and the rural. In the case of the former, Hellenism and Christianity it was the church that completed the process in the rural areas and
fused, producing the Cappadocian fathers, Amphilochius of Iconium, finally presided over the extinction of some of the Anatolian tongues.321
and others. In the case of the latter, though Christianity triumphed in the The process of absorption and assimilation was constantly operative
rural areas, the local cultural traits on some occasions reappeared under these circumstances, though its success varied. I n the long run,
within triumphant Christianity. T h e most spectacular example of this however, the prevalence of these general conditions favorcd the victorious
phenomenon may perhaps be seen in the emergence o f Montanism, the progress of the dominant tongue and religion, Greek and Orthodoxy.
greatest of the early local Anatolian heresies. One may generalize that There are innumerable specific instances of its success which help to give
subsequent Anatolian history is to a certain degree characterized by these a general picture of its effect on the non-Greek non-Chalcedonians.
two traditions right up to the eleventh century-the Hellenic tradition as Perhaps the most impressive recorded example of the church’s success is
typified by the Cappadocians, and the local heretical tradition exemplified what John the sixth-century bishop of Ephesus has described in his
by Montanism. But the point has already been made that this is a great Ecclesiastical History. During the reign of Justinian I, John had been
oversimplication of the problem and stands in need of rigorous qualifi- appointed to missionize among the pagans residing in the provinces of
cation. Though this Christianizing process did absorb local cultural Asia (Ephesus), Caria, Plirygia, and Lydia. H e began his Christianizing
variety, Montanism is the only really striking heresy to result from it; task by building four monasteries in the mountain villagc of Derira, which
most of the local heresies were not so vital. Second, heresy often came into had evidently been the stronghold of the pagans. Justinian had generously
Byzantine Anatoh from the outside, and though one could argue that it supplied f h d s for the whole project and then provided that the new
Prospered there because of local receptivity, it is in a sense different from churches and monasteries be obedient to missionaries operating from
the Phenomenon just described. Third, there is evidence that even in the Derira. The Christianization of this portion of rural Anatolia seems to have
case of a supposedly local variety of “native” religious phenomenon such proceeded rapidly.322
as Montanism, the heretics had been Hellenized Iinguisticallv. T h e activity of the church in this respect is evidenced throughout Asia
After the removal of the imperial capital to Constantinople,
- Anatolia Minor. By the tenth and eleventh centuries there existed even among the
came increasingly within the focus of forces working for the transfor- Armenians a minority, but a significant one, which belonged to thc
mation of the non-Greek speaking and non-Chalcedonian elements of the Chalcedonian rather than to the Armenian church. These were the SO-
population. The emperors and patriarchs were most often Greek- called Tzats, a group that included the Armenians, who had remained
speaking, Orthodox, and resident in a city, which though cosmopolitan within the empire and accepted the Chalcedonian creed early, as well as
and polyglot, was predominantly Greek. They formed the apex of
Byzantine society, toward which the consciousness o f all was forused. - sal Jones, The Greek Cip,p. 298.
John of Ephesus-Payne Smith, pp. azg-233. Bar Hebraeus, I, 74.
64 65

many of the inhabitants of the districts of Tao-Khlarjeti and Meso- remarks that Saracen captives settled in the various themes who should
potamia.323 The number of Armenian aristocrats who came to Byzantium accept Christian baptism were to receive three nomismata on their
and who appear as Chalcedonians is particularly impressive. One need baptism, six nomismata ii-rrhp {EV~C~P{OU(for a yoke of oxen), and fifty-four
mention only the families of Lecapenus, Tzimisces, Musele, Martinaces, media of grain for seed and annona-a considerable incentive for a war
Taronites, Tornices. prisoner to convert. But the imperial effort to assimilate these Muslims
The conversionary activities of the church bore fruit among the Jews went further. Each Christian household that would take such a baptized
ofthe empire as well. The meager sources reveal converted Jews from Iate Muslim into the family through marriage received a three-year exemption
seventh-century Cappadocia, but the most famous example of a convert from the taxes of kaknikon and synone, and the land the convert received
from Judaism was St. Constantine, a Jew of ninth-century S ~ n n a d a . ~ ~ 4 would be tax-free for three years.327A spectacular case of conversion was
Formulas by which Jews abjured Judaism and accepted Christianity that of the Taghlabite tribe of the Banu Habib, a tribe that could put
have survived in a manuscript of the early eleventh century, and con- 10,000 to 12,000 cavalry into the field, Toward the middle of the tenth
versions of hnatolian Jews to Christianity are evidenced as late as the century, they and their families fled the Hamdanids, converted to
twelfth century.325 Christianity, and settled in the provinces.32s
During the long course of the struggle between Greeks and Arabs, The state and church continually subjected Christian heretics to pres-
considerablc numbers of Muslims found their way into the Anatolian sure. Aside from the individual efforts of such monks as St. Lazarus in
regions, sometime as prisoners of war, at other times as political refugees. converting Paulicians,329 or of Photius in bringing the Tessarcskaidekatitai
The large group or Persians who fled to Anatolia in the reign of into the church,330 there were the more systematic attempts to enforce
Theophilus were settled there, given Greek wives, and were baptized.32G Chalcedonian Christianity on the various nonconformists of Anatolia,
A well-known passage in the De Caerimoniis of Constantine Porphyrogenitus attempts that the government backed with persecution. Such measures
gives details as to the manner i n which the central government imple- were applied, at various times, to Jews, Montanists, Paulicians, and
mented this policy of absorption through religious conversion. The text Monophysites. Of a similar nature wcre the policies of Nicephorus
aa3 The fact that the Tzats were Armenian Chalcedonians seems to have been established
Phocas during his reconquest of Cilicia, where all the Muslim population
by N. Marr, “Arkaun’, Mongol’skoe nazvanie Khristian’, v sviazi s’ voprosorn’ ob who wished to remain in the land might do so and retain their property by
Armianakhl-Khalkrdonitak’,” V. V., XI1 (1906), 30-32, N. Adontz, “0 proiskhosdenie
conversion to Christianity. Those who wished to rcmain Muslim had to
Armia-Tsatov,” kM.N.P., new series, X X X I I (April, rgi I ) , 243-245, attempted,
unsuccessfully, to prove that Tzats were not Armenians but Gypsies. The subsequent depart from C i l i ~ i a . ~ ~ ~
studies of Peeters confirm Marr’s identification of the Tzats with the Armerlian Chal- Thus the assimilative process on the religious plane was constantly in
cedonians. Pceters, “Sainte Sorisanik martyre en Armbnie-GCorgie (14 Decembre
482-84),” A.B., LIII (1935), 254-256. Here he gives a highly probable derivation of the motion. Though it never achieved a complete and unqualified success,
term ‘hat from thc Arabic - ~ k , a renegade. See also Peeters, “S. Grtgoire,
djnhid, time favored it. I n easternmost Anatolia it was a complete failure in the
1’Illuminateur dans le Calendricr lapidaire de Naples,” A.B., LX (1942), 121-122; “Un eleventh century, for here the Monophysite population was a majority
thoinage autographe sur le si+ge d’Antioche par les Croises en 1098,” Miscellnnen
hislorica in honoretn Alberli D e Mfyer (Louvain, I 946), I, 373-390; L e Trkfonds orieatal de and Monophysitism was too strongly associated with ethnic consciousncss
I‘liagiagrapliie byyrnnline (Brussels, I 950), pp. 162-163. I. Doens, “Nicon de la Montagne and linguistic dilferences.
Noire,” @mn% XXIV (1954), I 34. As a resul t of the westward migrations of Armenians
in Turkish times Chalcedonian Armenians were also to be found in western hnatolia. The same forces that worked for Christianization (church, state, and the
Settlements of these Chalcedonian Armenians, or Haikhrum as they are called in modern Greek Christian milieu of Anatolia) also worked for I-Icllenization on the
times, were to be found in the Bithynian villages of Choudion (Saradj Ustu), Ortakon,
and Punduklu in the nineteenth century. According to their own traditions these linguistic plane. There are numerous examples of the preponderance of
Haikhrum had migrated from the Armenian district of Egin some two and one-half‘ Greek among the population of western and central Anatolia. Catacolon
centuries previously, G. A. Paschalides, “ ’ A ~ ~ E V ~ ~ ”EAAquag U U O I Iu XouSiv T$
MWaoiaS,” ‘EPEOVh VIH no. 1.5 (1891), pp. 2-3. Ecclesiastical vestments and objects
Cecaumenus, whose grandfather apparently was an Armenian, wrote his
from these villages are to be seen at the Benaki Museum in Athens. O n the Haikllruin of Stiategicotz in Greek. Nicetas of Amnia, the grandson of St. Philaretus of
nineteenth-century Icayseri, A. D. Mordtmann, Anatolietl. Skirren uttd Reisebride ~ I I S
337 Constantine I’orphyrogcnitus, De Cue?bioniis, I, 694-695. A similar practice of tax
Kleinasieii (1850-1859)~ed. F. Babinger (Hanover, 1g25), p. 492. G. Anastasiades.
exemption was adopted by the Seljuk sultan of Konya for his newly transplanted Greek
“ x ~ i - x O ’ - ’ P O h ( ‘ A ~ V E V ~ ~ A ~ U C“ T
E OMIr p ~ y ) , ”M.X., IV (1948), 37-48.
peasants, see below, chaptcr iii. Bar Hebraeus, I, 1 ~ - r 4 5 152.
A s Nova IV, 629-631. Starr, Tlie Jews, pp. I 19-122.
3 a 5 Starr, The Jews, pp. 173-180, 219-222. For the conversionary process as it affected
spaCanard, Hamdnnides, I, 737-739. The drr{ov-rrCrS~~ seem to have been converts from
Jews of Attaka in the twelfth century see the document in Zepos, J.G.R., I, ~ 7 3 - 3 7 ~ .
Also, Cumont, “La conversion dcs Juifs byzantins au IX‘ sihele,” Reurte de l’ijistrnction AS Nov. 111, 5 1 2 , 543.
5 3 0 C. Mango, The Noitdies of Photitls, Patriarch of Constnnlinople (Cambridge, I 958),
Nblique en Belgique, XLVI (1903), 8-15.
Cedrcnus, 11, 131. Syrneoiihagister, pp, 625-627. George Monachus, p. 793. Bar pp. 279-292, they were almost certainly from Asia Minor. See DarrouzPs, El,istolieTs, pp.
I-Iebraeus, I, 135. a74.-2f5, for policy toward heretics i n the metropolitanate of Euchaita.


Armeniacon, recorded the life of his grandfather in Greek. Genesius the

historian, though of Armenian ancestry, also recorded the affairs of the
empire in the Greek language. Romanus Lecapenus and john Tzimisces,
first generation Byzantines, were acclimatized to the Byzantine way of
life and alienated from their Armenian patrimonial environment.382 I n I I. Political and Military Collapse
Some extreme cases Armenian aristocrats came under the literary and of Byzantium in Asia Minor
intellectual sway of the Greek classics. T h e famous Gregory Magistrus, who
played a leading role in Armenian affairs during the eleventh century,
translated Plato into A~rnenian.3~3 The influence of these Greek authors is
evident in the continuation of the translating activities of the Syrian Mono-
physites of eastern Asia Minor, Evidence, though sparse, exists also for the
process of Hellenization of the Slavs of the peninsula and of the Jews.334
Anatolia on the eve of the Seljuk incursions constituted the most If, as we have seen in the preceding chapter, Asia Minor was the principal
heavily populated, important, and vital provincc of medieval Hellenism, physical and spiritual reservoir upon which Constantinople drew, and if it
a province continuously subject to the integrating power of church, state, had been Hellenized and Christianized to such a significant degree, how
and culture emanating from the heart of the empire, Constantinople. T h e does one explain the apparent completeness and rapidity of the Byzantine
culture of Anatolia, however, reflected the disparate elements that had political and military collapse in Asia Minor after the battle of Manzikert
been submerged under the appearances of Hellenism and Orthodoxy. in 1071 ? Political and military decline before a foreign enemy do not
In some cases the older cultural localisms simply disappeared, but necessarily stem from, and imply as their principal cause, a lack of
frequently they forced themselves into the cultural forms of Byzantine significant ethnic and religious homogeneity, an implication historians
Anatolia. Though the peninsula was largely Hellenized in speech, there often adumbrate i n attempting to explain the decline of a state under
developed in the spoken Greek local variations and eventually d i a l e c t ~ . ~ 3 ~ attack by an outside foe. Though clearly facilitated by ethnic and rcligious
In religion, heresy remained a very vital fact i n the life of the Byzantine pluralism, the political and military failure of Byzantium stemmed
Anatolians, as indeed of the Seljuk and Ottoman inhabitants, so that ultimately from political and military weakness, Actually, a number of
Anatolia exhibited a split religious personality-Orthodox and heterodox. far-reaching and complex events stretching over more than half a ccntury
It has often been asserted that this cultural variety deprived Anatolia of had preparcd the way for the Anatolian cataclysm of 1071, so it is not
the social and cultural bonds of cohesion and predisposed the province strictly accurate to speak in terms of a sudden catastrophe. Further, the
to a n easy conquest at the hands of the Turks. This is an inaccurate view, Byzantine collapse in Anatolia in 1071 was not complete, for the Turkish
for all historical societies have been characterized by varying degrees of conquest of Anatolia was a long process. I n contrast to the Arab sub-
cultural variation, and the crucial question is rather the degree. O n e b jugation of the Middle East, which was comparatively rapid and brought
should note that though Syria, Egypt, and North Africa fell quickly far less upheaval, the Turkish conquest of Anatolia was much more
before the Arabs, and the northern Balkans before the Slavs, central and
piecemeal in nature, disruptive, and even destructive, lasting four
western Anatolia resisted the Arabs for 400 years. The Turkish conquest,
centuries. T h e continued existence of Anatolia as a province of !he dar
settlement, and absorption of the peninsula required another four
al-harb is a fact that has been incisively illuminated by Paul Wittek, but
centuries, so that it was not an accomplishment of the moment but one of
the significance of this fact for the decline of Byzantine civilization and the
gigantic proportions.
process of Islamization in Anatolia remains to be appreciated and
Written testimony to this Hellenizing process among the Armenians appears in comprehended, The purpose of this chapter is to demonstrate that
bilingual chrestomathies in the Egyptian papyri of the seventh century.
333 v. Langlois, and M. Leroy, “Grtgoire Magistros et les traductions armtnienncs
Byzantine defeat i n eleventh-century Anatolia came as the culmination of
d’auteurs grew’’ A.I.P.H.O.S., 1x1 (1935), 263-294. Matthew of Edessa, p. 259. a long series of complex developments, and that the process by which the
334 Vryonis, “St. Ioannicius the Great,” pp. 245-248. Vasilievsky, Trudy, 111, 65-68.
On the partial Hellenization of the Jews of Mastaura T. Reinach, “Un contrat de Turks conquered and settled Anatolia was a long and repetitive one for
m a r k du temps de B a d e le Bulgaroctone,“ Mdlanges offerts d M.Gustave Sclilumberger large portions of the peninsu1a.l Consequently, the four centuries spanning
(Paris, igq), pp. I 10-132.
Strabo speaks of Kap(Gav and OO~OIK~<EIV, see above. By the time that Dawkins Since a great deal bas been written about the supposedly peaceful conquest of Anatolia
studied Anatolian Greek it had become quite different from the Greek spoken in other (most recently see the paper ofF. Sumer, “The Turks in Eastern Asia Minor in the Eleventh
regions. Most of this difference, however, was due to Turkish influence, see chapter vii. Century,” Supplenzetztary Papem, Tllirleenth International Congress 0s Byzantine Sludies [Oxford,
68 69


the initial Turkish appearance and the final reunification of Anatolia
under one political authority constitute an epoch in the history of Anatolia magnates by which the latter sought to absorb the free peasantry a n d the
characterized by wars, raids, upheavals, and chaos, interrupted by one free landholdings. The economic difficulties of the eleventh century,
peaceful, prosperous era (thirteenth century) and two transitional periods though not known i n sufficient detail, are nevertheless manifest in the rise
in which stability began to crystallize (mid-twelfth century and the of tax farming, sale of offices, debasement of the coinage, appearance of
consolidation of the beyliks in the mid-fourteenth century). the Venetians as the merchants of the empire, and the granting of
excuseia and jronoia. All these factors led to the breakdown of the Byzan-
Enents Leading t o Manzikert tine military, naval, and administrative systems in varying degrees. T h e
BYZANTINE INTERNAL DEVELOPMENTS ( I 025-7 I ) empire, polyglot and multisectarian in nature, and stretching from the
Danube to the Euphrates, had the double liability of nonhomogeneous
rf one glances, even cursorily, at thc intricate events in the internal populations and extensive, widely separated frontiers, Thus ethnic and
and external history of Byzantium in the half century prior to Manzikert,
religious difficulties, some of which became critical in the eleventh
he will realize that the Byzantine prostration in 1071 was the result of
century, plagued Byzantium throughout this period. All were of a n inter-
prolonged developments and not of a single isolated event, that is, the
nal nature, having arisen within the borders of the state, but external
Turkish victory at Manzikert.2 When one looks at the whirlwind that
events, equally alarming, occurred at this time. I n the west, Norman
struck the empire in the eleventh century, he is not surprised that i t
adventurers laid the foundations oT a new kingdom in Italy and Sicily,
collapsed before the Seljuks, but rather that it did not disappear completely
and the mercantile endeavors of Venice began to attain a commercial and
from the pages of history. Instead, the empire made a partial recovery
political crescendo. Both polities were in a sense Constantinople-oriented.
from these catastrophes a n d survived for three and one-half centuries.
T h e Normans had set their Italian state in Byzantine ground on a Byzan-
Among the developments that led to Manzikert was the vicious struggle
tine foundation, and their gaze and desires came to be fixed upon
for supreme political power in the state between bureaucrats and the
Constantinople itself. T h e Venetians, closely associated with the East in
military, a struggle related to the process of expansion of the landed
the past, now became so preoccupied with their comlnercial interests in
19661,pp. 141-143),it is necessary to describc a t some length the actual conquest and to Constantinople and in the other emporia of the empire, that they were to
establish its prolonged character before proceeding to an analysis of this fact in chapter iii.
There is no attempt, however, to ascertain all the political and military specifics of this play a role of the first order in the decline of Byzantium during the
four-hundred-year period as the task would be enormous and unnecessary for the purposcs twelfth century. Onto the northern and eastern borders were to spill the
of this book. The mere establishment of all the dates of this long period would in itself call
for a special monograph. tribal hordes of the Ural-Altai in one of those many migratory waves that
2 The best statement and analysis of thcse events is the chapter of P. Charanis, “The since the beginning of the empire had threatened to inundate the civiliz-
Byzantine Empire in the Eleventh Century, in K. M. Setton, A History of the Crusades
(Philadelphia, 1955)~ I, I 77-279. Also R.J. H. Jenkins, The Byzantine Enpire on the Eve
ation of New Rome. These tribes, members of the same great linguistic
of the Crirsades (London, I 953);S. Vryonis, “Byzantium : The Social Basis of Decline in the famiry a n d the products of the same harsh steppe environment, made
Eleventh Century,” Greek Ronian and Byzaiilihe Studies, I1 (I959), 159-175. Still of interest their way to Byzantium by separate routes. The Patzinaks, Uzes, and
is C . Neumann, “La situation mondiaIe dans l’empire byzantin avant lcs Croisades,”
trans. Renauld and Kozlowski in Revue rle I’Orierit latin, X (1go5),57-171.Arnold J. Cumans traveled across the Russian steppe and around the northern
Toynbee, study of Hislogv (Oxford, 1948),IV, 72-73, 395-400, also insists that the decline shores of the Black Sea to the Danube. T h e Seljuks came down into the
of Byzantium resulted from events thaL occurred long before Manzikert. His assertion,
however, that Byzantium declined partly as a result of its victories over the Bulgars at thc Islamic world via Khurasan, subjugating Baghdad and a large part of the
end of the tenth and in the early eleventh century is yet one more of his literary mysti- lands of the caliphate, during which process large numbers of Turkmen
cisms. The subject of the eleventh century was the central theme of the Thirteenth
International Congress of Byzantine Studies a t Oxford in 1966.But little that is new tribes made their way or were intentionally sent to the eastern Anatolian
emerged from the Papers dealing with the subject of Byzantine decline during this borders of Rum.
century. Relevant to Byzantine decline are, N. Svoronos, “Socittt el organisation
inttrieure dans l’empire byzantin au X I e sikcle: les principaux probltmes” ; H. Evert- The most significant factor among all these developments was the con-
ICappesowa, “Socidtt et organisation intdrieure au XIe sikcle,” pp. 1 21-124; E. Stanescu, vulsion of eleventh-century Byzantine society arising from the violent
“Solutions contemporaines de la crise: U n quart d e siCcle de rCformes ct contre-rtformes
imptriales,” pp. I 25-1 29; Silpglenzeiitary Papers, Thirteenth International Congress of Byzantine struggle between the representatives of the civil bureaucracy in the capital
& d i e s (Oxford, 1966). The paper of C. Toumanoff, “The Background to Manzikert,” and the military magnates in the provinces. The party of the bureaucrats
promises much but unfortunately is nothing more than a-xery general survey of Trans-
caucasim relations with Byzantium ovcr several centuries. It in no way explains the out- in the eleventh century included certain aristocratic familics (such as
come at Manzikert and in general is the most disappointing of the papers on the eleventh those of Ducas and Monomachus) who came to be associated with the
century. See the very interesting article of P. Lemerle, “Le notion de dtcadence L propos
de l‘empire byzantin,” in R.Brunschvig and G. von Gruncbaum, Classicisme et dLclin central administration i n Constantinople and a portion of the senatc.
culture1 dons I’histoire de l’lslam (Paris, 1957), pp. 263-177. It comprehended i n addition the professors and many of the graduates of
the refounded University of Constantinople, people such as Psellus and

XiPhilenus who had risen to prominence in the government because of During the course of these thirty-two years, the heads o€ the bureau-
their intellectual brilliance. Finally, the bureaucratic party embraced all cratic group, most important of whom were John Orphanotrophus and
those who had entered the administration and risen through the ranks, Constantine IX Monomachus, waged a constant war against the
such Philocales, John Orphanotrophus, and Nicephoritzes. The basis ambitions of the generals. The fact that Constantine VIII had died i n
of bureaucrat power lay in a number of items, not the least of which was 1028 leaving no heir save his three daughters added fuel to the struggle,
the fact that the bureaucrats were located in Constantinople, the center of and thus the contest between bureaucrats and generals centered on the
the empire and its political life. Here they were close to the emperor, question of succession. The bureaucrals attempted, successfully, to find a
could influence and control him, and could isolate him from the provincial “bureaucrat” husband for the unfortunate empress Zoe, one who would
militarists. In Constantinople they were in virtual control of the imperial be subordinate and obedient to those bureaucrats promoting him. O n
navy and troops stationed in that area and were in possession of an t h e other hand members of the military class also appeared as candidates ;
impregnable city. They also presided over the vital domain of finances. but because of the tight hold that the bureaucrats had on the central
Because of all this the civil administrators were possessed of real power apparatus of administration in Constantinople, they succeeded i n
and they were able to control the flow of internal politics for a great part promoting to the position of power men who were in sympathy with the
of the eleventh century. The magnate-generals from the provinces were bureaucrats. T h c only recourse that the generals had in this struggle €or
able to remove this element from power only after a long, violent, and political power was the provincial armies. During this thirty-two year
exhausting struggle . period of civilian preponderance in the capital, the sources record thirty
The generals consisted of the landed magnates in the provinccs, who major rebellions, or about one every year, and the list of the generals who
served as the leaders of the armies levied in Anatolia and the Balkans. were exiled, executed, or blinded is a long and monotonous one,
Often these aristocrats belonged to families with centuries-long military Rebellion became such a commonplace occurrence that the shrewd
traditions while others had arisen more recently, during the wars of general Cecaurnenus included in his Strategicon a chapter on the conduct
Basil I1 or even later. I n any case, these aristocrats were characterized of a prudent man during the outbreak of rebellions,s As the program of the
by their possession of great landed estates and by a virtual monopoly of bureaucrats called for the elevation to the throne of men who would be
the generalships of the provincial armies. The families of Phocas, Sclerus, primarily obedient to the bureaucrats, obedience alone came to be the
Mdeinus, Comnenus, Melissenus, and others, dominate both the agrarian criterion of selection with the consequence that there was a series of
and military history of Byzantium. By virtue of this combination-great husband-emperors of little ability and with no worthy conception of the
landed wcalth and military prominence-the provincial aristocrats duties of such an august oflice. The Byzantine state had the evil fate of
were an inordinately powerful and ambitious social group. I t was this experiencing as its rulers (from 1028 to 1057) emperors of the lowest
power of the provinces which eventually corroded and in effect destroyed caliber, for the most part ill, old, or dominated by women and the eunuchs,
centralized government i n Byzantium and in this sense constituted a and concerned only with enjoying the pleasures of their oflice.
“feudalizing’’ element. I n 1057 t h e generals were able to win their first victory in the struggle
The political ambitions of the provincial generals had already with the bureaucrats when the Anatolian general Isaac Comnenus
threatened to exceed all bounds in the tenth century, but fortunately revolted. Aided by other Anatolian magnates (most important of whom
Nicephorus Phocas and John Tzimisces, though of this social class, were Sclerus, Bourtzes, Botaniates, Argyrus, and Cecaumenus), he
were able as emperors to exercise a restraining hand on the political brought the military forces of Anatolia against Constantinople. I n spite
activities of the generals. In the early years of the reign of Basil 11, of this impressive show of force, it is highly doubtful that the generals
however, the generals plunged the empire into a long civil war that almost would have succeeded had it not been for other factors. Within the
succeeded in removing the Macedonian dynasty and in dividing the capital itself the patriarch and the guilds had sided with the generals, a n d
empire. Thanks to the appearance of the grim Basil, the disrupting of equal importance was the split i n the ranks of the bureaucrats, which
violence of the provincial aristocracy was temporarily bridled by policies saw the Ducas family temporarily abandon the bureaucrats and join the
of persecution which entailed discriminatory legislation, confiscation of generals. As the generals had been able to win only with the aid of other
their great landed estates, and exile. As a result of Basil’s successful social groups, their victory was not complete and so their enjoyment of
opposition to the political designs of the generals, the bureaucrats were t h e political fruits was correspondingly incomplete. Upon the illness of
able to keep the generals from political power for thirty-two years after Isaac in 1059, the representatives of the bureaucratic party, Psellus and
the death of Basil I1 (1025-57).
a Cecaurnenus, 73-74.

Constantine Ducas, seized power and the generals were once more military service, into a taxpaying community. The transformation of the
By 1067 a military reaction and another split in the ranks of the army into a taxpaying unit not only deprived the area of its defense b u t
bureaucrats once more brought a n Asia Minor general Romanus IV also caused many of the inhabitants to go over to the Seljuks.' Thus at
Diogenes to the throne. But the reign of Romanus was hamstrung, as one blow a key province in the defense of Asia Minor was deprived ofits
had been that of Isaac, by the incomplete victory of the generals and b y military strength during the period when the Seljuks appeared on the
the persistence of the leading bureaucrats (Psellus and John Ducas) in the eastern borders. With the gradual dissolution of the provincial, indigenous
government. The results of this military-civil hatred were disastrous for armies, the emperors began to rely increasingly upon foreign mercenaries.
the state. From the death of Basil I1 i n 1025 down to the fateful battle of It is true that mercenary troops had always been employed in the past
Manzikcrt, Byzantine society lay in the convulsive throes of civil strife by the emperors, but thematic levies had been more important. Now the
between administrators and soldiers. Other segments of society, the church mercenaries would replace the Byzantine soldiery in primary importance
and the guilds in the capital, had also been drawn into the power struggle, a n d the empire's armies came to be characterized more and more by the
first on one side then on the other. presence of these mercenary troops that included a bewildering ethnic
The contest was characterized by a feature that usually marks all such array-Normans, English, Russians, Georgians, Alans, Armenians,
political struggles : the determination to attain political power at all costs Patzinaks, Turks, Arabs, and other foreign groups.
and in spite of all consequences. Obviously the principal weapons in the By the reign of Constantine X Ducas the depletion of the local levies
hands of the generals were the armies stationed in the provinces and so a n d the reliance upon foreign mercenaries was to become nearly cornplcte.
when the generals rebelled in the east or the west, all the armies of Constantine ruled through the forcmost representatives of the bureaucra-
Anatolia or the Balkans would be mustered and then directed toward the tic element, the university professors Psellus and Xiphilenus, the former
capital city of the empire. It was in this manner, when Isaac Comnenus in charge of the administration and the latter in charge of the church.
rebelled in 1057, that Anatolia was denuded of its military defenses for At thc end of his rcign, the destruction of the armies by the bureau-
reasons of political interest.& And in 1047-48 during the rebellion of crats, which was already under way during the reign of Constantine IX,
Tornices, the western armies were commanded to march on Con- had gone so far that the provincial forces were no longer feared either
stantinople, leaving much of the Balkans bare of troops. In this case the by the civil elemcnt of the capital or, more ominously, by the Seljuks,
eastern borders were also stripped i n order to bring troops to defend Patzinaks, Uzes, and Normans on the borders. This antimilitary policy
Constantinople against the armies of Tornices.6 The generals were deter- of the bureaucrats was continued in all its vigor even after the battle of
mined to use this, their only weapon, i n the struggle with the bureaucrats. Manzikert, when it was obvious to all that the army was the most
In so doing, however, they were simultaneously baring the frontiers in important factor in the survival of the empire. The accession of Michael
the face ofgrowing enemy pressures and destroying these forces by pitting V I I Ducas to the throne ( I O ~ I ) , a scion of the leading bureaucratic
the armies of Anatolia against those of the Balkans. family a n d the pupil of Psellus, was most unfortunate in this respect. For h e
The bureaucrats, in a sense a t the mercy of the generals when it came
busied himself continuously with the useless and unending study of eloquence and
to military affairs, defended themselves by embarking upon the dis- with the composition of iambics and anapests; moreover he was not proficicnl in
mantling of the military apparatus. This included the dismissal of com- this art, but being deceived and beguiled by the consul of the philosophers
petent generals, in some cases the dissolution of entire military corps, b u t [Psellus], he destroyed the whole world, so to speak.*
above all the cutting o f f of financial support of the local, indigenous With the crippling of the native military strength, the increased rLliance
troops forming the thematic levies, who were fast being replaced by upon the services of foreign troops brought a double liability: questionable
foreign mercenaries. This overall policy becomes clearly apparent with loyalty, and far greater financial expense. The numbers of mercenary
Constantine IX Monomachus during whose reign the prize moneys of the troops, if one can judge by the information that thc sources relate in
soldiers and revenues that were ostensibly marked for military expeditions connection with the revolt of Isaac Comnenus in 1057, was not
were diverted to the use of others, without benefit to the state.0 H e
insignificant. Of the troops collected on thc northeastern frontier by
converted the army of the province of Iberia, 5 0 , 0 0 0 ( ? ) strong and
Catacolon Cecaumenus in this year, there werc two tagrnata of Franks, one
crucial for the defense against the Seljuks, from a body that owed tagma of Russians, and only two tagmata of Chaldians and Coloneians.
Cedrenus, 11, 625-627. H. MYdler, Theodora, Michael Stratiotikos, Isaak Komnenos
(Plauen, 1894). In other words three-fifths of thcse wcre foreign mercenaries, as were
Attaliates, 29. Cedrenus, 11, 562.
Psellus-Renauld, I, 121. 7 Cecaurnenus, p. 18. Attaliates, 44-45. Cedrenus, 11, 608. Zonaras, 111, 646.
8 Scylitzes, 11, 725.

also the Armenian levies of Sebasteia, Melitene, and Tephrice-O There in a destructive manner a t a time when the external pressures were
were enough Normans in Anatolia by the reign of Michael VII so that becoming dangerous. It resulted in the studied and intentional neglect
the Armenian rebel Philaretus Brachamius was able to enlist the services of the indigenous armies and i n the reliance upon expensive and less
of 8,000,1° When Alexius Comnenus set out to halt thc advance of reliable mercenary bodies. These latter, because of their lack of loyalty
Nicephorus Bryennius, he had in addition to his Norman troops, 2,000 and because of tardiness i n their payment, did not hesitate to plunder
Turks from Anato1ia.l1 Nicephorus Palaeologus was sent to the Caucasus and ravage the very lands that they had been hired to defend, or even to
where he raised 6,000 Alans with which he was supposed to suppress the desert to the Turks.
rebellion of Roussel,lz and Roussel himself had perhaps something like Of considerable importance in the decline of the indigenous armies
3 , 0 0 0 Normans in his service.13 Although it is impossible to obtain any- as well as in the socioeconomic difficulties of the state, were the growth and
thing like exact figures of the mercenaries, a n d even though some of the expansion of the landed aristocracy and the corresponding decline of the
figures often reproduced may be exaggerated, they indicate that by free peasant and the free landholding soldier. Though it has been custom-
the mid-eleventh century mercenaries had replaced or supplemented the ary to assign primary importance to this phenomenon in Byzantine decline,
indigenous troops of the Byzantine armies. The presence and activities it would seem that i n terms of the eleventh century and the Turkish
of these mercenaries in eleventh-century Anatolia were to play a prom- invasions, the struggle between bureaucrats and generals was more impor-
inent role in the Byzantine collapse. AS their only bond of loyalty to the tant in the dissolution of the thematic levies. It is true, however, that this
empire was based on their salaries, any financial difficulties of the state other process had been at work for a long time and entailed the weakening
which might delay or lessen these financial rewards would of course of peasant soldiery and of state finances. The existence of the free peasant
break the slender bond that held them to the empire. In 1057 the Norman community had been o€crucial economic, military, and social importance
chief Herve Vrankopoulus, dissatisfied at not having obtained a promotion, to the state in the period oiits greatness. This free village community had
retired to the theme of Armeniacon and deserted to the Turk Sarnuh who formed the basic financial unit for purposes of the Byzantine tax system,
was then raiding the eastern borders.14 I n 1063, after having returned to and it was on the basis of a portion of this land of the free communities
the services of the emperor, he betrayed the Byzantine commander of that the thematic armies were largely supported. Finally, the existence
Edessa to the enemy for which deed he was summoned to Constantinople of these free rural communities, which paid the taxes and performed
and drowned in the Bosphorus.16 Herve is only one example from many military service, provided for a healthy social structure and a balance
that would appear as events progressed. This pattern of mercenary against the provincial aristocrats. This social structure was threatened
disloyalty, rebellion, and ravaging of the very provinces that they had and altered b y the decline of the free peasantry which occurred when,
been hired to defend becomes a singularly constant theme in these bleak for one reason or another, the peasant abandoned his land or his title to it.
years of the empire’s history. T h e crucial phase of this decline was the appearance of’the powerful
Finally, the strife of bureaucrats and generals resulted in the summoning landowner (both ecclesiastical and lay) in the conimunities during the
of Turkish invaders, each side bidding highly for the favor of Turkish tenth and eleventh centuries, The pcasants sold or gave their land to the
chiefs and generals and for the services of their troops. On each occasion magnates, sometimes willingly in order to escape burdens imposed by
that the two factions prepared for military action, victory usually depended taxation, inclcment weather, famine; at other times unwillingly, having
on success in acquiring the services of the Turkish chieftains. This pattern, been the victims of coercion by the powerful. Though thc emperors
however, did not come to prevail until after the battle of Manzikert. realized that the diminution of the free peasant community would have
The single most fateful development leading to the defeat of Byzantium disastrous results on financial and military affairs and SO legislated
in Anatolia was, then, this vicious contest for political power between the
accordingly,1° nevertheless they were in the end unable to halt the process.
bureaucrats and the generals, consuming as it did the energies of the state The strenuous efforts of the tenth-century rulers had a certain staying
’ Cedrenus, 11, 625-626. effect, but with the death of Basil 11 and the appearance of lesser men
lo Matthew of Edessa, p. 174. on the throne, the dynamics of the process carried all resistance before it.
BrYennius, 130, 140-143. Attaliates, 288 ff.
l a Bryennius, 03-84, T h e free peasantry, though it continued to exist, had been significantly
l* Attaliates. 188. weakened, and henceforth the numbers of paroicoi (serfs) of the state,
l4 Cedrenus, 11, 616-619. G. Schlumbergcr, “Deux chefs normands des armCes
byzantines au X I “ sihcle: sceaux de Hervt et de Roussel de Bailleul,” R.H., XVI (1881),
laZepos, J.G.R., I, 201. I n the introductory paragraph of the novella attributed to
l6 Matthew of Edessa, pp. I 18-120. Romanus(grn), it is stated that the law was promulgated bccause “we have great concern
for the public taxes and for the performance of military and civil duties.”


church, and magnates increased greatly, while the numbers of the free There has been some discussion as to the failure of the Byzantines to
peasantry dec1ined.l‘ The increase of the paroicoi was accompanied by the develop a trading class and a commercial spirit such as developed in
increase of state-granted exemptions, such as excuseia and pronoia, on Italy. The proponents of this theory maintain that this oversight on the
behalf of the magnates.18 Thus the free peasantry declined i n a process part of Byzantines (according to them it was really a congenital defect
that did not provide the state with any sufkient recompensc for its loss rather than an oversight) was a basic cause in its collapse and in the triumph
of revenues and soldiery. Simultaneously, the magnates became more of Venice. But if one examines the question he will see th?t perhaps this
powerful and thus a greater menace to central authority. Byzantium was supposed shortcoming has been exaggerated and that it was not responsible
in the process of an evolution that, for want of a better word, must be for the collapse of the state first before the Turks and then before Venice,
described as ‘Lfeudalization.” I n fact, what little source material is a t hand testifies that maritime and
The economic decline and especially its causes are not sufficiently land commerce both on a local and international scale, as well as a mer-
documented by the sources, yet the coinage of this period reflects with chant-artisan class, played a prominent role in Byzantine economic life,21
grim accuracy the hard times that had beset the Byzantines. Beginning and regardless of whether the commerce was carried by Greek or foreign
with the reign of Michael I V (1034-41)and continuing until the reign merchants, the state collected large sums in taxes from both. There is no
of Alexius I ( I 08 1-1 I 18) the solidus underwent a radical debasement, a 1 indication that this trade had halted in the elevcnth century except
debasement that destroyed the purity of the “dollar ofthe middlc ages.” insofar as disorders i n the provinces might have interfered. That this
Among those developments that had the most serious cconomic repercus- supposed lack ofa developed merchant class and spirit did not substantially
sions was the abovc-mentioned social evolution that weakened the free contribute to the economic decline in the eleventh ccntury is apparent
peasant community and strengthened the landowning class. The former from the state of finances at the end of Basil’s reign in 1025. The fisc was
was the basis of the tax system, and the latter received vast exemptions i n such excellent shape that the emperor left the taxes of the poor
from taxes, thus this social phenomenon brought dire economic con- uncollected for the last two years of his reign.22 Any government that can
sequences to state finance. The effect on finance by the time of Isaac afford to lcave taxes uncollected for a period of two years is in better than
Comnenus had become vcry serious.20 average condition. That Venice did triumph over the Byzantines is
clearly illustrated by thc series of treaties and events between the two
1 7 The entire history of Byzantine social and agrarian evolution has bcen cxposed to a states beginning with the reign of Alexius I and ending in the Fourth
vigorous and searching reconsideration by P. Lemerle in his study, “Esquisse pour une,
histoire agraire de Byzance: Les sources et les problkmes,” R.H., CCXIX (Jan.-Mar., Crusade. But the reasons for this economic triumph are not that the
1958), 31-74; (Avr,-Juin., 1958), 254-284; (Juillet-Set., 1958), 43-94. Many of his inhabitants of the lagoons developed a commercial mentality whereas
conclusions and propositions suggest important alterations in the studies of G. Ostrogorsky,
especially “Agrarian Conditions in the Byzantine Empire in the Middle Ages,” Cambridge the coastal inhabitants ofthc empire did not, rather it was political events
Economic History (Cambridge, 1941), I, I 94-213; Pour l’hisloire de la feodalitd byymntine that contributed so greatly to the economic fortunes of Venicc and
(Brussels, 1954), pp, 10-13. All three studies, nevertheless, attest to the financial, military,
and social significance of the free peasantry and to the importance of its dcclinc. destroyed thosc of Byzantium. The appearance ofthe Normans in Italy, the
Ostrogorsky has, however, changed his views somewhat on the free peasantry in the mono- decline of the Byzantine naval and land forces, and the specter of political
graph, “La pujwannerie byzantitle (Brussels, I 956). Most recently, N. Svoronos, “Les
privileges de l’dglise ?I 1’Cpoquedes Comnenes: un rescrit inCdit de Manuel 1‘’ ComnPne,”
disaster hanging over the empire in 1081were the determining factors that
Trnunrtx el Mhoires (Paris, 1965), I, 357 ff. Kacgi, “Some Reconsiderations,” pp. 39-53. induced Alexius I to accord the first of that fateful series of chrysobulls to
A. Hohlweg, “Zur Frage der Pronoia in Byzanz,” B.Z., LX (1967), 288-308. the Italian cities. It was the stipulations of these treaties which made
For a brief discussion and bibliography see Charanis, “The Byzantine Empirc,”
p. roil. Venetian fortunes, because henceforth Byzantine merchants suffered a
P. Gricrson, “Notes on the Finencss of the Byzantine Solidus,” B.Z.,LIV (1961), tax discrimination to the advantage of their Venetian competitors.
91-97, which modifies his earlier study “Thc Debasement of the Bezant in the Eleventh
Century,” B.Z., XLVII ( I 954.), 379-394. Venetian merchants, in fact, enjoyed the benefits of a “protective tariff,”
ao Charanis, “Economic Factors in the Decline of the Byzantine Empire,’’ Tlle Joumol that is, they were exempt from paying the I o percent ad valorem tax on the
o/Econoniic History, XI11 (1953), 412-424. Also httaliates, Go-Gr, who indicates that the
effect on finances by the time of Isaac Cornnenus had become ruinous. T h e ecorlomic goods they carried, whereas the Greeks were forced to continue paying it.
decline and especially its causes in the eleventh century are not sufficiently documented. As a result, the Venetians could and did acquire almost a monopoly of the
One may consult with profit the following works of R. Lopez: “Un borgne au royaurne
des aveugles: La position de Byzance dans I’kconomic europecne du haut m o y e ~age,” ~ carrying trade, for they could pay more for the goods and then sell them
Bssocidon Mnrc Bloch dc Toitloitre (1953-19553, 25-30; “Du march6 tcmporaire I 13 colonie cheaper than the Byzantine merchants. Once they acquired superiority in
perrnanente. L’Evolution de la politique commerciale au moyen age,” Aanales. Ecotlonzics-
SociPb-Ciuilisaliotis, I V (0ct.-Dec., 1949), 389-405; “The Dollar of the Middle hges,”
The Jotmid qf Ecotromic History, XI ( 1 9 5 1 ) ~ zog-z34. For the sale of offices, G. Kolias, 21See chapter i for references to this trade.
~ h - r - w i dWiitdenkaiEfiittfruh- und inittelOyratItinischetr Reich (Athens, I 939). 22Cedrcnus, 11, 484. Pscllus-Rcnauld, I, 19-20, relates that he had to construct undcr-
ground chambers to store the excess in thc treasury.

the carrying trade, the 10 p e r c e n t ad valorem t a x o n all those cargoes dragon appeared, accompanied by a destroying fire, and struck the believers in
escaped forever the coffers of t h e imperial treasury in Constantinople. the Holy Trinity. The apostolic and prophetic books trembled, for there arrived
T h e commercial victory of t h e Venetians was not due t o their superior winged serpents come to vomit fire upon Christ’s faithful. I wish to describe, i n
this language, the first eruption of ferocious beasts covered with blood. At this
commercial spirit and to t h e Byzantine congenital defect in t h e same, but
period there gathered the savage nation of infidels called Turks. Setting out, they
rather to that confluence of political circumstances which forced t h e entered the province of Vaspuracan and put the Christians to the sword. , ..
empire to purchase t h e aid of t h e Venetian fleet a t a d e a r price. The Facing the enemy, the Armenians saw these strange men, who were armed with
superiority of the Venetians lay primarily in their privileged and tax-free bows and had flowing hair like
position in contrast to the position of their Byzantine competitors. At the t i m e of this Turkish a p p e a r a n c e in V a s p u r a c a n the empire was
Even SO, Italian commercial supremacy and its consequences occurred e x t e n d i n g its power i n t h e East and its armies inspired fear in t h e hearts
after the battle of Manzikert, and so contributed neither to t h e socio- of its enemies from the Danube to the E u p h r a t e s . The Greek chroniclers
economic nor to the political decline t h a t led to Manzikert. t o o k almost no n o t i c e of this first a p p e a r a n c e of the T u r k s in A r m e n i a ;
The extravagance of the rulers in t h e eleventh century came to b e C e d r e n u s merely remarked t h a t t h e Armenian prince Senecherim, being
commonplace. The Empress Zoe, Constantine IX Monomachus, and t h e u n d e r pressure from his A g a r e n e neighbors, later abandoned V a s p u r a c a n
Paphlagonians were remarkably prodigious in exhausting t h e imperial to Basil I1 and settled in Cappadocia (1021) at which t i m e the T u r k i s h
coffers that Basil I1 had b e e n so careful to fill.83 Also t h e tax-yielding raiders a p p e a r e d in the Armenian district of Nig.2G Though the Byzan-
provinces in the Balkans and A n a t o l i a were disturbed by o t h e r events tines and A r m e n i a n s had seen Turkish slave troops and generals in the
above and apart from the socioeconomic developments affecting t h e Arab armies and had had c o n t a c t w i t h Patzinalts and Khazars, t h e T u r k s
peasant communities. 24 The n u m e r o u s rebellions, t h e countless foreign of 101G-17 ( w h e t h e r or not they were affiliated w i t h the Seljults) w e r e a s
raids (especially in t h e Balkans), and the depredations of the mercenaries, yet unknown t o them.
kept the provincial t a x system out of balance. T h e economic decline of t h e Nevertheless, in half a century from the first appearance of these Turks
eleventh century, though still imperfectly understood, played a serious in V a s p u r a c a n , the Seljuk nomadic raiders would have established an
role in the events leading to M a n z i k e r t , Stemmingprimarily from t h e social 2 5 Matthew of Edessa, pp. 40-41. The English is my own rendition of Dulaurier’s
evolution of agrarian society and the g r a n t s of excessive immunities t o t h e French translation and conveys the same sense as the Russian translation of Agadzanov-
great landowners, economic conditions were further aggravated by the Yuzbaiian. The date, however, has been altered from 467 to 4.65 for the reasons given by
S. G. Agadzanov and K. N. Yuzbas‘ian, “I< istorii tiurskikh nabegov na Armeniiuv-
extravagance of the rulers, and above all by t h e military rebellions, XI v,,” P.S., XI1 (1965), 149. Both 465 and 467 occur in manuscripts of Matthew of
Patzinak raids, and m e r c e n a r y r a p a c i t y in the provinces which choked Edessa, but the former is fixed by the text of Ceclrenus. The confusion in the Muslim,
Greek, Armenian, and Syriac sources has greatly obscured the questions of the dates of
off the state tax moneys. S u c h financial difficulty was of course disastrous the early Turkish invasions and the affiliation of the earliest Turkish raiders with the
for a state that functioned primarily on t h e basis of a m o n e y economy. main Seljulc group. The most satisfactory examination of these two points, date of
appearance of the first Turks in Armenia and their tribal affiliations, is that of Agadzanov-
But there were also serious external developments.
Yuzbalian. According to them the first Turkish raids in Armenia were those of 1016-17
(in Vaspuracan) and 1021 (in Nig). But the Turkmens who made these raids wel-e prob-
THE FIRST APPEARANCE OF THE TURKS ably not Seljuk Turks. Thcy represented tribesmen (as well as Turkish gulams of local
military potentates) who had moved into Adharbaydjan and been received in the
The first appearance of t h e Turkish raiders in the district of Vaspuracan military forces of the Rawwadids of Tabriz and the Shaddadids of Gandja. In 1019 a
( I O I G - I ~struck
) terror in the A r m e n i a n s who dwelt there. group of Seljuks rebelled against Mahmud of Ghazna, were defeated, and 2,000 moved
west, eventually to Adharbaydjan. They may have participated in the attack of local
In the beginning of the year 465 a calamity proclaiming the fulfillment of Muslim forces on the regions of Lake Van in 1033-34, but they definitely attacked
divine portents befell the Christian adorers of the Holy Cross. T h e death-breathing Armenian lands in 1037-38, though Turks had raided Vaspuracan as early as 1016-17.
Though the affiliation of these Turks of 1016-17 is not mentioned in Matthew, as
2aPsellus-Sewter,p. 237. “As I have often remarked, the emperors before Isaac Agadzanov-Yuzbagian rightly point out, their afiliation with the Seljuks is not necessarily
exhausted the imperial treasures on personal whims. The public revenues were expended excluded, for this group may have split off early and made its way westward unnoticed.
not on the organisationof the army, but on favors to civilians and on magnificent shows . .. Cahen has put forth the thesis that the events Matthew ascribes to 1016-17 actually took
they not only emptied the palace treasury, b u t even cut into the money contributed by the place a decade later when a group of Oghuz left Caghri Beg, “A propos de quelques
people to the public revenues. while the military were of course being stinted and articles de Koprulii Armagani,” J.A., CCXLII (1954), 275-279. I. Kafesoglu, “DO@
treated harshly.” Anadolu’ya ilk Selpklu akinci (IOI5-2 I ) ve tarihi ehemmiyeti,” in Fund Kobrulii Armngani
a4 On the eve of a rebellion, the Byzantine insurgents collected the taxes for themselves. (Istanbul, 1g53), pp. 259-274, has suggested that the first Seljuk attacks were those
The Norman bands alternativcly pillaged provinces and “collected” taxes for themselves. between 1015and 102 I . He has repeated this in his, Sultan Melik;ah devrinde Bibiik Selguklu
The constant appearance of the Patzinaks and Uzes in the Balkans must have meant not Impardorlugu (Istanbul, 1953), pp. 2-3. See the long review of M. A. Koymen, “Biiyuk
only a cutting off of the taxes from Constantinople but also a serious disturbance of the Selpiklu Imparatoru Melik$ah devrinde bir eser munasebetiylc,” Belletan, XVII ( I 953),
tax-producing communities. It is related that after one such raid the inhabitants thought 557-601. Cahen and Kafesoglu have resumed the discussion in J.A., CCXLIV (1956),
of abandoning Europe. 129-134, and again in Cahcn, “Ca@i-begi,” E12.
ZG Cedrenus, 11, 464.

empire reaching from Afghanistan into Anatolia, wc+d have destroyed The Ghaznevids first settled Arslan and his Turks in the Khurasan
Byzantine power in Anatolia, and would have begun the last major steppe around Sarakhs, Abivard, and Kizil Avrat (Farava), to the east of
ethnographical alteration of the Near East. It is obvious from the the Caspian. But no sooner were they installed than their disturbances
Christian sources that the Byzantines knew very little as to the origins caused the Ghaznevids to make war upon them,30 and in the campaigns
and history ofthe Seljuks, but the Muslim authors seem not to have known that followed, the Turkmens were defeated and scattercd. One group
a great deal more, What the Seljuks themselves purported to believe about moved to the regions of Balkhan and Dihistan to the northwest of Kizil
their origins was not committed to writing until the latter half of the Avrat, whereas a second group of perhaps 2,000 tents moved south to
twelfth century and this work, the Malikname, has not survi~ ed. ~These 7 Kirman and Isfahan, and by the 1040’s was raiding as far west as Meso-
Se$ tribes entered the Middle East via the steppe regions to the east potamia, Kurdistan, and Armenia. As a result, by the early years of the
and northeast of the Caspian Sea. This area had begun to be occupied by third decade of the century, the original body of followers o f Seljuk had
Turkic peoples as early as the sixth century of the Christian era and the
split into the three rollowing divisions: Balkhan, “Iraqi,” and the Seljuks
Oghuz Turks, to whom the early Arab geographers refer, were probably proper (who had remained under Toghrul and Caghri). The first group
their descendants. After the breakup of the great Turkic empire in played little role i n the events that rollowed, whereas the Iraqi Turks
Mongolia, the history of the Oghuz Turks concentrated increasingly, served as the advance guard for the Seljuk cxpansion that was to follow
from the eighth and ninth centuries, on the northeastern borders of the and would in some instances join the main body of Seljuks at that time
Islamic world.28 The Seljuks were of these Oghuz Turks. According to
when they would appear in Iran and Mesopotamia.
their traditions a certain Dudak and his son Seljuk, of the IGnik tribe of
It was the third group, that of Toghrul-Caghri, which was to remake
the O g h u ~ were
, ~ ~ vassals of a “Khazar” khan in the Asiatic steppe. the history of the Middle East. For a while they had remained with the
Seljuk then broke away from the khan, established himself with a modest
Karakhanids at Bukhara, but then moved on to Khwarazm near
following in the regions of the Jaxartes Rivcr where he was converted to
Shurkhan on the Oxus (Amu Darya) River. By I034 they had moved into
Islam, and henceforth fought his pagan “compatriots” as a ghazi defender
Khurasan and occupied the lands reccntly vacated by their tribal
of the Islamic border lands. In this region and toward the end of the tenth
compatriots, those of Arslan, in the districts of Nesa, Sarakhs, Abivard,
century, Seljuk and his followers were called in by the Samanids against
Kizil Avrat, and others. As the Ghaznevids had d u s e d to grant these
the power of the Turkish Karakhanids; they were thereafter employed
lands to the Seljuks (no doubt as a result of their experiences with the
by the latter and so became a permanent part of the political scene in the
Seljuks of Arslan) Toghrul and CaghrI took them by force of arms. I n
Islamic world. But by 1025 the followers of Seljuk had split into two
this manner began thc final struggle between Seljuks and Ghaznevids as to
separate groups, the main body (under Toghrul and Caghri) remaining
the fate of the key Muslim province of Khurasan. The issue was decided
in the service of the Karakhanids for a period, and a second group of
a t the fateful battle of Dandanaqan in 1040. This date marks a decisive
4,000 tents under Arslan which broke away and took service under the
point not only for the Middle East but also for Byzantium as Iienccforth
Ghaznevids in Khurasan. Henceforth these two groups had different
the Seljuks became the possessors of an cstablished territorial state won
historical experiences, but nevertheless, complementary to each other.
by trial of arms.31 This first possession of the Seljuks, Khurasan, was on
Therefore it is of some profit to trace, briefly, their separate histories. In
the bordcrs of the Islamic world, presenting the Seljuk princes with the
a sense, this second group of Arslan constituted the advance guard of the
temptation to enter Persia and the lands to the west. From this time the
Seljuks into the Islamic world, and as they advanced, those places that
Seljuks no longer thought of the Jaxartes region, their point of departure,
they had temporarily settled, plundered, and abandoned were occupied
a n d did not oppose the occupation of these more northerly regions by
by the larger group of Toghrul and Caghri.
another Turkic people, the Kipchaks, The great problem now facing the
“Cahen has made a careful reconstruction of this work in “Le Malik-nameh et Seljuk princes was that of transforming themselves from war chiefs of
l’histoire des origines seljukides,” Oriens, I1 (194g), 31-65 (hereafter cited as Cahen,
“Le Malik-nameh”), nomadic tribes, who were preoccupied with pillage and with procurement
“v. V. Barthold, Four Studies 012 the History of Central Asia: vol. 111, A History of tire
Twktnan People (Leiden, 1962), pp. 88-90 (hereafter cited as Barthold, Turkman People). 3o Barthold, Turkman People, p. 104. One officialhad suggested, prior to their installation

Cahen, “Ghuzz,” EI,; R. N. Frye and A. M. Sayili, “Turks in the Middle East before in Khurasan, that these Seljuks should be exterminated, or that at least their thumbs
the SeUuks,” J.A.O.S., LXIII (IQ43), 194-207. should be hacked off so that they might not draw their terrible bows. Their notoriety as
Barthold, Turkrnan People,pp. I 10-1 I I . Cahen, “Le Malik-nameh,” p. 42; “Les tribus foes of settled life had preceded them.
t u r W s d’hie occidentale pendant la ptriode seljoukide,” W . 2 K.M., LI (1948-52), s1 R. N. Zakhoder, “Dendanekan,” Belleten, X V I I I (1954), 581-587. Spiiler,
179. Ofthe twenty-four tribes which the eleventh century author Kashgari says made up “Ghaznevids,” EI,. 0 . Pritsek, “Die Karahaniden,” Der Islam, XXXI ( I 953-54.), 17-68.
the Oghuz, the Kinik was the princely tribe, On the history and society of the Great Seljuks there has now appeared the compre-
hensive work of 0. Turan, Selguklular tarihi ve Turk-Islami nieden9eti (Ankara, I 965).

of pasturage for their flocks, to monarchs of sedentary, civilized Middle expansion greatly facilitated first the Turkish penetration and then the
Eastern society. There was the alternative before Toghrul of giving free conquest of the Seljuks in Adharbaydjan, Transcaucasia, and Armenia,
rein to the Turkmen instinct to plunder the sedentary society, or to for in all these areas there were numerous dynasties, both Christian and
protect it from the pillaging of the nomads. Toghrul achieved the latter Muslim, in a state of constant war with one another.35 Quite often the
by sending the Turkmen tribes westward to raid the frontiers of the Muslims hired the services of Turks in this advance guard of raiders, but
Christian states of Armenia, Georgia, and Byzantium.32 By this time soon they acquiesced in the political domination of the succeeding waves
(1040)there had occurred a large accretion of Turkmens to the standards of Turkish invaders, or submitted to the commanders of the Seljuk sultan.
ofToghrul and Caghri, attracted by the great victories and the prospects Thus portions of Adharbaydjan, Kurdistan, Transcaucasia, and the
of plundering new lands. borders of Armenia were saturated by the newcomers, who in the end
Toghrul’s primary concern was the conquest of Persia and Meso- replaced many of the local dynasties. It was in this manner that the
potamia and so it was here that he concentrated his attention and military eastern frontiers of Byzantine Anatolia were eventually threatened by a
efforts.By 1055 he had secured this conquest and enjoyed a triumphal deluge of Turkmens in the reign o€ Constantine and thereafter.
entry into Baghdad where took place his celebrated audience with the
caliph.33But previous to this consolidation of power i n Mesopotamia- INTERRELATION O F BYZANTINE DECLINE AND

Iran, there had taken place a rapid expansion northwestward into Adhar- TURKISH PRESSURE ( I 042-7 I )
baydjan, Transcaucasia, a n d Armenia, caused by the increasing number I n the three decades between the accession of Constantine IX (1042)
ofTurkmens either fleeing Seljuk authority or else shunted northwestward a n d the battle of Manzikert ( I O ~ I ) one
, can discern a definite pattern
by the Seljuks in an effort to save Mesopotamia-Iran from their presence. in the reaction of the Turkmcn groups building up on the eastern borders
Their movements are dificult to follow but certain patterns appear. to the deteriorating internal conditions of the empire in Anatolia and the
There were actual military campaigns of the sultan or his representatives Balkans. The raids, starting out in a somewhat cautious manner, were not
in these areas in an effort to stabilize the frontiers and to maintain some frequent in the beginning. But as the condition of the empire progressively
kind of authority over the tribesmen i n the border regions. There were weakened each year, and as the number of Turks on the borders increased,
also raids of the sultan’s representatives which often had as their primary the audacity, frequency, and extent of the raids increased considerably.
end the satisfaction of the tribal instincts and appetites for plunder and O n e gets the impression from the Greek chronicles that, even before
djihad. Finally, and most important, there were the activities of the Manzikert took place, the Turks were raiding deep into Anatolia with
Turkmens either in rebellion or simply not recognizing any Seljuk little danger from Byzantine forces.
auth0rity.~4 I n this period of roughly thirty years, the struggle between the pro-
The political conditions prevailing in these areas of new Turkish vincial magnate-generals and the bureaucracy did not abate but rather
became more acute. T h e armies of Anatolia were turned against Con-
Cahen, “Le Malik-narneh,” pp. 62-64. For the most detailed political and socio-
economic survey of the background to the Seljuk appearance in Khurasan see Barthold, stantinople and the bureaucrats, or they were brought to defend Con-
Turkestnn down 10 the Mongol Invasion (London, I gr8), pp. 254-304, Zakhoder, “SelFuklu stantinople against rebellious generals a t the head of the armies in the
devlctinin kurulusu sirasinda Horasan,” Belleten, XIX (I 955), 491-527.On the problem
of the degree to which the Oghuz had accustomed themselves to urball life and on the Balkans, or else to combat the Patzinaks who had crossed the Danube.
character of their society one may consult, C, Brockelmann, “Mahmud a1 Kasghari At the same time the indigenous provincial armies were being dissolved.
ilbcr die Sprache und die Stamme der Turken im I I . Jahrhundert,” K.C.A., I (1921-25),
26-40. Houtsma, “Die Ghusenstamme,” W.Z.K.M., I1 (1888),219-233. Ibn Fadlan- It is no mere chance that the Seljuk incursions became prominent for the
Togan, PP. 19 fl‘. Hudud al-Alam-Minorsky, pp. 1 0 0 - 1 0 1 , 150, 311, 311-312.V. Gord- first time, and permanent, in the reign of the bureaucrat emperor
levslti, Izbranyie Sochirieniia (Moscow, 1960), I, 70-95, F. Sumcr, “Anadolu’ya yalniz
gocebe tiirkler mi geldi ?” Belleten, XXIV (1960), 567-596. D. Theodoridis, “Turkei- R. Huseynnov, “La conquOte de 1’Azerbaijan par les Scldjoucides,” B.K., XIX-XX
turkisch nadas,” Zeitschrift Jiir Balkanologie, IV (I 966), 146-148, has introduced a slight (1965)~ 99-109; Sirtiskie i s l o k k ob Azerbaidranc (Baku, 1960),pp. 93-113, states that the
modification on one aspect of Sumer’s study, deriving the Turkish n a d a s f i o m the Greek basic conquest of Adharbaydjan took place after Dandanaqan ( IO~O), but that isolated
VEUT6S. The Islamic materials on the Turkic tribes are conveniently collected and trans- raids occurred earlier. Togan, “Azerbaycan,” I.A., ; Urnumi T u r k tarihirze girls (Istanbul,
lated in S. L. Volina, A. A. Romaskevi;, A. Y. Yakubovski, M n t e r i a b p o istorii Tzrrkmen i 1946),pp. 182-192.Minorsky, “Adharbaydjan,” E12.Sumer, “Azerbaycanin turklcsmesi
Tiirknienii (Moscow. I aqo).
I 11111- tarihine bir baki;,” Belleten, XXI (1957),429-447. For Transcaucasia, Minorsky, Studies
s* For details, Spuler, Iran itrfru/i-islamisclrpr Zeit (Wiesbaden, I 9 5 ~ pp.
) ~ I 24-129. in Caucasian History (London, 1953);A History of Sharuiin arid Darband i n the r o h - ~ r t h
34 Cahen, “La premiere pPnCtration turque en h i e Mineure seconde moitit du XIo
Cenlziries (Cambridge, 1958). On the Kurds see also Minorsky, “Kurds,” EI,. K. V.
si&cle,”Byranlion, X V I I I (1946-48), 12-13 (hereafter cited as “Prem. Ptn.”) ; “The
Zettersteen, “Marwanids,” EII. H. F. hmedroz, “Three Arabic MSS on the History of
Turkish Invasions: The Selchukids,” in A History o f t h e Crusades, ed. K. Sctton (Phila-
the City of Mayyafariqin,” Jotlrnal of the Roynl Asiatic Society (1902), pp. 758-812;“The
delphia, 1955)~ I, 144-147(hereafter cited as “Turk. Inv.”); “Qutlumush et ses fils avant
Marwanid Dynasty a t Mayyafariqin in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries,” Journal
I ’ h i e Mineure,” Dcr Islam, X X X I X (1964)’14-27.
llre Royal Asiatic Society (1903), pp. 113-154.Canard, “Dvin,” E L .
84 85

Constantine IX Monomachus ( 1 0 4 2 - 5 5 ) .36 Constantine’s inept military to meet the Turkish armies in the beginning, and even after the arrival of
policies, which led to the dissolution of the indigenous soldiery of the the Georgians, thcy had not been able to destroy the Turkish forces. The
Iberian theme and of the region of Byzantine Mesopotamia with their incursions of Asan and Ibrahim, as well as the destruction of Artze, were
accompanying conversion into tax-paying units, have already been dis- no doubt the consequences of the revolt of the western generals which had
cussed e1sewhere.s’ These border areas, among the most vital regions in so weakened the defenses of the eastern borders.
the defense of the eastern provinces, had been disturbed previously by The Patzinak raids in the Balkans during the reign of Monomachus
other events.38 In I047 there had taken place the revolt of Leo Tornices, were a more visible and far more immediate threat to the empire, as it
supported by many of the dissatisfied and idle western generals, seemed virtually impossible to halt them. O n at least two occasions the
marched on Constantin~ple.~~ Because the capital itself was without emperor removed troops from Anatolia to bolster the Balkan front. In
defenders, Monomachus summoned the magistrus Constantine from the 1050 troops were brought from the east to augment the Byzantine armies
eastern borders where he was waging war against Abu’l-Scwar the Shad- in the Patzinak campaigns,44 but as the Patzinak ravages continued
dadid. As a result of the civil strife i n the empire, he was forced to conclude unabated, Monomachus employed eastern armies in the Balkans as late
peace with Abu’l-Sewarand to bring the eastern armies to Constantinople. as 1053.45 I t was soon after this, in 1054,that the sultan Toghrul, appeared
Soon after the revolt of Tornices and the withdrawal of the magistrus in the regions of Lake Van where his army spread out to raid. The cities
Constantine, the empire’s Anatolian frontiers became the object of serious of Paipert and Perkri were besieged and sacked, and the key city of
Turkish raids when, in ro48, a body of Turks under Asan descended from Manzikert underwent a difficult siege.4oIt was as a result of these events, it
the regions ofTabriz and proceeded to lay waste Vaspuracan. Aaron, the would seem, that Monomachus subsequently transported the troops lrom
governor of that province, did not have suflicient forces to meet the the Macedonian theme to the east under Bryenni~s.~’
invaders and so he summoned Cccaumenus the governor or Ani, and I n the years 1056-57 the Turkish chief Sainuh appeared with 3,000
upon the arrival of the latter thc combined forces defeated the Turks by Turks in greater Armenia, where he remained for a number of years.48
resorting to a I n I049 a larger army of Turks appeared in In the face of the growing number of Turks massed on the eastern frontier
Vaspuracan under the Seljuk prince lbrahim Inal, and as a result in Armenia, the military aristocracy of Anatolia launched a revolt that
Cecaumenus and Aaron had to await the arrival of Georgian reinforce- marks a turning point i n the acceleration of the Turkish raids into the
ments under Lipa ri te ~.While~ ~ the Byzantines awaited reinforcements peninsula. Isaac Comnenus, supported by the Anatolian generals, raised
this considerable Turkish force captured and plundered the important the majority of the thematic, mercenary, and Armenian troops of Anatolia,
commercial center of Artze near Erzerum. The destruction of this city and marched them toward the B o s p h o r u ~Those
. ~ ~ of the Anatolian forces
marks the beginning of the sacking of many of the important urban which had not adhered to the rebellion, the troops of the Anatolic and
centers in Byzantine A n a t ~ l i a .O~n~ the arrival of the Georgians, the
Turkish and Byzantine forces came to blows a t Kapetru, but the outcome 4* Catacolon Cecaurnenus a n d Herve Frankopoulos, and probably their troops also, had

was indeci~ive.~~The Byzantine forces had not been numerically sufficient already been transferred to Thrace before 1050. Cedrenus, 11, 593-594, 597.
4 6 L. Brthier, Vie et mort (Paris, 1947), p. 257.
38 Bryennius, 31-31; Zonaras, 111, 641.Cedrenus, 11, Fog. 4a Attaliates, 46-47. Matthew of Edessa, pp. g8-1on. Bar Hebraeus, I, 207. M. Yinanc,
37 Cedrenus, 11,608,enters this event just before the plague of the seventh and eighth Anadolu’nunfetlri (Istanbul, 1g44), p. 49. Honigmann, Ostgrenze, p. 181.
years of the indiction, viz. 1054-55, 4 7 Cedrenus, 11, 61 I. According to popular belief the Turks would be destroyed by a
3 8 Attaliates, 44-45. Cecaurnenus, p. 18.Zonaras, 111,647. “ &AX& K a l xwpGv oiraGv, forcc similar to that of Alexander the Great which had conquered the Persians. Thus
a1Tois PauihEOuiw 06 Gaupoirs U U V E ~ U ~ ~ ~M OAV ’, brv-ri .rr&uqstjaupo~opias6uoXwpiaS Macedonian troops and soldiers were sent, J. Laurent, Byzance et les Turcs seljoitcidcs dans
I ~ p o ~ p o uK ua i Tois Pappdrpois T ~ EVt s TUS Pwpaiois firomptvag Xcjpas ~ T T T E T E J x ~ ~ o v 1‘Asie occidetrtalejusclu’en 1081 (Nancy, 1913) p. 33 (hereafter cited as Laurent, Byzance et
TapoFv, $Twos ~pbpous Tais Xchpais ivirCrcas 1qXMauE T&S ~poupdrs. K&vTEOeEv les T i m s ) , asserts that all the western arrnics were in Asia Minor a t the time of Toghril’s
"pas Tas PwatGas xhpus @mqTois pappixpols VETO mipotjos. kEivoS TOJVUV 6 appearance in 1054. It is true that according to the text of Cedrenus, 11, G I I , western
hvhp a h o s Tois h a E x Aoyo~op6vois KplefiuETaI TOG ~ f E+av i ~poipaw tjoupi troops had been moved to Anatolia undcr Constantine IX. But no date is given in the
KUplEVOjvai PappapiKG.” In the place of the local soldiery were to be found some text, and Laurent has, by erroneously placing the death of Constantine IX in 1054
Frankish and Varangian mercenaries. Cedrenus, 11, 606. (instead of ro55), made it probable that they were prcsent when Toghril appearcd in
Cedrenus, 11, 561-566. 1054. But his account errs in two points. The text clearly states that the troops of the
Cedrenus, 11, .573-574, implies that the Byzantine armies were not strong enough Macedonian theme were brought over, and not all of the troops of the west. However,
to meet the Turks In battle. It was for this reason that Cecaumenus devised the ruse and Monomachus died in 1055, and it is quite probable that the Macedonians were brought
then upon the Turks in their disarray while they were plundering the Byzalltine camp, over after Toghril’s appearance, for according to Attaliates, 46-47, and Matthew of
“ Ibid.,575, gives the exaggerated figure of I OO,OOO. Edessa, p. gg, the Byzantine defenses were under Basil Apocapes, there being no mention
4 2 On its wealth, Population, and the Turkish booty, Cedrenus, 11,577-578; Matthew of of Bryennius
Edessa, pp. 89-84. Cedrenus, 11, 616. As has already been indicated above, the dissatisfied Frankish
Cedrenui, 11; 579, indicates that the Byzantine right and left wings drove the Turks mercenaries of Armeniacon under Herve made common cause with him. Ibid., 617.
from the field and chased them through the night until “. , the crow of the cock.” 4 0 Ibid., 627, . , , 4 v&oa6+a “Pwpakfi x ~ l p vhfiv 6Afywv. .. ”


Charsianite themes, joined the western military contingents loyal to the Anatolia almost without hindrance, and started the systematic pillaging
government. The two armies, east and west, met in a sanguinary battle of the urban hearths of Anatolian Hellenism.
just outside the city of Nicaea, and though the Anatolian generals won the For this twelve-year period, we have a firsthand witness to the military
victory, the empire actually suffered defeat, for the soldiery of east and deterioration i n the Byzantine armies, the historian Michael Attaliates
west were locked in a mutually destructive struggle and the number of the who served as a n oficial in the armies during many of the Anatolian
dead was great.60 One chronicler states that o n that day Isaac Comnenus campaigns and who was present a t the battle of Manzikert.50 The dis-
plunged the whole Greek nation into mourning,61 and another remarks mantling and demoralization of the military, well on the way in the time
that Isaac’s revolt brought misfortune to Armenia.E2 Both were correct, of Constantine IX, was largely consummated by the end o f the reign of
for not only did the slaughter further exhaust the already depleted armies,63 Constantine X (1067). T h e temporary interregnum of the generals
but the borders were left unguarded. This battle, in 1057, markcd the under Isaac I had not lasted long enough to effect any significant change
departure of the traditional Byzantine armies from the Anatolian scene. in this demilitarization, and when Constantine X ascended the throne
On October 3, 1057, just one month after the entry of Isaac into Con- in 1059 the government was once more completely in the hands of the
stantinople, a Turkish army under the emir Dinar, finding the east bureaucrats. Their antimilitary sentiment set the fashion for the society o f
undefcnded, approached Camacha where it spread out. One column the day.
marched against Coloneia, the home of Catacolon Cecaumenus who had I The very soldiers thcmselves abandoned their weapons and military service
just raised the armies o f that area for the civil war and had left his and became advocates and devotees of legal problems and questi0ns.~7
province undefended; the second column besieged Melitene, one of the The military catalogs were no longer fully maintained, the bravest and
great commercial centers of the eastern Anatolian regi0ns.6~Melitene and
most able troops being completely withdrawn from service because of
its population of wealthy Syrian, Armenian, and Greek merchants
expense and fear of the generals, Even Psellus, the archbureaucrat,
suffered the fate of Artze, as great numbers of the inhabitants were
felt constrained to protest at the extremity of the emperor’s cuts in the
either killed or enslaved, a n d the booty the Turks took-gold, silver, and
military budget.58With the appearance of the Turkish chief Samuh and
other loot-was greatVE5
the Khurasan Salar and their raiding Turks in Anatolia, Constantine X
In the twelve years between the death of Isaac Comnenus and the battle
was finally obliged to send an army to halt their ravagcs. But, Attaliates
of Manzikert, the internal crisis of the empire became further aggravated
remarks, this army was not satisfactory,
and the Turkish tribesmen continued to saturate the border lands. Thus
the financial, administrative, and military collapse of the Anatolian because [it was] unarmed and uneager as a result of thedeprivationof ilsprovisions;
So to speak it was the worst section [of the army], for the better soldiers were
provinces characterized this period of slightly more than a decade. T h e I
removed from military service by reason of the greater rank and salary [involved].
bureaucratic fear of the armies and financial difficulties of the state caused That which occurred was blameworthy, for nothing brave or in keeping with the
the final disappearance of the locally levied troops as effective military former Rhomaic magnificence and strength was accomplished [by the army].G9
units. The ethnic groups of Byzantine Anatolia-Greeks, Syrians, and T h e same emperor virtually handed over Ani to thc Turks because the
Armenians-were at the throats of one another as separatist movements Armenian Pancratius promised to defend it without spending money on
among the Armenians commenced, and open warfare broke out between military forces. This left Ani without military defenders and caused it to
Greeks and Armenians, Armenians and Syrians, and Greeks and Syrians.
baCedrenus’ account follows that of Attaliates faithfully.
I n such a situation the mercenary units began to disregard the commands 67Cedrenus, 11, G52. Attaliates, 76-77, ~b 6E C ~ E I ~ Ka\ C ~&yav ~ V I T O P I O T I K ~ V TGV

of the government and to act as free agents. It was during this time of 6qVodov x p q p & T ’ w v ~ T I VO T ~K a l o k iv ~O.rrpoacj.rro~~ahlas, KCd ~b KUT’ i@volctv
6lKUCJ”rlKbV, KUi Tb K a T U T p O V q T l K b V TqS UTpCTTIOTIKqS E h p c r y l U S K a l 0 T P C n ~ ) ’ l l c ~ S
military, administrative, a n d fiscal anarchy that the Turks began to raid Kal &PITIK?S ~imaB~Ia5 vohh6v K a i U X E ~ ~ &V V T W VTGV SIT^ ‘Pwpalo~sTEAOQVTWV
h U ~ U V T l K b V &~TI{OVTO. fiyEIpET0 yhp TOhbS YOWVGLlbS. . . T6V KaTa6pOphS
Attaliates, 55, 69. Matthew of Edessa, pp. 103-104. 6 ~ l C r r c t V h J W VP U P P a P I K & S 61h T b Vfi KaTh hbyOV TbV CJTpUTlWTlKbV KUTdthOyOV
“Attaliates, 69. On Isaac’s death (1059) it was noticed that his corpse swelled with ylvso0ai .”
liquid. Many saw in this a divine punishment for his responsibility in the great slaughter of 68Zonaras, 111, 677. Psellus-Renauld, 11, 146-147,
5n Attaliates, 78-79, 85. He refused to send an army to halt the Uze depredations in the
’’Aristaces, passim, regions of Hcllas, Macedonia, and Thrace. When the pressure of “public opinion”
53 The armies had been preViQUSly subject to extensive decimation at the hands of the becamc too great to withstand, Constantine finally mustered a tiny force of 150 men to
Patzinaks in the Balkans, BrChier, Vie el mort, p. 257. march out against a horde which the contemporary sources, exaggeratedly, estimate to
Honigmann, Ostgrenze, p. 184. Matthew of Edessa, pp. 107-108. have numbered 60,000! “Upon which everyone was amazed that the emperor should have
66Matthew of Edessa, p. 108. Bar Ilebraeus, I, 212-213. Michael the Syrian, 111, left the capital with such a small army against such a powcrful force. . and it was like .
158-1 59. the mythological expedition of Dionysus, when he marched against the Indians, with the
maenads and silenoi.”

fall to the TUrks.aoShortly after Constantine Ducas’s death in 1067 and were without military experience and unaccustomed to the military struggles.
during the brief regency of Eudocia, the state of the armies had become Whereas the enemy was very bold in warfare, persevering, experienced, and
chaotic. On many occasions these tattered remnants of the military forces suitable.Gs
simply retired to the safety of walls and refused to march out and oppose This is the military instrument that Romanus inherited from a quarter
the Turks. century of bureaucrat policies. The conditions of the armies were obvious
The Turks, who were raiding the east again came against the Rhomaic armies to t h e Byzantine contemporary observers, and their great inferiority in
encamped in Mesopotamia, but especially against those around Melitene. These, terms of equipment, experience, and morale to the Turkish troops clearly
being in want of their salary a n d deprived of the provisions usually supplicd them,
noted. Romanus, however, did the best he could with the poor material
were in an abased and deprived state.G1
a t hand, H e collected youths from all the regions and but as they
Because of this condition they refused to go out against the invaders, with
were completely inexperienced, he mixed them with what veterans were
the consequence that the Turks sacked the city of Caesareia.
a t hand, expecially from the Balkan tugmutu. Though this energetic
When, to the southeast, combined Turkish and Arab forces raided the
emperor was a capable soldier, his armies were not equal to the enormous
regions about Antioch, Nicephorus Botaniates tried to muster an army,
task before them and their nervousness and cowardice in the face of the
but again the miserliness of the administration paralyzed these efforts.
Turkish enemy had by now become a n almost ingrained characteristic.
As only a portion of the salary was paid, the soldiers took it and then
T h e mercenaries, upon whom the Byzantines were forced to rely,
scattered to their homes leaving the enemy forces free to ravage the
began to demonstrate clearly that their loyalty depended directly on, and
neighborhood of the city. s o this time an attempt was made to levy a
was proportionate to, the strength of the central and provincial govern-
fcw raw youths.
ments and their pay. When the central and provincial administration
But they were without military experience and without horses, and more or
became weak in this period, and as the government no longer had
less without armour, naked and not even [provided] with daily bread.02
sufficient funds to live up to its terms of hire, the mercenaries showed
Having temporarily overthrown the bureaucrats, the general Romanus
themselves to be independent agents. This twelve-year period, then,
Diogenes found the armies in an even more dreadful state. Cedrcnus, in witnessed an intensification of the unruly conduct of the foreign soldiery.
pages filled with Gibbonian melancholy, describes the mustering of the
The Muslim military leader, Amertices, who had served Byzantium,
armies by Romanus for his first great campaign against the Turks i n I 068.
deserted t o the Turks because his pay had bcen witheld, and then played
The emperor, leading an army such as did not befit the emperor of the a major role in the raids in Anatolia and around Anti0ch.6~ The Armen-
Rhomaioi but one which the times furnished, of Macedonians and Bulgars
ian troops had an old tradition of instability,sa and when the Turks
and Cappadocians and Uzes and the other foreigners who happened to be about,
in addition also of Franks and Varangians, set out hastily. All were mustered b y appeared before Sebasteia in 1059 the Armenian princes and their
impcrial command in Phrygia, that is in the theme of the Anatolicoi, where troops abandoned the city to its fateaa7A decade later (1068) while
there was to be seen the incredible [viz.] the famous champions of the Rhomaioi Romanus Diogenes’ army was before Syrian Hierapolis, the Armenian
who had enslaved all the east and west [now] consisted of a few men. These were infantry caused a major crisis by threatening to rebelsa8The rebellion
bent Over by poverty and distress and were deprived of armour. Instead of swords of t h e Frankish leader Crispin in I 069 was of a major dimension. Having
and other military weapons. .. they were bearing hunting spears and scythes
considered his reward from the emperor as unsatisfactory, he returncd
[and this1 not during a period of peace, and they were without war horse a n d
other equipment. Inasmuch as no emperor had taken the field for many years, to the Armeniac theme and there raised the Latins in revolt. The tax
they were for this reason unprofitable and useless, and their salary and the collectors and the land were plundered, and when Samuel Alusianus
customary provisions had been stripped away. They were cowardly and unwarlike (the general of the five western tugmata encamped in that area) took the
and appeared to be unserviceable for anything brave. The very standards spoke field, Crispin defeated him and inflicted severe losses on these western
out taciturnly, having a squalid appearance as if darkened by thick smoke, a n d
they had few and poor followers. These things being observed by those present, forces. All this having occurred as Romanus was setting out on his second
they were filled with despondency as they reckoned how low the armies of the Turkish campaign, i t seemed as if the whole military expedition against
nhomaioi had fallen, and by what manner and from what moneys and how long the Turks would have to be redirectcd to stay the rapacity of the Franks >,
it would take to bring them back to their former condition. For the older a n d O3 Cedrenus, 11, 668-669.
experienced were without horse and without armour, and the fresh detachments O4 Attaliates, 104,“ K a l d~ ~ a u q gXwpas K C ~ I d h e o s U E ~ T ~ TCWAAEE~VEVOS.”
O 0 Attaliatcs, 79-82. M. Canard, “La campagne armdnienne du sultan salgukide Alp _ _ .. Scylitzes, 11,661. He had previously attempted to assassinate the emperor
G s 16id., 94-95.
Arslan et la prise d ’ h i en 1064,” Revue des Dudes armkienaes, I1 (1965)~239-259. Constantine X Ducas.
Cedrenus, 11, 660. Attaliates, 93. G G Zepos, J.G.R., I, 247.
O 2 Cedrenus, XI, 661-663. Attaliates, 94-96. Matthew of Edessa, pp. I I 1-1 17.
Attaliates, I 13. Scylitzes, 11, 674.

who were ravishing the very provinces they had been hired to defend, vicinity. That these regions of Anatolia were thrown into a state of
Crispin finally made his submission, but i n the end had to be imprisoned, ethnic war seems to be confirmed by a number of incidental facts, The
retaliation, the Latins then proceeded t o ravage the regions of Byzan- outrage of the Armenians was such, Matthew remarks, that Kakig intended
tine Mesopotamia at the same time that the emperor was forced to to desert to the Turks, but he was eventually slain by the Greeks in the
proceed to Caesareia to meet a serious Turkish raid.09 Taurus before he could do so. 71 Romanus had considerable trouble with
On the eve of the battle of Manzikert itself, when the emperor was the Armenians and considered the areas in which they were settled as a
encamped at Cryapege, the mercenaries were busy ravaging the environs. no-man’s land that was not safe for his armies. During his eastern cam-
ASRomanus attempted to halt their depredations, the Germans attacked paign of I 069 Romanus was obliged to halt to receive the stragglers from
the emperor in force and the remainder of the army had to be mustered his army lest they perish at the hands of the Armenians in the regions of
in order to put down t h e Gerrnans.7O The shortsightedness of the C e l t ~ e n e . 7When
~ h e made his appearance at Sebasteia, the Greek
bureaucrats in hiring such large numbers of mercenaries at the expense inhabitants complained to him that when Sebasteia had been sacked by
of the local soldiery was dramatically manifested during this period, and the Turks (1059), the Armenians had been more violent and unpitying
their disloyalty severely hampered the defense of Anatolia against the toward the Greeks than had the Turks themselves ! So it was that Romanus
Turks and contributed to the chaos and disruption of provincial ordered his troops to attack Sebasteia, a Byzantine city, and then he
administration. swore that he would destroy the Armenian faith.I3 In addition to the
With this paralysis of the provincial governmental structure, the tension between Greeks and Armenians and between Greeks and
hostilities of the three principal ethnic groups i n eastern Byzantine Syrians, there was strife between the Syrians and Armenians in the region
Anatolia came into full play. There had been tense moments in the about Melitene where the Armenians raided the Syrian monasteries
relations of Greeks, Syrians, and Armenians in hc first ha1 of the and roamed the countryside attacking the Syrian population. They even
eleventh century, but at that timc Byzantine authority was effective in considered taking the famous Syrian monastery of Bar Mar Sauma.7n
these eastern provinces and a semblance of order and regularity prevailed. The existence of these diverse ethnoreligous groups in the eastern
The disruption of provincial administration in the reign of Constantine provinces of Anatolia, and Constantine’s attempt to enforce the
X,and the latter’s ill-conceived religious policies, unleashed the specter Chalcedonian creed upon them during this period, were among the factors
of ethnic and sectarian strife from Antioch to Sebasteia and Caesareia. leading to the breakdown of Byzantine authority in these critical areas.
The state, in a policy recalling events of the sixth and seventh centuries, Against this background of ghost armies, rampaging mercenaries, and
attempted to force ecclesiastical union and the Chalcedoniall creed on ethnic warfare in the provinces, the Turkish invaders make their appear-
both Syrians and Armenians. In 1063 all who did not accept the ance with greater frequency, numbers, and effectiveness. The border
Chalcedonian creed in Melitene were to be expelled from the city, and warfare of the Turks was loosely controlled by the sultan, who for this
one year later the Syrian patriarch was arrested and the leading Syrian purpose had entrusted command of the Anatolian borders to Yakuti
clergymen were brought to Constantinople. Charged with spreading their Beg.75 T h e Turkish bands were considerably increased in number when
own religious doctrines a n d having refused to accept Chalcedon, the
Syrian ecclesiastical leader (the metropolitan of Melitene) was exiled to 7l Vryonis, Social Basis,” 169-172. Matthew of Edessa, pp. 95-98, 152-154. Michael
the Syrian, 111, 161,x66-x68. There is further evidence for this phenomenon in which
Macedonia. The Armenians similarly experienced considerable imperial Georgian and Armenian princes and aristocrats joined the Turks and in some capes
pressure in this matter, as the Armenian catholicus and manv of his converted to Islam. This is clear not only from the Armenian and Georgian chronicles
bishops were summoned t o Constantinople and held virtual Drisoners, -~--
but especially in the Turkish epic, the Danishmendname. Religious discussions between
. . Byzantines and Armenians resumed in the twelfth century when religious passions had
(1060-63).Two years later (1065) they were once more ordered to appear somewhat subsided, P. P. Tekeyan, Controuerses christologiques en Armtho-CiEicie duns la
in Constantinople, but this time the Bagratid and Ardzrouni princes seconde moiti.4 dii X U e sidcle ( r r65-rrgL?), Orientalia Christiana Analecta (Rome, I 939).
Attaliates, 135. Scylitzes, 11, 683.
were also summoned. The Armenians, like the Syrians, refused to give V 3 At least this is what Matthew of Edessa, pp, 166-167, reports.
in at the religious discussions that followed, but unlike the Syrians they 74 Michael the Syrian, 111, 162-164. Bar Hebraeus, I, 217. O n religious polemic of the
Syrians with Greeks and Armenians in the twelfth century, there is the contemporary
obtained permission to return to their domains in Anatolia. When Kakig, tract of Dionysius bar Salibi (d. I I ~ I ) bishop, of Amid, The Work of Dionysius Barssnlibi
the Bagratid prince, returned to his lands in the province of Cappadocia against the Armenians, ed. and trans. A. Mingana (Cambridge, 1931) ; “Barsalibi’s Treatise
he instigated what amounted to open warfare against the Greeks in his against the Melchites,” in Woodbrooke Studies (Cambridge, I927), I, 2-95; “The Work of
Dionysius Barsalibi against the Armenians,” in Woodbrooke Strtdies, I V (Cambridge, 193 I).
E. Ter-Minassiantz, “Die armenische Kirche in ihren Beziehungen zu der syrischen
Attaliates, 122-1s5,Scylitzes, 11, 678-680. Kirche,” Texte und Untersuchungen, Neue Folge, XI, 4 Heft, 1-212.
Attaliates, 146-147. 76 Yinanc, Fethi, p. 51.

92 93
the Turkmens of the rebel Ibrahim Inal were moved westward by t h e
with its flamesthe faithful of Christ. The land was inundated with blood, and the
SeQuks, and then again i n 1063 when Kutlumush with 50,000 Turkmens 1 sword and sIavery spread their ravage here.87
revolted against Alp Arslan i n Rayy. After the defeat and death of
Kutlumush, his sons were pardoncd and sent to fight on the Anatolian The most important Byzantine city in Armenia, Ani, was taken and many
border^.'^ The names of the raiding chiefs now begin to appear in greater
of the inhabitants put to the sword or carried OK into slavery.B8
By reason of the weakened resistance at the end of Constantine’s reign,
numbers in the sources; Samuh in the regions of Sebasteia and else-
the Khurasan Salar in the districts of Thelkum, Nisibis, and the Turks had become even bolder and so began to push their incursions
Seveverek;78 Amertices about southern Anatolia and Coelo-Syria. 7 9 But farther to the west, where the larger towns which had been spared the
perhaps the most active of these was the emir Afsinios (Afshin) who rigors of siege for centuries now lay defenseless. The urban centers in
established himself on Mt. Amanaus in 1066-6780 and raided from central and western Anatolia were in a peculiar situation, for though
Antioch81and MeliteneE2 as far west as ChonaeaE3The emir Kulnush protected from the invaders by a greater distance, they did not have even
Tekin operated in the vicinity of Thelkum and Edessa,84 whereas the protecting forces that the border cities possessed. With the dissolution
Gedrigdj-Chrysoscule raided northern Anatolia before deserting to the of the larger part of the thematic armies, the more westerly provinces had
emperor.86In addition to the ever-present bands on the borders, the little defense; the mercenaries a n d other available troops were kept on the
sultans themselves made occasional appearances there, strengthening eastern borders where they often let the Turks pass through unhindered,
the Turkish forces. hoping to attack them in the mountain passes when they were returning
When Constantine X Ducas ascended the throne (1059)) the Turkish from Anatolia i n disarray and laden with booty, Thus once the Turks had
raids had previously devastated Armenia, the Byzantine provinces of overrun the border defenses they sacked the interior almost freely. T h c
Iberia and Mesopotamia, the region; around Coloneia, Melitene, and Turks reached the important Cappadocian city of Caesareia after having
Chaldia, and were now to threaten the more centrally located regions of been let through by the recalcitrant troops guarding Melitene. They
Anatolia. At least eight major urban centers were to suffer pillaging a t the plundered, destroyed, and burned the city, singling out the famous
hands of the Turks, and others were to experience difficult sieges in the shrine of St. Basil. This they looted, carrying away all the holy items of the
next years. The first of the important cities to be plundered was church, and attempted to break into the structure housing the saint’s
the comparatively large and wealthy town of Sebasteia, the location of the remains, The church was desecrated and the inhabitants massacred.8D
famous shrine of the Forty Martyrs. In 1059the emir Samuh and other I n the following year the Turkmens became bolder, daring to raid, sack,
emirs suddenly appeared before the unwalled city, but initially they and lead-off captive, the inhabitants of Neocaesareia, even though
hesitated to attack mistaking the domes of the many churches for the Romanus was encamped i n the eastern theme of Lycandus. The ability
tents ofthe defending army. They soon realized that the city was defense- of the enemy to sack such a n important Anatolian city indicates not only
less, and SO massacred pitilessly large numbers o f the inhabitants. The how completely the system of local defense had collapsed, but also the
Turks remained in Sebasteia for eight days, reducing it to ashes and taking essentially different type of military procedure followed by the Byzan-
a great booty and many prisoners.sGT h e sultan himself took the field in tines and their foes. T h e numerous Turkish bands might strike at any time
1064 with a large army and appeared i n Armenia. and in any place, b u t the Byzantine army was usually in one or two
places at any given time.90 I n the same year, while Romanus besieged
Proud of his success, the sultan, this dragon of Persia, that year pounced upon
Armenia. Instrument of divine vengeance, his wrath spread over the oriental the Syrian city of Hierapolis, the Turkish bands raided farther into
nation, which he forced to drink the vial ofhis malice. The fire of death enveloped Anatolia, and for the second time i n the long history of the Christian-
Muslim holy war, the famous city of Amorium was sacked by a Muslim
l b i d , PP. 53, 57. Cahen, “Qutlumush et ses fils avant 1’Asie Mineure,” Der Islnna, army, and its citizens massacred.91 Hereafter, the raiders contemptuously
XXXIX (1964)~ 14-27,
77 Matthew of Edessa, pp. I I 1-1 13. Attaliates, 78. disregarded the emperor and his armies in Anatolia. In 1069 while
Matthew of Edessa, pp. I 15-1 18. Romanus was in the district of Celtzene, the Turks passed through
‘LIAttaliates, 94-95.
Matthew of Edessa, p. 156. Cappadocia pillaging it en route and continued westward in the
Bar Hebraeus, I, 218.
Attaliates, 107. Ibid., p. 122.
Bar Hebraeus, I, 2 2 0 . , says as far as Constantinople! Yinanc, Fethi, p. 68. Scylitzes, 11, 653-654. Attaliates, 79-82. Matthew of Edessa, pp. 120-124.
84 Matthew of Edessa, p. 157. Bar Hebraeus, I, 217.
Attaliates, 93-94. Scylitzes, 11, 6G1. The sanctuary was so strongly built Lhat the
a6 Matthew of Edessa, p. 162.
Turks contented themselves with stripping it of its gold, pearls, and precious stones.
8oIbid, pp. 111-113. Scylitzes, 11, 684-685: bqD
O1 Ibid., 678, ..
. Aaqupuywylav ~ ~cpbvov t l &vSpmv &vb8qToV.”
direction of Iconium, the emperor receiving news of this only after he had that inasmuch as the place was called Eleinopolis (miserable city) by the
arrived i n Sebasteia. So h e set out in an effort to catch up with the rustics, this was very definitely unlucky. Indeed, after the imperial tent
marauders, but upon arriving at Heracleous Comopolis, h e was informed had been raised, the central pole supporting it gave way and the tent.
that the Turks had already sacked the cityaQ2 collapsedY06an event too obvious in its implications to pass unnoticed. The
One year later it was the turn of Chonae, the city sacred to the Arch- emperor himself seems not to have been perturbed by such superstitious
angel Michael. I n 1070 Romanus had been forced to remain in Con- signs and moved on to the important military station of Dorylaeumo7 and
stantinople to keep a n eye on the bureaucrats and the Ducas family, to the theme of Anatolicon to muster the Anatolian armies. Here again
SO the armies were sent out under the command of Manuel Comnenus. the emperor’s coming misfortune seemed to be announced, for the
As Hierapolis in Syria was under a severe siege, Comnenus was forced to I structure built to house Romanus and his retinue caught fire, and his
divide his army and to send a large portion ofit to relieve the besieged city. select horses, armor, bridles, and carriages were consumed by the flames.
H e himself encamped with t h e remainder of the army a t Sebasteia where Though some of the animals were saved, others were to be seen running
he was defeated and captured by the Turkish emir Chrysoscule. No sooner wildly through the camp, living torches. Romanus next crossed the
had the emperor received this news i n Constantinople than an even greater Sangarius River at the Zompus Bridge in hopes of collecting the Anatolian
disaster was reported to him, the city of Chonae had been savagely levies. But as these had scattered to the mountaintops, caverns, and other
pillaged by the Turks. The famed shrine of the Archangel was profaned places of refuge (because of the Turkish raids), Romanus took few of them.
and turned into a stable for the Turkish horses, and the raiders “filled the The expedition crossed the Halys, eventually making its way to the
region with murder,” The inhabitants, who were accustomed to flee to military station of Cryapege, and it was here that the German mercenaries
the caverns, where the river went underground in the vicinity of the attacked Romanus. T h e following station, Sebasteia, brought Romanus no
sanctuary, were all drowned when the river suddenly flooded. The sack respite, for the Greeks of the city complained against their Armenian
of Chonae, and especially the drowning of the fugitives in the under- neighbors. On the road from Sebasteia to Coloneia, Romanus and his
ground caverns, were taken by Byzantine society to be a n indication of troops were treated to the sight of the corpses of Manuel Comnenus’
God’s wrath. Cedrenus relates that formerly the Greeks had interpreted army that had been handled so roughly by the Turks i n 1070, and this in
the devastations and incursions of the Turks in Iberia, Mesopotamia up particular was interpreted as a bad omen. Upon arrival in Erzerum,
to Lycandus, and Melitene to be a sign of God’s anger with the Armenian rations for two months were passed out to the army as “they were about
and Syrian heretics who inhabited this area, But when the ravages spread to march through uninhabited land which had been trampled underfoot
to the regions inhabited by the Greeks, they decided that henceforth by the foreigners.”OQThe march to the eastern front must have had quite
“not only correct belief but also living the faith”03 were necessary. a demoralizing effect on the soldiery for they had seen many frightening
signs. T h e mercenaries had rebelled, the Greeks had complained about
Munzikert (1071)
Armenian cruelty, and just before reaching the borderlands they had
Accidents, evil omens, a n d ugly spectacles studded the beginning of seen the corpses of their former comrades, a sight that was morbidly
Romanus’ final campaign ( I 071) against thc Turks as his armies journeyed suggestive.
to the eastern front. A gray dove alighted on Romanus’ ship and came to T h e armies continued their march to the northwestern shores and the
the emperor’s hand as the imperial vessel was crossing the Bosphorus to vicinity of Lake Van, intending to take Manzikert and Chliat. The
Asia, a sign interpreted by some to bode well, but felt by many others to be decision to dividc the armies on the eve of the fateful battle was due, per-
a forewarning of evils to come.Q4 Upon the pitching of the imperial haps, to the intelligence report of Leo Diabatenus who wrote that as soon
pavilion a t Helenopolis, instead of at Neocome, the soldiers remarked as Alp Arslan had received news of the Byzantine advance, he broke off
02 Ibid., 683-684. Attaliates, 135-137. his march on Damascus and retired to the east with such haste that his
0a Scylitzes, 11, 686-687. Attaliates, 140-141, army virutally disbanded and the animals were drowned in crossing the
O 4 Attaliates, 143. The prevalence of superstition at critical points in Byzantine history
is striking. Liparites had refused t o fight the Turks at the appropriate moment because it Euphrates. The sultan had not been interested i n attacking the Byzantine
fell on a day not propitious to him. Nicephorus I1 Phocas on his way to the conquest of
Crete stopped with the fleet on the Anatolian coast at one of the many port towns. He 05 Ibid., 144.
asked the name of the port, and on being told that it was Phygela, he ordered the fleet O0 Zbid., 144.Scylitzes, 11, 689.
to avoid it as the name was not propitious to the expedition (pp. 223-224). Contrary to 0’ Bryennius, 35.
Gibbon, who severely criticized this supersititious behavior as Byzantine, this super- 0 8 Attaliates, 145.
stitious behavior was not peculiarly Byzantine but was also characteristic of the fifth I M . , 148. Brosset, Gkorgie, I, 327-328, 346, comments upon the desertion of these
century Athenians, as witness the events surrounding the fateful Sicilian expedition. areas.

96 97

borders but was occupied with his schemes against the Fatimids, and for and fear of the unknown were spread throughout the camp by the
this reason the advance of Romanus had caught him by surprise.100 sound and sight of the many returning troops who had been wounded by
In dividing his forces, Romanus wished to reduce Manzikert (captured Turkish arrows. Romanus immediately marshaled his force and set out
by the sultan in the previous year), and then to rejoin his forces before to seek the enemy, but as they had retired before the charge of Basilacius,
Chliat. As the body of Turkish and Daylamite defenders in Manzikert they were nowhere in sight so the emperor returned to camp.106
was negligable, Romanus further weakened his army by sending the T h a t night while the Uze mercenaries were outside the encampment
majority of it, and the very best troops, to Chliat under the leadership of buying goods from the merchants, the Turks attacked them by riding
Joseph T a r c h a n i o t e ~ . Manzikert
~~~ fell almost without resistance.102 around the camp and raining arrows upon them from horseback. The
The strategy of the emperor, which had called for the splitting of the armies mercenaries rushed backinto the enclosed camp in such disorder that those
and which had left him with the weaker portion, seemed justified on the inside feared the Turks would enter the camp simultaneously and then
basis of his intelligence reports. But Diabatenus failed to keep him all would be lost. It was a moonless night, and the pursuers could not be
informed of later developments, for on his way eastward Alp Arslan received distinguished from the pursucd, Attaliates remarking that to the Byzantines
the fugitives from Manzikert, who appealed to him to come to their aid. the Turks and Uzes looked alike. The Turks, possibly for this very same
Sometime previous to Romanus’ final campaign, the Turkish emir reason, did not attempt to enter but remained before the camp during the
Afsinios had raided central Anatolia with such ease that he reported to the whole night, making noise and shooting their arrows. Attaliates graphically
sultan that Asia Minor was defenseless.lo8Whatever the reason, the sultan depicts the sleepless night passed by the terrorized troops in the encamp-
hurriedly, but quietly, gathered his forces and marched on Manzikcrt. ment. O n the following day a portion of the Uze mercenaries, under their
After having captured Manzikert, Romanus retired to his camp outside leader Tamis, deserted to the Turks. This increased the fear of the
the city and planned to march to Chliat on the following day to rejoin the Byzantine generals and further undermined the morale of the troops,
major portion of the army. I t was a t this time that the advance body of the because they now feared the remainder of the Uzes would desert.lOOThe
sultan’s army came upon Byzantine forces that were foraging in Byzantines achieved a temporary success when their archers marched
thevicinity ofManzikert. As yet the emperor had not realized that the sultan out and drove the Turkish forces away from the encampment with heavy
was present, a nd he believed that this was just a raiding force of Turks losses to the latter. Romanus himself wished to come to close quarters with
under some emir. The emperor sent out Nicephorus Byrennius to oppose the Turkish forces immediately and thus to determine the issue without
them, but as he was soon being hard pressed by the Turkish force he sent further delay. H e had hesitated, however, as the majority of his forces
an urgent message for reinforcements. Romanus, still unaware of the were still supposedly encamped before Chliat. Even though he sent
true nature of the situation, first accused Bryennius of cowardice, but messengers to summon them, the emperor felt that they might not arrive
evenlually sent another force under Basilacius to aid him. Basilacius and in time, so he decided to march out against the Turks on the next day.
his troops charged the Turks, forced them to retreat, but, in thc pursuit Unknown to him, Tarchaniotes and Roussel, with the Frank, Uze, and
that followed, Basilacius was captured near the encmy defenses. Bryennius, Byzantine troops under them, had dispersed upon hearing of the sultan’s
though seriously wounded, returned to the side of the emperor.lO4 On the re- arrival, and, without bothering to inform the emperor, they had fled
port ofBasilacius’ capture, the Byzantines began to fear, and this suspence across the regions of Byzantine Mesopotamia to Anat01ia.l~~
Unexpectedly an embassy from the sultan arrived bringing proposals
loo Cahen, “La campagne d e Mantzikert d’aprhs les sources musulmanes,” B~zntziiot~,
IX (1934),627-628 (hereafter cited as Cahen, “Manzikert”). for peace. As Romanus was not disposed to accept the offer, he placed
Attaliates, 149. ‘‘ fiV 68 T b 6 y X E l p l U & kKE[Vy U T p U T l u T l K b V T b k p I T 6 V T E KCri s t i r conditions on the opening of such discussions. Before he would
o V Tar5
6 U a p ~ d T ~ ~ K&V , CJWpWAOKUTSK d TOIS &hhOlST O h 8 p O l g TTpOKIV6IVEfiOV K q i Tpou-
pq61.1EVOV, KUl E f S Whf@OS TOhb T P O 6 X O V T G V hTOKpUTll88VTWV Te pUUlhEi.”
consider the proposition, he informed the envoys, the sultan would have
lo2 Ibid., 152--153,remarks t h a t even in this moment of victory portents of impending to withdraw from his present camp and let Romanus occupy it. Reasoning
disaster were present. A soldier, w h o had taken a donkey from a Turk, was punished most
severely by Romanus. In spite of the man’s supplication before the icon of the Blacher-
that the sultan was afraid and his forces weak, the emperor’s counselors
nitissa, the sacred vanguard of t h e army, the emperor disregarded his state of asylum and strengthened the emperor in his resolve and advised him to reject the
had his nose slit. This brought t h e fear of divine rctribution upon many of the soldiers. sultan’s pcace offer, The sultan was merely stalling for time, the counselors
lo8 Bar Hebraeus, I, 1 2 0 . Cahen, “Manzikert,” p. 628, does not indicate that this
occurred prior to Romanus’ expedition. H e implies also that Alp Arslan received news of lD6 Attaliates, 155-156.
this after Romanus was already i n Armenia, which is not what Bar Hebraeus says.
looThcir unreliability had been dramatically displayed in the time of Constantine IX
lo4Bryennius, 38-39, remarks that the sultan had prepared an ambush. The narrative
when, sent to Anatolia to fight the Seljuks, they simply deserted, recrossed the Dosphorus,
of Bryennius, however, is not to be preferred lo that of Attaliates in the details that follow.
a n d returned to the Balkans.
Attaliates, 154, lo‘ Attaliates, 158.


argued, and as soon as his forces should be augmented he would return ~

return to the camp (now divested of guards) lest the Turks return at night
a n d attack the empire, a n d in this the counselors succeeded in persuading I and attack it, as they had done previously. So Romanus ordered the army
Romanus. There were other factors that must have heIped persuade him, I to retire from the pursuit and to march back to camp. The imperial
T h e military activities h a d been extremely expensive, and it was not standard was turned from the direction ofthe enemy toward the camp and
Iikely tha t the emperor could muster another such force in the near
future. Then it had been difficult to catch the Turks during his four year
and even later. Thus the account of Attaliates has incontestable superiority on the basis of
reign, for they were always on the move, split up into small but rapidly nearness to thc event itself.
striking bodies. He now h a d before him the sultan himself. There were Cahen has rejected Attaliates’ account of the battle on the following grounds. At one
point in the battle Attaliates records that one of Romanus’ personal enemies intentionally
other issues as well to be considered. Psellus and the Ducas’ were spread the false rumor that Romanus had been defeated, and that h e then took his men
constantly plotting against him in Constantinople and during the and left the emperor on the field of action, thus precipitating the rout (Attaliates, 161-162).
preceding year he had not been able to leave Constantinople because of “ c j s 6’ ol ~ o h h o l-rhqpo~opoOo~v,6 ~ TGV i PTE~PEU~VTCOU a h q TIS, B & ~ E ~ T o ~
&V T$ T O O paUthhs TpOyOVq MiXafiA, lTpOpEpOUhEU~8VqVBXWV TGV KC& T O b T O U
this fact. So Romanus made what seemed to him the logical choice: hripowh4v, a h b s T ~ VTOIOGTOV A6yov rois o-rpa-nh-raiS ~I~~ITEIPE,K a l T+QJ T O ~ S
force the issue with the enemy of the empire now, a similar opportunity OIKEIOUS 2rvaAaphv (P~TEIT~OTWTO y d p -rap& ~ i j sTOG PaaihiwS KahoKayaBlas ofi
~ I K P ~TI U ~.rlposAaoO) cpuyhs E ~ TS ~ -rrapE@ohGu
V P-ruv8SpapE.” Who was this E E & ~ E ~ Q o s
would never present itself again. &v TQ TOO PaathiwS -rpoyov@ M i x a j h ? Cahen has taken the phrase to refer to
O n the day of battle Romanus drew up all his troops, leaving none to the son of Constantine X Ducas, Michael Ducas, the future Michael VII. Cahen, then has
interpreted this key passage as follows: Attaliates blamed Michael Ducas for the catas-
guard the camp. Most of his army, as mentioned above, had been sent to trophe a t Manzikert. But in so doing, he was really attempting to blacken the character
invest Chliat, and so the emperor needed everyone he could muster on of Michael VII whom Attaliates’ hero, Nicephorus I11 Botaniates, removed from the
the fighting line. Bryennius commanded the left wing, Romanus the throne. “En fait, il est inutile de salir, avec le scrviteur de Botaniate, la memoire de Michcl
Dukas.” (Cahen, 635.) And with this, Cahen discredits the account of Attaliates.
center, Alyattes the right wing, and Andronicus Ducas was placed in the Let us look a t the text once more: B<&G~Acpos$u TQ TOG P a o i h b ~-rrpoyovg Mixafih.
rear with a large body of hetairoi and archonles.lo8 When the emperor The correct translation is; “Being a cousin to Michael the emperor’s step-son.” Thcrefore
the man who, according to Attaliates, betrayed Romanus was a cousin of Michael
attacked, the sultan’s forces gave way and retreated, the emperor Ducas and not Michael Ducas himself. Michael Ducas, so far as we know, did not leave
pursuing them until evening.loORomanus halted the pursuit, deciding to Constantinople at this time and so was not present a t the battle. Who was this cousin of
Michael Ducas? The other Greek texts tell us. Nicephorus Bryennius, 41, remarks that
Andronicus, the son of the Caesar John Ducas (the brolher of Constantine X Ducas;
lo8 41, thus Andronicus was the cousin of Michael Ducas) had been put in charge of the rear
100 Such is the account of Attaliates, 160-161. “ ~ 68 b nhrimov cpuy4 71s KaTEIxEv guard with the archontes and the hetairoi: “ofipayeiv 6Q~ T ~ T U K T6O TOG Kalaapos ulos
airro65, cnrvTE-ray@aS t66vras -rds TGU‘Pwpalwv cpuhhayyas Pv T&<EI K a l K~CTD-I(?) Kal b 1~pb~6pos O S TE TBV8-ralpwv T&&K Exwv K a l ~ h TBV
’ A V ~ ~ ~ V I KT&S s +X~VTWV.”
I T O ~ E ~ I K-rrapatrrfiNa-ri.”
G~ Bryennius, 41, also remarks that the Turks feared to opposc Bryennius adds, ‘‘ 06 .rr&vu 6$ qihlos Exwu n p b s paothia.” I n other words, even Bryen-
the Byzantines en masse. The accounts of the defeat given by Attaliates and Bryennius nius (Cahen’s primary authority) knew of the instability of Andronicus Ducas. Scylitzes,
are quite different. Both are reliable, but as Attaliates was an cycwitncss, his account 11, 698, repeats Attaliates’ charge that Andronicus Ducas bctrayed the emperor by a
must be preferred. When Bryennius’ account coincides with that of Attaliates, it can be premeditated plot.
acceptcd, but otherwise it must yield to the version of Attaliates. T h e battle of Manzikert “p6hhov 68 TIS TGV~ ~ ~ E ~ ~ E U ~ V T C ’AvGp6vt~os W b TOG Kaluapos $v ulbs TGV
has been thoroughly investigated from the point of view or the Muslim sources by Cahen, 6QPaoihBwv ~ < & ~ E ~-T~ o~ sP, O ~ E ~ O U ~Exwv ~ V I-ripouhjv
E V ~T+V ~ V airrbs 61’ iavToG T ~ V
Manzikert,” but strangely it has not been critically examined from the side of the Greek TOIOGTOV hbyov ~I~UTTEIPE, K a l T O ~ Sr e p i a h b v crrpcrrth.ras drvaAaPcjv Taxljs ~ f i
sources. Cahen’s article, exccllent in other respects, is confused and contains considerable VapEDpohfj lTol-rquev.” Zonaras, 111, 701, remarks that the Caesar and his sons were
error as a result of misuse of the Greek texts. His mistakes result from the mistranslation of constantly plotting against Romanus. &EI y h p 6 TE Kaicrap K a l 01 T O ~ T O U VIEIS
Attaliates, and then following the mistranslation of the critical passage, he rejects Iq~fiFp~uov T@ PautAei K a l &cpavGS P T E ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ L J O UThe . ” tradition of Andronicus’
Attaliates as a primary authority on the basis of this mistranslation, prefcrring the narra- dcsertion is echoed cven in the clironiclc of Michael the Syrian, 111, 169, who records
tive of other historians. that Romanus and his nobles were divided and that most of them abandoned him on the
Of those authors who have left us accounts of the events that took place at the fateful field of battle. This is obviously a reference to the withdrawal of Andronicus who
battle, Attaliates is the only one who was present, participated, and is, therefore, the only commanded the ~ ~ X O V T ‘ E SSee . also Sawirus ibn al-Mukaffa’, 11, iii, 308-309.
eyewitness whose record has survived. Although it may be true that later authors relied T h e behavior of Andronicus during thc battle is in consonance with the great tension
upon valuable archival material that is now lost, nevertheless they were removed from between the Ducas family and Romanus before the battle, and their promptness in remov-
the events in time and place, and so did not see them. Nicephorus Bryennius, whose ing him from the throne afterward. In 1070 it would seem that Romanus had remained in
account Cahen prefers, was born in 1062 and therefore was only nine years of age when Constantinople because of the hcightened tensions between himself and the Ducas family.
the battle occurred. H e began writing his work probably in the latter years of the reign H e arrested the Caesar on several occasions and even considered putting him to death.
of Alexius Comnenus (ro81-r1IS),so that pcrhaps as much as forty years had elapscd But h e had to satisfy himself with an oath that the Caesar and his sons would never be
between the battIe and his writing. H e does give certain details that Attaliates omits, disloyal to him (Psellus-Renauld, 11, 160-161). Sometime before departing for his final
b u t by and large the narrative of Attaliates is longer and more detailed. Bryennius and Anatolian compaign in 1071, he exiled the Caesar to Bithynia (Bryennius, 43).
Attaliates give two entirely different versions of the battle. Scylitzes, Zonaras, and Matthew When properly translated, the passage in Attaliates refers not to the future emperor
of Edessa repeat the version of Attaliates, though Matthew is confused and adds a few Michael Ducas, but to Andronicus his cousin, Therefore we must not reject Attaliates on
details not in Atlaliates. The oldest of the Muslim sources, I b n al-Qalanisi, did not write Cahen’s grounds that ostensibly the historian has distorted the facts in order to blacken
his history of Damascus until sometime aftcr 1145, and thc remaining Muslim and the memory of Michael Ducas. Attaliates remains our most reliable source, and it is his
Eastern Christian sources spread themselves from this time until the late thirteenth century account that deserves the greatest degree of credence.
I00 I01

the soldiers in the vicinity of the emperor evidently performed the move- reexamining the details of this most important battle, one is struck by a
ment correctly.1l0 But those who were far away, upon seeing the reversal number of factors that, by 1071, had already enjoyed a considerable
of the imperial standard, thought that the emperor had been defeated. history in the empire’s evolution during the eleventh century, The
More specifically, Andronicus Ducas intentionally spread the false rumor treachery of Andronicus Ducas was purely and simply one of the more
that the emperor had been dcfeated and withdrew his men from the field dramatic a n d consequential acts i n the long and bitter strife between
i n haste, bringing them to the camp. The Byzantine sources state bureaucrats and militarists.ll6 Unfortunately for the empire, it was not to
categorically that Ducas was executing a premeditated plot, for he and his be the final act of this drama, and the struggle between administrators and
family had been waiting for an opportunity to do away with their hated soldiers was to have dire consequences in the decade to follow. The
enemy.111 desertion of the Uze mercenaries under Tamis to the Turks is again another
One must recall in this conjunction that prior to his expedition in 1071, act from the same drama, that is, the demobilization of the local armies
Romanus had arrested and exiled the Caesar John Ducas, father of and use of hired foreigners, policy much employed by the bureaucrats as
Andronicus. The whole episode is vaguely but definitely echoed in the a n antidote to the power of the generals.l17 The Franks of Roussel and the
later account of Michael the Syrian who remarks that Romanus and his Uzes who were sent to Chliat simply fled on news of the sultan’s approach,
nobles were at odds, and then that most of the nobles abandoned him in and Germans had attacked Romanus at Cryapege. All this was compli-
the battle.l12 This is in complete accord with the accounts of Attaliates and cated by the enmity of Greeks and Armenians, so ominously forecast
Bryennius, the latter or whom tells us that the archantes or nobles were when Romanus had stopped a t Sebasteia on his way to Manzikert.
under the command of Ducas. Given the already nervous state of the Michael the Syrian relates that the Armenian troops, as a result of
soldiers, the anarchy in the armies thus begun by the activities of religious persecution, were the first to flee and that all of them fled from
Andronicus Ducas spread rapidly and the emperor was unable to halt it, the battlefield.11*
The Turks on the heights, by now becoming awarc of this amazing T h e great victory of Alp Arslan in 1 0 7 1 was due to a large degree, then,
development, informed the sultan and so they came out to attack the to these internal developments i n the Byzantine Empire which had fuscd
emperor who had been abandoned on the field by much of the army. to produce the situation prevailing in the Byzantine ranks in 1071.
Romanus and those about him dcfended themselves bravely and for a
long time, but as the men fled toward the encampment, the rumors began biitial Turkish Conquest and Occutation of Anatolia (1071-81)
to spread among the demoralized men. According to some the emperor Alp ArsIan was apparently not interested in exploiting directly his
had defeated the Turks, but according to the others he had been killed, great victory at Manzikert; i t was instead the Turkmen tribes that
The terrorization was finally completed by the gradual desertion of the consummated the military victory by swarming into Anatolia literally
Cappadocians and the appearance of the imperial horses in the camp.ll8
unopposed. There is no indication that they attempted to found a state
By this time the Turkish horsemen were attacking the fleeing troops, when they first came. Rather they came to raid and plunder in the vast
slaying, capturing, and trampling them underfoot, Romanus fighting
expanses of Anatolia and thus disrupted what little was left of the Byzan-
until he was wounded in the arm and his horse shot out from under him.114
tine administrative and military apparatus. It is true that the defeat of the
For the first time in the long history of the Byzantine empire, the
Byzantine armies in 1071 h a d opened Anatolia to the Turks,llDbut their
supreme disgrace had occurred: the august and living person of the
appearance, and finally their settlement, were greatly faciliated and
Basileus Rhomaion had fallen into the hands of barlsarians.l15 I n
lla Michael VII rewarded his relative with gifts of land and immunities in the regions
lo Attaliates, 161-162.
of Miletus in the year 1073, Dolger, Regeslen, no. 992-994.
Ibid., 161-162. Even Bryennius, 41, remarks of Andronicus, “orlr T&VV 68 q~tAlwS 117 Attaliates, 158-159, who personally administered the oath to the remainder of the
BXEW vpb5 pacrthia.” Though his account of the battle differs from that of Attaliates, he
Uzes specifically states that they remained loyal throughout the battle. Thus Matthew
also remarks (42), that the rear guard immediatcly withdrew after the Turks made their
ofEdessa (p. 169),who asserts that all the Patzinaks andUzes deserted, has to be corrected.
first contact with the Greeks, ‘‘ €ljb!q 6’ ~ V E X ~ ~ OKUal V01 m p l TT)V oirpayfav.” I n
essence, then, Bryennius does not contradict Attaliatcs’ charge of the treachery and Only the followers of Tamis, a minority of the whole, deserted.
118 Michael the Syrian, 111, 169; “Les troupes des Armeniens, qu’ils voulaient con-
withdrawal of Andronicus. He confirms it.
11* Michael the Syrian, 111, 169.
traindre B adopter leur htrtsie, prirent la fuite des premikres et tournkrent le dos dans la
113 Attaliates, I 62.
On this question and on thc treaties between Byzantium and the Seljuks, J. Laurent,
114 Ibid., 163.
“Byzance et les Turcs seldjoucides en Asie Mineure. Leurs traitis anterieurs B Alexius
ll& I n actual fact the treatment that Romanus Diogenes received at the hands of the
magnanimous Alp Arslan is highly praised by all the sources, but especially by the Greek Cornntne,” Bw<ccv~L~ I1 (191I - I ~ I Z ) , 101-126.G. Vismara, Bisanzio e l’lslnm. Per la
historians. On this interesting episode and the famous dialogue between the two sovereigns s h i n dei trattati tm la Cirristiarzitn orienlale e le patenze niusulinnne (Milan, 1950), pp. 44745,
see Attaliates, 164-166; Cahen, “Manzikert,” pp. G36-637. 69-78, presents a sketch of diplomatic relations between Byzantium and the Seljuk-
Ottoman Turks.


accelerated by the continuation of those very factors that had brought moment when the borders were completely open to the Turkish tribes.
Byzantium to the brink at Manzikert. T h e strife between the generals and Still more fateful was thc precedent of Romanus in appealing to the Turks
bureaucrats not only did not abate, but the very appearance of the Turks for aid i n the civil war,121 a pattern that was to become firmly established
in Anatolia seemed to add a certain zest to the struggle as each side in the internal strife of the next critical decade.
strove to outdo the other in purchasing Turkish military aid in a quest for The bureaucrats, first under the leadership of the Caesar John and then
power. This graphically illustrates how narrow and selfish political under the notorious eunuch Nicephoritzes, were able to control the
considerations outweighed all other factors, the Turkish danger included. government for six years after the death of Romanus. But when the military
By this time the true nature of the Turkish menace was apparent to all, to reaction came, in 1077, it was violent and once more mobilized what was
both bureaucrats and generals, but the desire for the imperial crown was left of the armies in the west and the east in a suicidal war. At that time
overpowering. two generals, Nicephorus Bryennius and Nicephorus Botaniates rebelled
The mercenaries, creating ever greater difficulties, attempted to found in the Balkans and Anatolia respectively. Nicephorus Bryennius, as a
a new Normandy in northern Asia Minor during the chaos that enveloped reward for his suppression of the Bulgarian rebellion at Skopia which had
Anatolia following Manzikert. Farther to the south, the Armenian previously broken out, was to be assassinated by the agents of Nice-
princes and adventurers, secure in their mountain strongholds in the phoritzes. Because his brother and Basilacius were likewise slighted by the
craggy Taurus area, at last had a good opportunity to throw off the hated bureaucrats in the capital, they also rebelled, declared Nicephorus
Byantine authority and to give expression to their own separatist desires, Bryennius emperor, and marched the western armies on Constantinople.
Finally, out of all this chaos and upheaval, the Seljuk princes founded a During this rebellion in the west, the Patzinaks, finding no armies before
new state in Nicaea, a t the northwestern extremity of the peninsula. them, raided t o the very walls of Adrianople unopposed. Simultaneously,
Simultaneously, other Muslim dynasties were arising in the political Nicephorus Botaniates, supported by the Anatolian magnates Cabasilas,
debris at the end of the century in northeastern Anatolia. Manzikert Synnadenus, Goudeles, Straboromanus, Palaeologus, and Melissenus,
resulted in the destruction of a comparatively stable political unity in capitalized upon the provincial dissatisfaction with the government’s
Anatolia and substituted for it a relatively unstable system of smaller neglect and inability to halt the Turks, and so raised the standard of
quarreling states which would keep Anatolia in a more or less constant rebellion in the east.lZzIt is significant that up until the time he reached
state of war and unrest, enduring until the final Ottoman reunification Nicaea, Botaniates had been able to gather no more than 300 men with
and political conquest of the large peninsula. In short, immediately which to take Constantinople. Again one sees how complete was the
following Manzikert, Byzantine administrative authority collapsed breakdown that the provincial military system had suffered.lZs When
in Asia Minor, and in the vacuum Turks, Armenians, and Normans news of the outbreak reached the court, Michael V I I immediately hired
attempted to found states. the services of Sulayman to halt the advance of the rebel, thereby causing
Alp Arslan, knowingly o r unknowingly, contributed to the Turkish Botaniates to abandon the regular roads and to travel by night in order
penetration of Rum when he released Romanus Diogenes after the latter’s to avoid his Turkish pursuers. Even so, the Turks caught up with him
defeat and capture. The captivity of Romanus had enabled the Caesar before he was able to reach Nicaea. Fortunately for Botaniates, the
John Ducas to seize control of the government in Constantinople and to Turkish renegade Chrysoscule, who was with him, intervened with
promote his nephew Michael VII to the throne. Upon receipt of the news Sulayman and was able to bribe him t o abandon the emperor and t o
of Romanus’ release, the Ducas family in the capital was faced with a support Botaniates. Thus Sulayman changed sides, and accompanied the
serious problem and the result was a civil war in Anatolia which involved insurgent to the shores of the B o s p h o r u ~where
, ~ ~ ~ he probably had his
what was left of the Byzantine armies. Romanus tried vainly, first at first sight of the city destined to become the center of Turkish might
Doceia, then in Cappadocia, and finally at Adana to alter his evil fate,
but without success, In the end he was defeated and captured by the very 1 8 1 Bryennius, 57, relates that it was after the Sultan heard of Romanus’ death that the

man who had betrayed him at Manzikert, Andronicus Ducas.lZ0The Turks raided and plundered the whole of the east. The same author (gg), speaks of the
many r a p q a f , dcrrooraulai, OT&UEIS in the east after Romanus’ death. Scylitzes 11,
description of his brutal blinding, on the very Anatolian soil that he had so 707-709.
valiantly but vainly fought to protect, is a fitting finale to this act in the 12a Scylitzes 11, 726. Bryennius, I 17-1 18,
Iza Bryennius, I I 8, I 20.
political collapse of medieval Hellenism in its foyer. Consequently, the 1241bid., 1x9. Scylitzes, 11, 735. T h e emperor Michael had negotiated not only with
fragmentary Byzantine armies were used to fight one another at the very Sulayman but with Ivlalik Shah as well, 1073-1074; H. Antoniades-Bibicou, “Un aspect
des relations byzantino-turques en I 073-1 074,” Actes du XII‘ con& international d ‘ h d e s
laaAttaliates, 168-175. Bryennius, 45-55. Oyrnniines (Belgrade, x964), 11, 15-15.

I 04. ‘05

almost four centuries later. As Botaniates had been short of troops, even mistreating a local inhabitant. Roussel used this incident as a pretext to
af&r incorporating the troops of Nicaea into his armies, h e had embodied rebel, taking his 4.00 Normans and marching northward toward his estates
the Turks of Sulayman i n his forces. Subsequently many of the Turks in the Armeniacon. Actually the punishment of his soldier was only an
were posted as guards to hold the various cities through which Botaniates excuse, for Roussel had no doubt been planning his rebellion for some
passed-Nicaea, Chalcedon, Pylae, Chrysopolis, Praenetus, Nicomedia, time. H e began to besiege, plunder, and subject the cities and towns of the
Ruphinianae, and C y - ~ i c u s . l ~ ~ regions of Galatia and Lycaonia, forcing them to pay him tribute.130 It
The civil strife in the empire did not cease with Botaniates’ accession soon became clear in Constantinople that this was not the customary
to the throne for he still had to deal with the rebellion of Bryennius in the mercenary rebellion, and the emperor with his advisers feared that given
west. Alexius Comnenus was sent to face Bryennius, but as he was drasti- the state of imperial impotence in the province Roussel would succeed in
cally short of troops, he was i n the end forced to rely upon 2,000 Turkish establishing a new state. The Caesar John and Nicephorus Botaniates
horsemen furnished by Sulayman and Mansur who a t this time were were dispatched with military forces to put down Roussel before he could
still in Nicaea.12*Once the rebellion ofBryennius was stifled, another broke consolidate his position, but i n the battIe fought a t the Sangarius River,
Out, that of Basilacius.12’ When Alexius rebelled (1081) the tattered Roussel and his Franks were victorious; the Byzantine army suffered a
armies of the east and west were mustered, were marched toward the crushing defeat and the Caesar was taken captive.131
Bosphorus, and for yet one more time the provinces were lcft unprotected. There seemed to be no way to stop Roussel after this victory, The
Alexius Comnenus, at the head of the western armies, succeeded in Franks, upon hearing oE his rebellion, had flocked to his standards to the
removing Botaniates from the throne, but not before thc rebellion of number of 1,700 to 3,000.132 Roussel, profiting from his victory over
Alexius’ brother-in-law Nicephorus Melissenus complicated the chaos, the Caesar, subjected all the towns in the region of the Sangarius River to
now long rampant, in Anatolia. AS the Turks were the military masters, his authority, and marched through Bithynia to the Bosphorus where he
he sought and obtained their alliance, opening large numbcrs of towns of burned Chrysopolis. T h e rebellion took on even more serious overtones as
western Anatolia to them. These cities opened their gates to Melissenus t Roussel proceeded to acclaim the Caesar John emperor, hoping thus to
when he appeared as emperor, and then he turned them over to his obtain the allegiance of the remaining Byzantine soldiery in Anatolia
Turkish allies.128 and also to collect the taxes from the cities.la3 Defenseless before the
In the rapid disintegration that followed thc battle of Manzikert and victorious progress of Roussel, Michael VII enlisted the services of the
during the course of the subsequent civil war, separatist political move- emir Artuk who had appeared in the regions of the Bithynian fortress
ments began to crystallize in Asia Minor. The most spectacular of these of Metabole with a large contingent of Turks. Roussel was defeated and
attempts to found a state on Anatolian soil was that of the mercenary both he and the Caesar were captured and held for ransom. But once more
leader Roussel of Bailleul,120 who found conditions i n the peninsula Roussel escaped the imperial authorities, having been ransomed from the
ripe for his attempt to establish a new Normandy in southern climes, Of Turks by his wife before the imperial envoys could reach the Turkish
all the mercenaries in Byzantine service, the descendants of thc Norsemen camp. Ian Nevertheless the court had moved hastily to ransom the Caesar
had the most highly developed political instinct, with traditions going for fear that the Turks would utilize him as Roussel had planned to do,
back zoo years and extending to .Russia, Sicily, and England. While the and thus enter the towns and collect m0neys.1~5Having renounced his
Turkish flood poured into the whole of Anatolia, Michael VII was forccd more grandiose scheme, Roussel withdrew to Armeniacon where he drove
to send Isaac Comnenus with an army in an effort to halt their ravages out the Turks, and raiding Amaseia, Neocaesareia, and other towns,
(1073),but en route he had occasion to punish one of the Normans for forced the urban centers to pay their taxes to him. Here he hoped to
found a more modest state.
Attaliates, 263-268. The government in Constantinople was no nearer to the solution of its
las Bryennius, 130. Norman dilemma, and so sent Nicephorus Palaeologus to the Caucasus
la‘Ibid., 149 ff,
lasIbid., 158.
to raise a new army of mercenaries. On his return to Pontus with a force
lZo L. Brthier, “Les aventures d’un chef normand en Orient au XIe sikcle , , Roussel
lsa Bryennius, 73-74.
de Bailleul,” Reuue des c o i m et cotlfretices, XX (191 1-1912). G. Schlumberger, “Deux chefs
normands des armtes byzantines au XIe siCcle: sceaux de Herv6 et de Roussel de IS1 Ibid, 77. Attaliates, 196.
Bailleul,” R.H., XVI (1881), 289-303. I<. Mekios, Derfratikisclie Krieger Ursel de Bnilled laa Attaliates, 188, 190.
(Athens, 1939). Marquis de la Force, “Les conseillers latins d’Alcxius Comnkne,” Bryennius, 77-80. Attaliates, 189.
Bymnhn, XI (1g36), 153-165. R. Janin, “Les Francs au service des Byzantins,” E.O., Ia4 Bryennius, 81-83.
XXIx (1930), 61-72. Ibid.,81-82. Attaliates, 190-192.

I 06 ‘07

of 6,000 Alans, Nicephorus was unable to pay their salaries and con-
southeastern Anatolia and also by the presence there of a large Armenian
sequently most of the Alans simply abandoned him and returned to their population. The ethnic character of these regions had begun to change
homes. Roussel easily defeated and dispersed those few who remained, with the Byzantine reconquest o f the tenth century when Armenians
The desperation of the government in this situation is reflected in the colonized Cilicia. This settlement was further reinforced by the trans-
final victory that it achieved over Roussel (1074). I n a last attempt the planting of the Armenians i n the eleventh century, and finally by the
government dispatched the future emperor Alexius Comnenus to Amaseia flight of Armenians to Cilicia for security from the Turkish raids.
to cope with the rebel, and h e arrived there without soldiers or money! In Cappadocia, Adom and Abucahl of Vaspuracan, and Kalcig of Ani
Thanks to his cunning, energy, and above all to Turkish aid, he succeeded were now free of all Byzantine authority. Kakig carried on open warfare
in purchasing his enemy from the Turks by bribing the latter to betray against the Greek inhabitants of Cappadocia, killing the Greek metro-
Roussel. Though Alexius once more brought the cities under imperial politan of Caesareia, pillaging his rich estates, ordering his soldiers to
control, he had succeeded only because he had appealed to a Turkish violate the wives of the Greek aristocracy, and as a result eventually
emir in the area, i n this case a certain T u t u ~ h . l ~ ~ found his death at the hands of the Greek landed magnates.141
The rebellion of Roussel illustrates how unreliable a n army based so Independent Armenian princes were to be found in Tarsus, Lampron,
largely on mercenary loyalty could be. Because of its own military Mudaresun, Andrioun, and elsewhere. It was a Byzantine oflicial,
weakness, the government had to rely first on Alan soldiers, and finally however, Armenian by birth and Greek in religious afiliation, who
upon the Turks. But both government and rebel did not hesitate to court coalesced thesc centrifugal forces to found an extensive state in the
the Turkish emirs, thus encouraging thcm, revealing the weaknesses of Taurus, Cilicia, and Mesopotamia. Philaretus Brachamius had held
Constantinoplc, and accelerating the Turkish penetration of Anatolia important ofice under Romanus IV, but in the chaos following Manzikert
and the ravaging of the towns. Bryennius states that of all the upheavals, h e set out to make himself independent in the Taurus mountains.142
rebellions, and revolutions that took place in Anatolia after the reinoval of Refusing to recognize the authority of Michael VII, he began to take over
the emperor Romanus IV, that o€ Roussel was the cause of the greatest many of the Byzantine cities and fortresses that had been isolated and cut
of all evils to the em~ire.1~7 Bryennius has probably exaggerated very off from the capital as a result of the Turkish invasi0ns.1~~ The basis of
little if at all in his evaluation of the significance of this event. It resulted his army was a body 0f8,ooo Franks and various Armenians and Turks who
in the calling i n of large Turkish forces as far as Bithynia, and when served under him.144His primary motive was to establish a state at any
Alexius returned from Amaseia with his captive Roussel, he was forced to cost a n d in this he did not hesitate to call in the aid of the Turkish emirs
take ship at Heracleia in order to reach the capital, for the ro‘A d s were against recalcitrant Armenian princes145or even to apostatize to Islam.14~
swarming with Turks.13* I n spite of the fact that both the Armenians and Greeks hated Philaretus
Less spectacular, but with a more durable effect, were the separatist violently,147 he succeeded in establishing himself for a number of years in
movements of the Armenian princes in the regions of Mesopotamia, the these strategic regions of Anatolia. His domains eventually came to
Taurus, and Cilicia.lS0 The violent hatred of the Armenians for the include the regions between Romanopolis, Kharpert, and Melitene in
Greeks, so vividly revealed in the vitriolic pagcs of Matthew of Edessa, Mesopotamia on the north; Mopsuestia, Anazarba, and Tarsus in Cilicia
found its satisfaction in the years immediately following Manzikert. on the south; and Antioch in thc east. Shortly after his capture ofAntioch,
T h e numerous Armenian chiefs and adventurers, taking advantage of tlic Botaniates concluded a treaty with Philaretus by which the latter
collapse of Byzantine authority (in which collapse they had already acknowledged the suzerainty of Constantinople, but in return he was
played a n important role) ,Ia0 began to assert themselves as independent officially given charge of the remnants of Byzantine forces in the southeast
political factors. They were aided by the mountainous topography of a n d received the title of couropalates. This was in fact to recognize his
Matthew of Edessa, pp. I 52-1 54, I 83. Laurent, Byzance et les Tiircs, p. 78, who gives
13O Bryennius, 83-90, Attaliates, I 99-206. good reasons for dating these events after 1071.
l a 7 Bryennius, gg. ““Ooa piv 05v @v@q ~ m T h~ E Vw PET& T ~ VTOG Aioyivou5 TOG 142 O n his career, Laurent, Byzance el les Turcs, pp. 81-89. Laurent, “Byzance et Antioche

P a o i h h s KaOaipEoiv, Kal dual - r a p q a l K a l h o m a u l a i K a l u-rdrueis 2N+@-p&v TE sous le curopalate Philartte,” Revue des ,!?tides dnnhienrtes, IX (rgzg),61-68;“Des Grecs
K a i C t m S i a p i a e q a a v , K a I (55 ti PEYbTIl raaijv -rupuvvist q q ~ Sil
l TOG 06pUEh[OU, E ~ S aux CroisCs,” B’zantion, I (1g24), 367-449.
H6ya &pOEiuuK a l ~ E Y ~ ~ TKUK& W V ahla 7ij ‘Pwpalwv yavopivq . . .” 143 AttaIiates, 301, ‘ka1 r b h ~ i sf5acrihiKhs € 1 ~davrbv O I K E I O ~ ~ E V O S , Kal €15 ~ ~ K
t@X[pWV 7 f i V 18faV KaT67KTllOlV.”
Ibid., 93-95.
l a 0 For general rcmarks seeJ. Laurent, Bymiiceel les T i m , pp. 81-89; S. Der Nersessian, 1 4 5 Matthcw of Edessa, pp. 173-174.

“The IGngdom of Cilician Armenia,” in A I~idoryof lhe Crusndes, I1 (Philadelphia, i gGz), Ibid., pp. I 75-1 76.
63 I -634. 1 4 0 Ibid., p. I 96.Bar Hebraeus, I, 23 I.

laciCecamenus, p. 18. Cedrenus, 11, 571. Laurent, Byznnce el les T w c s , p. 74. 1 4 7 Matthew of Edessa, p. 173, Attaliates, 301.

108 109

actual independence and to treat him much i n the same manner as brother Isaac, were encamped nearby watching the city closely. Soon
Byzantium had treated the sovereigns of Armenia and Georgia, He was afterward this particular band left Asia Minor, but by now other Turks
independent and did as he pleased.148The Normans o f Roussel had not had come in, for the defeat of Isaac left the borders defenseless, and they

succeeded in founding a state because they were small in number, but began to take control of many of the key arterial routes stretching across
Philaretus and the Armenian princes had a t the basis of their political Anatolia,152 Thus when Isaac and Alexius set out from Ankara for
separatism a whole nation, securely ensconced in the rocky heights of the Constantinople via the highway leading through Nicomedia, they were
Taurus. Thus the Armenians consummated the disruption of Byzantine surprised on the road by 200 Turks at Decte.lb3 This occupation of the
authority in southeastern Asia Minor. roads and passes by the Turks, deep in Anatolia, was characteristic of the
The Turks do not seem to have taken immediate advantage of Manzikert first phase of their occupation of the peninsula after Manzikert. Cities
to occupy Asia Minor or to raid on any extensive scale. That this was so is such as Ankara and Gabadonia had been bypassed, protected as they were
clearly indicated by the course of events during the civil war between by walls. In this manner many of the towns in this early period remained
the Ducas’ and Romanus IV. In the accounts of contemporaries, in Byzantine hands, but they suffered isolation as the Turks swarmed
especially in that of Attaliates (who was in Anatolia at the time), Byzan- about them occupying the countryside, cutting them off from one
tine authority was still recognized in Trebizond, Manzikert, Erzerum, another and from Constantinople and its representatives.
Iberia, Coloneia, Amaseia, Melissopetrium, Doceia, Tyropaeum, Podan- The events of Roussel’s revolt brought the Turks into the northern
tus, the Taurus, Cilicia, Adana, and Cotyaeum. This geographical range regions of Armeniacon and Pontus as well as into Bithynia. Because of
is considerable, stretching from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean, and RousseYs victory over the Caesar and his appearance at Chrysopolis,
fiom Armenia to Bithynia.lneBut i t was to be the last time that Byzantine Mkhael secured the aid of a large Turkish army under Artuk who
armies and officials would be able to cross the Taurus passes, collect happened to be raiding the eastern regions a t the time. This armylG4
soldiers i n Iberia and Cappadocia, and march all the way from Cilicia surprised Roussel a t Metabole, defeated and captured him, and after
to Cotyaeum in the west unhindered and unaccompanied by Turkmens. receiving ransom money returned to eastern Anatolia. But it would seem
Following the defeat of Romanus and as a result of the voiding of the that many o f these Turks remained behind to raid and that others had
treaty between the emperor and the sultan, Alp Arslan took the occupied various regions which the sourccs do not mention. Attaliates
opportunity to send the tribes into Asia Minor on a major scale and even- relates that the “Turks had scattered out into all the Rliomaic themes.”165
tually to occupy the towns and cities. Henceforth, the Turkmens were to When Roussel returned to the Armeniac theme he found it full of Turks
carry their raids into almost every corner of the vast peninsula.l60 The and proceeded to remove them.lsO Michael VII called in another Turkish
last attempt to halt their Anatolian inroads by meeting them in the east army under the chieftain Tutuchl57 and Roussel’s rebellion was ended.
came early in the reign of the feeble Michael VII, when Isaac Comnenus T h e cities of Pontus were brought under Byzantine authority again.lG8
was sent to Caesareia to halt the sacking of the towns and villages in Though these towns were once more under Greek control, the countryside
Cappadocia. With the defection of Roussel and the Normans, Isaac was and the roads were no longer safe. The degree to which the Turks had
defeated and captured by the Turks near Caesareia. The victors followed penetrated can be ascertained from the narrative of Alcxius’ experiences
up their success by scattering out to plunder; Alexius barely escaped when he returncd from Amaseia to Constantinople with his prisoner
capture at their hands while fleeing via Mt. Didymon toward the town of RousseI. En route he stopped at Castamon to see his ancestral estates,
Gabadonia in Cappadocia.161 Alexius, wishing to ransom his brother,
made his way to Constantinople, picked up the ransom money, and
16s Attaliates, 184, “ol 66 TOG~KOI i6tav EKTOTE Ka-rdTpExov dt6EQS.”
T ~ V
returned to Ankara. Upon his return to Ankara in late evening he found 16.5 Bryennius, 66.
the gates locked, for the Turks, who had defeated and captured his 164 AttaIiates, 190. I‘ ..
. ETBE~b miTos TGVToirp~twvdtTTEipoI6q3kS Kal 0ahCtuaqs
drrrhhou ~ I ~ O ~ ~ EKirya-ra.
V O V fiuav y&p h k p T&S BKOT~V XihiCr6as 01 p&ppapo~.”
l48 Attaliates, 301. . .”
Bryennius, 81, ‘‘ , , VET& r h d u r q S %I &uvCrl.rews. , A. Sevim, “Artuklularh s o p
14g Ibid., 166-177. Bryennius, 46-50. Bar Hebraeus, I, 223, adds Melitene, and Matthew ve Artuk Bey’in siyasi faaliyetleri,” Bellelen, XXVI ( I962), 1 21-146: ‘‘Artukogh
of Edessa, p . 170, adds Sebasteia. Sokmen’in siyasi faaliyetleri,” Belleten, pp. 501-520; “Artukoglu Ilghazi,’ ’Belleten,pp.
Attaliates, 183, . . 0~fiha~6s
‘I I TI^ dpyfi ~ f i vk$av KcrrkhapEv.” All the themes 649-691.See below, n. 189.
suffered, “ 6 ~ 1 V 6 5 KcrrEhvCla~vovTOK d KQT$KI<OV Taka Tais uuvexduiv &ri6popaig.’J 165 Attaliates, 198. See the remarks of Melikoff, Darzidttiendtzatne, I, 123-126. Anna
Bryennius, -57, ” . . . T ~ V6Oav r6uw ~ ~ ~ O G VKTalO ~hhT)i(OVTO.” Matthew of Edessa, Comnena, I, 10, remarks, TGV68 E1S ~b KaT6wtv hay$Gv-rwv 3 m ~ +~Crppou
I‘ p ~0615~
p. I 70. Alp Arslan, upon hearing of Romanus’ blinding, directed his troops to take the Q-rromaa0ELor)s.”
land of the Greeks and to shed the blood of the Christians. See n. I 19 above, 160 Attaliates, I 99.
m Bryennius, 62-63. 167 Bryennius, 86.
168 Attaliates, 206-207. Bryennius, 92.
I I0

only to find them deserted, and he barely escaped capture at the hands of Tusks of Sulayman and Mansur.l8* I n spite of these precautions the
the Turks pillaging the area. On arriving at the Black Sea port of Heracleia Turks caught Botaniates berore he could reach Nicaea, but fortunately
the Turks attacked him once again. Consequently Alexius wished to stay he was able to outbid Michael VII for Turkish services, and it was only
in Heracleia and organize a defense against these raiders, but an imperial then that the passageway to Constantinople was opened.lG0 Having
ship arrived ordering him to proceed to Constantinople by sea as the occupied much of the rural area of northwestern Asia Minor, Sulayman’s
Anatolian roads to the west were infested with Turks.lSD Turks apparently had their first major introduction into the urban
I n this disastrous reign of Michael VII, Chrysopolis, across the straits centers as garrisons of Botaniates. Of the towns that Botaniates so garri-
from the imperial capital, became a lair of Turkish raiders.100 The soned were Pylae, Praenetus, Nicomedia, Ruphinianae, Cyzicus, Nicaea,
Turkmens had reached the sea in the west and north as well in the reign Chalcedon, and Chrysop01is.l~~ But if the Turks were not definitively
of Michael VII. By 1076 they had spread their ravages to the Aegean introduced into all these towns at this time, certainly the reign of the new
around Latrus,lol and Trebizond was temporarily captured by the Turks emperor was the decisive step in their occupation. The rule of Nicephorus
sometime between I 07 I a nd 1075.1s2Thus they spread out into the farther- Botaniates spelled the end of Byzantine Asia Minor as the future major
most reaches of Asia Minor in the reign of Michael V II but without recruiting ground for the armies and as the principal source of tax
taking, apparently, many of the urban centers.lo3The actual seizure of revenues; in fact, by the end of his reign Asia Minor was with a few
the towns of central and western Asia Minor became critical in the very exceptions in foreign hands.171
last years of Michael VI I and during the short reign of Nicephorus I11 By 1079 the Turks had reached Melanoudium on the western coast,
Botaniates.la4When Botaniates revolted with the magnates of the Anatol- and the fall of Strobilus was imminent,172 most of Ionia having been
icon, Asia Minor was going up in flames, and the Turks were every- occupied.173 The revolt of Nicephorus Melissenus finally delivered more
where.106 Botaniates managed to reach the military station of Cotyaeum of the central and western Anatolian towns to Turkish hands. The rebel
with no more than 300 troops,lsa but any further progress toward Nicaea summoned the Turkish armies and their leadcrs, who by now were well
and Constantinople seemed hopelcss, as the Turks had flocked into thcse versed in the intricacies of Byzantine civil strife, and with their support
regions in considerable numbers.lo7 Thus the rebel was forccd to avoid acquired the submission of the cities. He left the Turks as his represent-
the regular road and to travel by night in order to avoid contact with the atives to garrison these towns so that with the failure of his revolt, many
of the towns of Asia, Phsygia, and Galatia were in the hands of the
lSu Bryennius, 92-95. Turks. 74
L a o Attaliates, 267. I‘ xp6vos y a p ‘rrapEhjhw8Ev iKavbs &cp’ TOW ‘Pwpaiows oinc ~ X E V
6 ~ 6 1 ~~0K sE ~ V Ohricpaviv-ras
S ~b uhohov. T O ~ ~ ~ KyChOp VElrl TGV j p i p w v TOG Mixajh
6Y[V&TOK a T c r f W y l O V , *’’

lal Miklosich et Miiller, VI, 18-19. lo8Bryennius, I 19.

Attaliates, 239-24.0.
lea Anna Comnena, 11, 65-66. looAttaliates,
240. After the agreement with Botaniates, Sulayman’s Turks permitted
103 Michael the Syrian, 111, I 72, records that during the reign of Michael V I I the Greek all those coming rrom Constantinople, in ordcr to join Botaniates, to pass through
cities and forts lived in fear and terror. The Arabs succeeded in retaking Menbij from the
Greeks only in 1075. Bar Hebraeus, I, 225. 170 Ibid.,266, 268.
1134 St. Christodoulos (Miklosich et Muller, VI, IS), relates that the “evil” reached its 171 Anna Comnena, I, 18. ‘‘ Ets y h p ~b pip05 T O ~ j
O pauihda‘ Pwpalwvdsrobqa-rov
height in 1076 and following years. “ b r q v k a htopWqh8q ~b K a ~ b vK a I ‘rravraXoG 6hTlh38El. Tdc TE y h p &?aT 6 V UTpaTEUp&TWV 6hhO C?hhqOG 61EoK&VJTOT 6 V T o i r p ~ ~
&IT€T&Ueq~h 8fpmpa T ~ tx8pisv.” V Attaliates 21 I, records after the revolt of Nestor, hpTlThW8bTWv K a l TTkVTa UXE6bV TTEptUXO~VTOV, 6UCi ECcEivoU T6VTOW 6UTl paTacb
’EITE~SB KC^ T+J i+av 01 PKEiuE Ka-ravahlmov.raS quav pdcppapoi K a l rop8ohTES K a l K a \ Aiyatow TE K a i Xwpimot lr~hdcyows(Kal) Xhpou TE K a l TGV
Ka\ ‘ E A A ~ U T ~ V T O W
KCXTap&hhOVTEs.” E. L. VranOUSe, T h h y l O y p a ~ l K hKEINEVa TOG 6 d O W xplUTO6O~hOU, &Ahov K a i y&hicrra b1~6uoillaycpwhtav TE K a l KihiKaS lrapapeipovTaS E ~ S~b -rrkAcryos
ISpvroG &vi 7 U ~ p ~ paves.
p Q)ihohoyi~fi.rrap&Souis K a l ImopiKal p a p w p i a i (Athens, ~ K d i T T O W U lTb Alyinrriov.” Bryennius, 129, Tqs y h p T 6 V XpqpI.ldrrWV 6lrElUpOfiS TGV
xg66). h b ~ f i s’Auias x o p q y o u ~ i v w vTO75 Tapdois &nocpvyobuqS 6~ TOG T ~ ’Ada5 Y a-rrdctoqs
Ia5Attaliates, 213-214. “ K a i ‘rr&uav T ~ VI+av lrohaplois &V&UT~TOV ... Kal ~ t j s KOTcnCWptE~U~t 70215 T O ~ ~ K O W S . ”
TO+KWETL [ E O ~ I U T6mcpopti(s,
)~ Kal ~ o h i y w v
lrav-raXbOEv b a p p i l r i ( o p i v ~ vucpoSpG5.” Miklosich et Muller, VI, 62, I 19-120. According to the anonymous Selcukname of
laaThe last recorded levies of troops from the eastern themes were those in the ill-fated the late thirteenth century, Anadolu Selcuklulari Deuleti Tnrihi, 111, Historic des SeGoukides
army of the Caesar John Ducas. The case with which Roussel defcated them shows that d ’ h i e Mineure par un anonytne, Turkish trans. by F. N. Uzluk (Ankara, 1952), p. 23,
already these corps had all but disappeared. The troops who finally joined Botaniates in Sulayman took Iconium from the Byzantine commanders Marta and Kusta, and the
Nicaea were all mercenaries. I t was in the reign of Michael V I I that the Immortals and nciglihoring fortress of Kavala from Romanus Maeri. Thus he took the regions from
Chomatenoi were formed in a desperate makeshift effort to compensate for the lost Iconium to Nicaea. See Cahen, “Seljukides de Rum, Byzantins et Francs d’apres le
Anatolian levies. FI. Grtgoire, “De Marsile A Anderna, ou 1’Islam et Byzance dam Seljukname anonyme,” A.I.P.H.O.S., XI (1951), 97-98.
l’epopde franpise,” in Miscellanea Giounnni Mcrcati (Vatican, I 95G), 111, 45 1-452. Miklosich et Muller, VI, G I .
SkahalanoviE, Cosndnrsluo, pp. 327-328. 174 Bryennius, 158. ‘‘ b 6B K a l &wv TOTS Toirp~oig~JEXE~PI(EV, cbs uwppqvai 6th
la7Attaliates, 269, “ . ..
T ~ Toirpltwv
V ~ j hv b 8ahkuuqS p i x p i NiKa[aS vapo- PpaXCOs KUlpOG, K&K T O h O W TOG TpbITOW ITaUaV T 6 V TEPl T t V ’Auiav TE K a l Q)PUyhV
1.18vwv mpixwpov.” Attaliates, 272, ‘I. .
, o‘i T ~ 6Vv p8uw xispov ~ C Y E A ~TGE~~V~ ~ ~ E X O V . ” K a i T~)V raAaTiav T ~ A E W V KccraKwpiaGuat T O ~ ST o ~ ~ ~ K o w s . ”

I I2 1’3

Byzantine Counte~attack(1081-1143) to begin a limited offensive in northwest Asia Minor to push back the
Mexius Comnenus ascended the throne at a time (1081) when it seemed Turks from the Propontis and Bosphorus where they threatened the very
that the whole ofByzantine Anatolia was lost forever,17Gthough in actuality life of the empire itself. In 1085 Guiscard died, relieving Alexius of any
the Turkish conquest seems to have bypassed a number of points. There immediate pressure in the west. The same year marked the death of
were still Byzantine oflicials in Heracleia on the Black Sea, in parts of Sulayman in his eastern campaigns which permitted the emirs, whom he
Paphlagonia and Cappadocia, in Choma, Trebizond, and in other had left in charge of his domains, to establish themselves as independent
~nspecifiedl’~ regions. There were also the Armenians in the region of the chieftains. Indeed the death of Sulayman seems to mark a proliferation
Taurus and Anti-Taurus who, though actually independent, often posed of these independent emirs in Anatolia, especially in the westernmost
as officials of the emperor. If to contemporaries the situation appeared regions.181 Abu’l-Kasim declared himself sultan in Nicaea; his brother
completely hopeless in the beginning of Alexius’ reign, nevertheless the was in control of Cappadocia;ls2 consequently, it is possible that the
appearance of Alexius marks an important turning point in Byzantine sultanate of Nicaea retained some sort of general control over the regions
Anatolian affairs. Things would improve, but they would do so only after stretching from Nicaea to Konya and eastward to Cappadocia. But on the
further vicissitudes. The major problem on the emperor’s hands in the western littoral a large number of emirs emerged, the most important of
earlier years was in the west, where the ambitious Norman adventurer whom was Tzachas (assisted by his brother Galavatzes-Yalavach), who
Robert Guiscard was planning the conquest of Constantinople. There established a maritime principality that at its height came to include
were, in addition, the raids of the Patzinaks in the Balkans. Because of Smyrna, Clazomenae, Phocaea, Samos, Mitylene, and Chios, and whose
the Norman threat, Alexius was forced to summon the Byzantine military ambitions included the conquest of C o n ~ t a n t i n o p l eThe
. ~ ~ ~emirs Tan-
forces from thc regions of Heracleia, Paphlagonia, Cappadocia, Choma, gripermes and Merak ruled Ephesus and the neighboring towns,ls4 while
and from other regions i n the east still in the possession of the Greeks, to the north along the Propontis coast were Elchanes (at Apollonias and
an act that enabled the Turks to advance in these areas. Closer to the Cyzicus) , Scaliarius and others.18G The other major Turkish political
capital in the regions of Bithynia and Thynia, where Alexius had been force in Anatolia, aside from the sultanate of Nicaea, was the dynasty
carrying on a limited war with Sulayman of Nicaea in a n effort to remove of the Danishmendids. Malik Danishmend, as the leader of the Holy War
the Turks from the environs of Nicomedia, he was forced to conclude a i n northern Anatolia, succeeded in carving out a domain that threatened
treaty setting the boundary a t the Dracon River.177But as Byzantium was to eclipse the house of Kutlumush. It came to include Sivas, regions of the
in no position to enforce the treaty, the Turks violated it, pushing their Kizil Irmak, Yeshil Irmak and Kelkit Su, Amasya, Comana, Tokat,
incursions to the Propontis and Bosphorus.17*I n northern Anatolia the Niksar, Chankiri, Ankara, and Malatya.ls0Farther to the west, Karatekin
emir Karatekin took the city of Sinope and the neighboring t0wns.17~A conquered and held for a brief period Sinope and the neighboring towns,
few years later, Anna Comnena remarks with some exaggeration, that but by 1085 these were restored to the Byzantine emperor.ls7 The regions
t he boundaries of‘the empire in the east and west were Adrianople and the of Armenia, more accessible to the armies or Malik Shah, were governed
Bosphorus respectively.lsO I n I 085 Sulayman captured the important
eastern city of Antioch. The list of principalities in the list of Yinanc, Fethi, pp. I 31-134 is not to be accepted
without reservations, as a number of these emirates had nothing more than an ephemeral
But in that year two important events occurred which enabled Alexius existence.
Is* Anna Comnena, 11, 67. By the time of the Crusades, Cappadocia was under Hasan.
Anna Comnena, 111, 144.
Theodore Scutariotes-Sathas, I 83. “OTETT)V pauiheiav T G ~ V‘Pwyalwv TapAapEv,
‘I 183 Zonaras, 111, 736-737. Anna Comnena, 11, I 10-1 15, 158-161. For a detailed
E6fX TOb5 TOQPKOUS Ob$ K a t n8pUal; KQAOGyEV,T & U V TT)V iJ9’ EW X d p a V K C i T a S p a p 6 V T E s account of his interesting career, F. Chalandon, Essui sur le rkgne d’dlexis ICr Comnlne
KCd KCrrUTp6XOVTE5 K U l T 8 V CIEylOTWV 66 ’AVWOAIKQV T 6 h E W V K C I T E ~ O U U l & { O V T a s . ,” (ro81-rrr8)(Paris, goo), 125-127, 147, 195-196 (hereafter cited as Chalandon, I).
Matthew of Edessa, p. 181. For general considerations of his situation a t A. Kurat, Caka ortnzamanda Izmir ve yakinindaki adularin Turk hukimi (Istanbul, 1936).
this time, M. Beck, “Alexios Koinnenos zwischen Normanner und Tiirken,” Akten des It is quite possible that the Tzachas mentioned in the Danishmendname refers to this
X I Iniematiowlen Byzufr~inis~etiko~rgre~~cs
1958 (Munich, I gGo), pp. 43-47. particular chieftain, Danishmendname Melikoff, I, 73.
170 Anna Comnena, I, 131, When Alexius mustercd the armies against Guiscard he 184 Anna Comnena, 111, 23, 26.
summoned all the -ro.rrdtpxoi of Anatolia, “ bn6ooi Tpoirpia TE K a i ~ 6 A ~ Ki Us ~ X O V T E S IE5 Ibid., 11, 79-81,
&VTIKaebTaVTO . . . TbV Aiapa-rrpbv TOTTOTI-~T~T~~U The most recent discussion of the complex history of the founder of the Danish-
.rqvrKaij-ru ~ i j s~ m ll6v-rou
h ‘ H p ~ h ~K i~~ I
slla+ayovias iT ~
X ~ ~ ~ W ~ ( O V KTa U U mendid dynasty and a complete bibliography are in Melikoff-Danishtrrendnu?~ze, I, passim.
Bobp-rcqv ~ o ~ r h p 6x n~apK a T r T a 8 o K i a S K a l XGya-ros K a l -robs homorjs AoyaGaS , . .” But as to Malik’s ethnic origin the report by Matthew of Edessa, p. 256, that he was an
I’?Anna Comnena, I, 136-138.Dblger, Regesten, no. 1065. Vismara, Bisanzio, p. 47, Armenian (an opinion shared by Yinanc, Fcthi, p, I O I ) ,though plausible is improbable.
1 7 8 Anna Comnena, 11, 63. Melikoff, “Danishmend,” E12.
Ibid., 64, Anna Comnena, 11, 64-66. Karatekin was directly obedient to Malik Shah, in
I8O Ibid., 73. contrast to many of the other emirs.

114 1’5

by one of his oflicials, the emir Ismail.188A certain Baldukh established possession once morc of the important city of Ankara and a portion of the
himself as emir of Samosata;18DAlp Ilck temporarily occupied Edessa;lgo Anatolian plateau in the north.201 In the more easterly regions of the
Sukman the son of Artuk also appeared in the regions of Edessa; Io1 and Taurus and Anti-Taurus, the appearance of the Crusaders resulted in a
Balas ruled Suruj in the same general area.1o2Other emirs directly under further weakening of Turkish power, but in these areas this worked less
the authority of‘the sultans i n Persia frequently made their appearance in to the advantage of the Byzantines than to the benefit of the Armenians
Anatolia in an effort to bring the recalcitrant emirs under control of the a n d Latins. Taking advantage of the expulsion of the Turks from north-
great sultans.1D3 west Anatolia, Alexius sent joint naval and land forces to liberate the
For the next decade, up until the appearance of the Crusaders, Alexius western coast. Smyrna surrendered without resistance, following which
was able to make slow but definite progress in Anatolia. Soon after the death the Byzantines reoccupied Ephesus. The Byzantine forces pushed into the
of Sulayman, the emperor recovered Sinope and the neighboring coastal adjacent hinterland and onto the western edge of the plateau, driving the
regions by bribing an official of the sultan.1g4Nearer to home he destroyed Turks from Sardes, Philadelpheia, Laodiceia, Lampe, and Polybotus.
(1092) the naval arsenal that the Turks were using at Cius,1s6 built Thus when Alexius set out in June of 1098 to join the Crusaders at
Cibotus to command the regions of the Gulf of Nicornedia,lgoand retook Antioch, he was able to advance as far as Philomelium with relative ease.2o2
the important regions of Cyzicus, Poimamenum, and Apollonias.lo7 I n the years that followed, Byzantine land and naval expeditions even-
Farther to the south Byzantine naval forces began to reduce the powerful tually reclaimed the southern Anatolian coastline from Turks and
Tzachas.108 Now free of the Normans and setting one Turkish cmir Crusaders, the defeat of Bohemund in Europe constituting the critical
against another, Alexius was preparing to deal with the Turkish problem event in this phase of the Byzantine reconquest. I n the treaty of 1108,
in a more decisive manner when news arrived that Latin armies were Alexius received the theme of Podandus, Tarsus, Adana, Mopsuestia
setting out for t he East.100 I n a sense, the timing of the Crusades fitted (Mamistra), Anazarba, and all cities between the Cydnus and the Hermon
the Turkish plans of Alexius, for if the Latin troops could be controlled, rivers.205By the end of his reign, Alexius had been able to make serious
they could be harnessed to his plans to reconquer the eastern provinces. progress in his efforts to reassert Byzantine authority in Asia Minor. The
It was the knights of the First Crusade who dealt the Seljuks of Anatolia Anatolian provinces of the empire i n 11x8included the province of
their first major setback and enabled Alexius to reconquer western Ana- Trebizond, all the land to the west of a line passing through Sinope,
tolia and reintegrate it into the empire. In 1097 the Turks were defeated Gangra, Ankara, Amorium, Philomelium, and the whole of the southern
across the length of Anatolia, being forced to retire from Nicaea, Dory- coastline up to the duchy of Antiocha204
laeum, Antioch of Pisidia, Iconium, Heracleia, the regions of Caesareia, It is apparent that after a half century of uninterrupted warfare and
Plastentza (Comana), Marash, Tarsus, Adana, and Mopsuestia disruption, the Turks had not succeeded in conquering the whole of the
(Mamistra),200The Crusade of I I O I brought the Byzantines into Anatolian peninsula. Rather they had secured the major portion of the
Matthew of Edessa, p. 204. He is probably not to be confused with Ismail, brother
central plateau and the eastern provinces leading into the regions of
of Malik Shah, who was active in the regions of Paipert. Anna Comnena, 111, 29-30. Adliarbaydjan and the Euphrates. TheByzantine reconquest had succeeded
180 Matthew of Edessa, p. 210.
in removing the Turks from all coastal regions and from the critical
IDoIbid.,p. 211.
lol Ibid., pa 210. western edge of the plateau itself. This half century had, however, seen
lo2 William of Tyre, IV, 6,He was an Ortokid. Cahen, “Balas,” EI,, and “Artukids,” a warfare whose intensity had never been previously recorded in the annals
108 Such were Monoiycus, Kontogmen, Mahmud, and Buzan. Anna Comnena, 111,166.
of the peninsula. The Turkish invasions had brought a n end to unified
Matthew of Edessa, pp. 198, 203. political control, and therefore an end to relatively stable political
lo*Anna Comnena, 11,65-66, Cabras had rccovered Trebizond earlier.
Io6 Ibid., 69.
conditions, in Anatolia. These invasions resulted in the proliferation of
l o o Ibid., 71. He builds the fortress called Iron. Anna Comnena, 11, 205. H. Glykatzi- independent political authorities on the Anatolian soil, a factor of prime
Ahrweiler, “Les fortresses construites en h i e Mineure face A l’invasion seldjoukide,”
ilkten des X I Internationalen Byrantinisten-kongresses Miinchen 1958 (Munich, I gGo), pp. I C J Z ~ ) ,pp. 37-65 (hereafter cited as Gesta Fruncontrn). Anna Comnena, 111,8-19.Matthew
182-185. of Edessa, pp. 214-215.See also the commentary of H. Hagenmeyer, Anonyrni gestu
1°7 Anna Comnena, 11, 80. Francorurn at aliorum Hierosolymitanorum (Heidleberg, 1890), pp. 179-238.
lgsIbid., 158-161. J. L. Gate, “The Crusade of I 101,’’A History of the Crusades, pp. 354-355. Anna
l o g Ibid., 205. Comnena, 111, 36.
For the details, H. Hagenmeyer, “Chronologie de la premitre Croisade (1094- Anna Comnena, 111, 23-29, Chalandon, I, 195-198.Ahrweiler, “Smyrne,” p. 5,
I IOO),” R.O.L., VI (1898), 285-293, 495-510.Runciman, “The First Crusade: Con- proposes the date 1093-94for the Byzantine reconquest of Smyrna.
stantinople to Antioch,” in A History of the Crruades, ed. K. Setton (Philadelphia, 1955), ,03 Anna Comnena, 111, 134.Chalandon, I, 248.
pp. 280-304. G E ~Francorurn
Q el aliorum Hierosolimitunorum, ed. and trans. L. Brdhier (Paris, Chalandon, I, 271.
I 16 117

importance in the Turkification and Islamization of Anatolia, as we shall strife at first favored the Byzantine designs to push forward the reconquest
see in the next chapter. of Anatolia, enabling the emperors to exploit the rivalry of the sons of
The events of the next century were instrumental in determining the sultan Mas‘ud and the struggle between Danishmendids and Seljuks.
collapse of Byzantium in the greater part of Asia Minor and in eroding John Comnenus ( I I I 8-43), because of the relative weakness of the sultan
the political basis of Hellenism in large parts of the peninsula, for in the of Iconium, was free to concentrate his efTorts on the Danishmendids in
twelfth century parts of Anatolia continued to be the chaotic scene of the north and against the Cilician Armenians in the south. In 1119,
unabating and often savage warfare. I n the west on the mountainous I 120-21, and again i n 1124 he undertook operations in western Asia
edge of the Anatolian plateau, the Byzantines, Seljuks, and Turkmens Minor against the Turkmens, who, in violating the treaty betwecn
waged a relentless and harsh struggle along a line stretching from the Alexius I and the Turks, had occupied Laodiceia, Sozopolis, Hieracory-
Sangarius and Dorylaeum to Cotyaeum, Choma, Philomelium, Sozopolis, phites, and other regions i n the vicinity of Attaleia. He was succcssful in
and Laodiceia to Attaleia. In a conflict that observed no hard and fixed driving the Turkmens from these towns and enrolled a number of them
boundaries, the Greeks raided as far as Iconium, the Turks and Turkmens i n his own armies.206 But his most important compaigns were those
as far as the Aegean coast. In northern Asia Minor the Greeks, Turkmens, waged against the Danishmendids in the north at a time when relations
Seljuks, and Danishmendids fought along a similarly fluid border, a between the Danishmendids and the sultan of Konya were inimical. A
border that pivoted about the towns of Claudiopolis, Dadybra, Castamon, series of campaigns between I I 30 and I I 35 enabled John I1 to recover
Gangra, Paura, Amaseia, Comana, and Oenoe. In eastern Anatolia Gangra, Castamon, and a number of other towns and to subjugate various
(a region that though outside of the Greek portion of the peninsula, emirs.207During the years I 137 and I 138 he was busy restoring order in
nevertheless would be the scene o€events affecting the Byzantine position), Cilicia where the Armenian Leo had taken many of the cities from the
Georgians, Saltukids of Erzerum, Menguchekids of Erzindjan-Coloneia- hands of the Greeks. Here he accomplished his goal with comparative
Tephrice, Artukids, Danishmendids, Shaddadids, Zangids, Crusaders, ease as Mopsuestia, Tarsus, Adana, and Anazarba again recognized
Ayyubids, Turkmens, Armenians, and Byzantines insured the same Byzantine authority.208By the time of his expedition against Neocaesareia
conditions-that the region would be one of considerable turmoil, i n I I 39-40 Greek arms were once more feared throughout Anatolia. The
upheaval, and desolation. In southern Anatolia, Greeks, Armenians, fear of the Muslim rulers was such that
Turkmens, Latins, Kurds, and Arabs made ‘their military appearances When the emperor began to attack Neocaesareia, thc fury of the Turks against
with hypnotizing monotony.206 the Christians increased in all the lands which they held. Whosoever mentioned
Such unsettled conditions encouraged intense dynastic and civil strife the name of the emperor, even by accident, received the sword, and his children
inasmuch as any potential rebel could usually rely upon support from and house were taken. I n this manner many perished in Melitene and in other
lands, up until the emperor suddenly departed.200
one or more of the Anatolian states. Rebellion and dynastic strife plagued
Greeks, Armenians, and Turks alike. Byzantine princes, Seljuk sultans, The expedition against Neocaesareia failed, but at the same time it
Danishmendids, and Armenians became familiar sights at the various represents the high tide of the attempted Byzantine reconquest of Asia
Anatolian courts where they passed their time in plotting the overthrow Minor. This failure was, however, soon partially compensated by the
of their kinsmen with the aid of the forces of the enemy. death of the Danishmendid ruler Malik Muhammad in I 142.With his
This proliferation of independent political authority and of dynastic death the Danishmendid patrimony was divided into three mutually
hostile and warring states, Yaghibasan ruling at Sebasteia, Dhu’l-Nun at
The complicated history of Anatolia in this critical period has not as yet been
written. The major outlines, however, have been established. Chalandon, Les ComnBnes, Caesareia, and ‘Ayn al-Dawla at Albistan and Melitene. This relieved the
11. M. Bachmann, D i e Rede des Johntines Syropoidos an dent Kuiser Isauk 11Angelus (rr85-95)
(Munich, 1935), pp. 55-64. F. Cognasso, “Un imperatore bizantino della decadenza: Nicetas Choniates, I 7-18, seems to imply this. Cinnamus, 5-6. Theodore Scutariotes-
Isaaco I1 Angelo,” Bessarione XIX (1915), 250-253. P. Wittek, “Deux chapitres de Sathas, 190-191. Theodore Prodromus, P.G., CXXXIII, 1382, speaks of a victory a t
I’histoire dcs Turcs de Rum,” Byzantion, XI (1g36), 285-319; “Le sultanat de Roum,” Amorium. See also his poem in the edition o f C. Welz, Analecta Byzantzna. Caminn inedztu
A.I.P.H.O.S., VI, 688-703. Cahcn, “The Turks in Iran and Anatolia before the Mongol Tlteodori Prodrorni et Stephani Physopalarnitae (Leipzig, I 9 I 0 )

ao7 Cinnamus, 13-15. Nicetas Choniates, 15-29. Michael the Syrian, 111, 232-234.
Invasions,” A Histoy aftlie Crusades (Philadelphia, 1962) 11, 661-692 ; “Selgukidcs Turco-
mans et Allemands au temps de la troitsime croisade,” W.Z.K.M., LVI (1960), 21-31; Theodore Scutariotes-Sathas, 195-197, 199. Kurtz, B.Z. X V I (1907), 75-83, edited a
“Le Diyar Bakar au temps des premiers Urtukids,” J.A., CCXXVII (1935)~219-272; poem on the second fall of Castamon. Theodore Prodromus, P.G., CXXXIII, 1373-1383,
“Artukids,” EIa. Sumer, “Mengucukler,” IA. Melikoff, “Danishmendids,” E12. Der mentions among the towns and emirs that he subdued: Alamon, Rlazan, Balzon; the
Nersessian, “Cilician Armenia.” R. M. Bartikian, “K istorii vzaimootnoshenii mezhdu emirs Toghrul of Amaseia, Alpsarous of Gangra, Prachinon, Elelden, Elbegkou.;, Tzykes,
Vizantiei i kilikiiskim armianskim gosudarstvom v kontse X I 1 v.,” IT.V., XVII (rgGo), h a l e s , ICallinoglu, Aitougdin, Ausararis, Chalandon, 11, 82-91.
52-56. A. Heisenberg, “Zu den arrnenisch-byzantinisch Bcziehungen am Anfang clcs 3. Nicctas Choniates, 33-42. Cinnamus, 16-18. Theodore Scutariotcs-Sathas, 197-200.
Jahrhunderts, Sztz. dnr buy. Akad. der Wiss. Phil.-/&. K1. (rgzg), VI. Michael the Syrian, 111, 245. Gregory the Priest, p. 323.
* O D Michael the Syrian, 111, 249.

I 18


Byzantines from the pressure o f the most powerful Turkish state in retire to Choma via the road along Lake Pousgouse. As Choma was
Anatolia, but the disintegration of Danishmendid rule was soon to upset considered to be well within the Byzantine boundaries, Manuel was
the balance ofpower in favor of the Seljuks of Iconium.210I n his last Ana- startled by the unannounced presence of the tents of the Turlcmens of a
tolian campaign ( I 142-43), the object of which was Antioch, John paused certain Rama. They were chased out and Manuel made his way to
en route to drive out the Turkmens besieging Sozopolis and to make his Bithynia, settled the Greeks from Philomelium and built the fortress of
appearance among the other Phrygian cities in an effort to strengthen Pylae. Upon the approach of the Second Crusade, both Manuel and
Byzantine authority in the area. It is of interest to note that the Greek in- Mas‘ud concluded a treaty (1147) by which Pracana and other places
habitants of the islands of Lake Pousgouse who recognized the sultan and were returned to the Byzantines.215
who had established a satisfactory modus vivendi with the Turks refused to T h e Crusaders found hnatolia difficult terrain in spite of Manuel’s
receive the emperor, and John was forced to take the islands by force.al1 recent conquest of Melangeia, Even though Conrad and the Germans
were able to advance as far as Melangeia without incident from the
Byzantine Retreat ( I I&J-I204)
Turks, they were defeated at Bathys by the Turkish chief Mamplanes and
With the division of the Danishmendid domains, the sultanate of eventually forced to retire to Nicaea. Louis VII led the French by a more
Iconium gradually emerged as the major power in Asia Minor. This westerly route toward Attaleia and thus avoided these more dangerous
ascendancy of the house of Kutlumush was accompanied by a corre- areas. Nevertheless, as they entered the Macander valley and progressed
sponding decline in Byzantium’s Anatolian fortunes. The final failure of toward Laodiceia, they were severely harassed by the Turks, and Attaleia
the Byzantine attempts to reconquer Anatolia and the establishment of itself had hostile Turkmens in the environs.21a
the Seljuks as the dominant Anatolian power coincided with the reigns I n another region the Armenian ‘I‘horos had begun to enter the cities
of ManueI Comnenus ( I 14.3-80)and Kilidj I1 Arslan ( I 155-9r).~l~ That held by the Byzantines i n Cilicia, having succeeded at Tarsus and
this would be the final issue was not a t all evident in the early years of the Mopsuestia by 1152. Mas‘ud, at the prompting of Manuel, invaded
reigns of the two men, for with the death of Mas‘ud and the accession Cilicia and attacked Thoros in I 153and again in I I 54 but he was defeated,
of Kilrdj Arslan, there was dynastic strife complicated by the intervention and with the death ofMas‘ud in I 155,Thoros was freed from this quarter.
of the Danishmendid Yaghibasan.213 Manuel, inasmuch as he inherited Mas‘ud’s successor, KYlidj Arslan, wcnt so far as to take the cities of
the situation in Anatolia from his father John, was in a much stronger Pannoura and Sibyla from the Byzantines in I 1 5 7 , ~ ~but’ with the making
position, a state of affairs reflected in the successful character of Manuel’s of peace between Manuel and Krlidj Arslan in I 158, the emperor turned
campaigns and policies up until his distraction with and absorption in to Cilicia to settle accounts with Thoros. The emperor’s eastern march
European affairs. This is brought out clearly by his early success in chasing i n this year was highly succcssful. En route he defeated the Turkmens
the Turkmens from the regions of Melangeia and in the rebuilding of the i n Little Phrygia, and once in Cilicia he took the cities of Cistramon,
fortifications with a view to making the Bithynian bordcrs safe from their Anazarba, Longinias, Tarsus, and Tilin21s
raids.2ld Much more spectacular was the campaign of I 14G when, as a Despite the treaty of I I 58, from I I 59 to I I G I Manuel was on a cam-
result of the Turkish capture of Pracana in Cilicia and Turkish raids into paign against the Turkmens in western Asia Minor. On its return from the
the Thracesian theme, Manuel decided to attack Iconiurn itself. He Cilician and Syrian campaign, Manuel’s army had been attacked by the
defeated the forces of the sultan successively at Acrounos, Calograias Turkmens in the neighborhood of Dorylaeum and it is no doubt as a
Bounos, and Philomelium. Manuel burned the latter city and released the result of this that he appeared in the valleys of the Tembris and Bathys
Greeks who had been held captive there for years. Then the impcrial near Cotyaeum in I 159, driving out large numbers of the nomads with
armies marched to the Seljuk capital itself wherc they desecrated the
215 Cinnamus, 38-46. Nicetas Choniates, 71-72. Chalandon, Les Cornnines, 11, 24.8-158.
Muslim cemeteries outside the walls. The arrival of Muslim reinforcements Vismara, Bisunzio, p. 50. Dolger, Regesten, no. 1352.
from the Danishmendids, however, forced Manuel to lift the siege and to 210 Nicetas Choniates, 89. Cinnamus, 81-84. William of Tyre, XVI-22, PG. Odo of
Deuil, Deprofeclione Ltdouici VII in orientern, ed. and trans. V. G. Berry (New York, I@),
pp. 109-113 (hereafter cited as Odo of Deuil), gives a graphic description of thc desola-
ala MelikofT, “Danishmendids,” EIa. Nicetas Choniates, 45-49. Cinnamus, 2 I . Theodore
tion that prevailed in much of western Asia Minor. Chalandon, Les Comntnes, 11, 281-
Scutariotes-Sathas, 205-207. Michael the Syrian, 111, 249. 286, 300, 304, 310.
211 Nicetas Choniates, 50-51. Cinnamus, 22. Theodore Scutariotcs-Sathas, 208.
a17 Chalandon, Les Comnknes, 11, 430-4.34, Cinnamus, I 76. At the same time Yaghi-
zla F. Uspenskii, Istoriin Vzzuntiiskoi Zrnfieriz (Moscow-Leningracl, 194U), pp. 2 72 [r
basan took Oenoe and Baura on the Blacksea from the Greeks.
Chalandon, Les Comndnes, 11. 218 Cinnamus, I 79-180. Nicetas Choniates, 134-1 35. Theodore Prodromus, R.H.C.,
0. Turan, “ICXc Arslan,” IA. N.G.,11, 752, 766. Chalandon, Les Comndnes, 11, 44.1 ff, Dolgcr, Regesten, no. 1422.
214 Cinnamus, 36. Nicetas Choniates, 71. Chalandon, Les Cornndtzes, 11, 247-248.
Vismara, Bksanzio, p. 51.
120 I21

their animals.2l0 I n I I 60-6 I setting out from Philadelpheia he plundered Laodiceia and carried away many of the inhabitants and the livestock.226
the regions of Sarapata Mylonos, regions considered to be the domain The most important action of the emperor during this interval was the
of the emir Solymas. But his campaign must have been ineffectual, for fortification of the regions of Pergamum, Adramyttium, and Chliara in
when he retired the Turks came in the van of the withdrawing army, order to keep out the Turkish raiders and to protect the villages and rural
captured the town of Philetas and killed and enslaved large numbers of populations.22sBut Manuel, once disengaged from his grandiose western
the inhabitants of Laodiceia.220I n late I 161, after suffering defeat at the schemes, soon realized that the political picture in Anatolia had changed
hands of another Byzantine army, Icilidj Arslan once more concluded a considerably and so he decided to make a definite effort to curb Kilidj
peace treaty with Manuel. Inasmuch as the Byzantines were actively Arslan. The latter, stalling for time, informed Manuel that he would hand
supporting the intrigues of his enemies, and as Kilidj Arslan had suffered over to him a number of cities if the emperor would send an army to
defeat at the hands of Yaghibasan in 1160 and had bcen forced to occupy them. The sultan, however, employed these troops for quite a
relinquish Albistan, the sultan did not feel sufficiently secure with the different purpose, using them to subject cities that had previously resisted
new Byzantine treaty of I I 61 For this reason in I 162 he made his
I him. Simultaneously, the city of Amaseia, formerly held by Shahinshah
celebrated journey to Constantinople where he was lavishly received by and evidently ready to recognize the authority of the emperor, was forced
Manuel and here he succeeded i n putting an end to the Byzantine to receive the garrison of Kilidj Arslan.227 Manuel had previously decided
diplomatic intrigues.22fThis date marks the turning point in the rise of the to drive the Turkmens from the regions of Dorylaeum because of their
fortune of Rilidj Arslan and the reversal of Byzantine success on the Asia constant raids and devastation of Byzantine soil. Dorylaeum had in the
Minor front, for Manuel, given a false sense of security, became increas- tenth and eleventh centuries been one of the important and most
ingly involved in western afairs with a consequent neglect of the Turkish prosperous urban centers ofAnatolia, but the Turkmens had razed it to the
problem. Kilidj Arslan was left free to deal with his brother Shahinshah ground and caused it to be abandoned and deserted. When Manuel
and with the Danishmendids. The death of the last capable Danishmendid, appeared in the area he drove out the nomads and rebuilt the forti-
Yaghibasan, in I 164, further eased his task and emboldened the sultan to fications and the town in I 175-76. Farther to the south he rebuilt the
conquer the regions of Albistan, Darende, Geduk, the Tohma River in fortress town of Choma-Soublaion.228
I 165; four years later he took Caesareia, Tzamandus, Ankara, and In I 176 Manuel made the decision to put an end to the power of the
Gangra.222Thanks to the intrigues of Nur al-Din, the Danishmendids were suItanate by taking Iconium and capturing the sultan, and to this purpose
temporarily saved, but with the latter’s death in I I 74, Kilidj Arslan was he levied great numbers of troops, especially Latins and Uzes from the
freed of his last powerful rival in the east. One year later, in I I 75, most of Danubian regions. H c sent one force under his nephew Andronicus
the remainder of the Danishmendid lands, including Sebasteia, Neo- Vatatzes to take Neocaesareia and the emperor himself took the major
caesareia, Doceia, and Comana, fell to Kilidj Arslan,228 and he seized portion of the army southward. He advanced on Iconium via Phrygia and
Melitene two years later. All this, of course, meant a formidable growth in Laodiceia, stopping a t Chonae to visit the church of the Archangel
Seljuk strength and a. sensible shift in the Anatolian balance of power. Michael, and afterward moved on to Lampe and Celenae-Apameia
I The sources do not say very much about the events on the Turco- where the Maeander River rises. Thence he proceeded to the recently
Byzantine border during this period between I 162 and I I 74. There is rebuilt fortress of Choma-Soublaion and finally to the abandoned
mention of the appearance of the Turkish nomads in the cities of the fortress of Myriocephalum. Thc emperor’s progress had been orberly
Phrygian Pentapolis in search of pasture for their livestock, but evidently
aa6 Nicetas Choniates, I 63. Theodore Scutariotes-Sathas, 253-254. Chalandon, Les
the emperor drove them I n the same period the Turks sacked Comndnes, 11, 499.
alD Cinnamus, 191. Chalandon, Les Coinndnes, 11, 458-459. upNicetas Choniates, 194-195. Theodore Scutariotes-Sathas, 268. Chalandon, Les
j aeo Cinnamus, 194-198. COWVIdneS, 11, 500-504.
aal Nicetas Choniates, 155-156, has an interesting account of the Sultan’s stay in Con- Cinnamus, rgz-293, 296.
stantinople, including an account of the games in the hippodrome which he witncssed 2 a 8 Nicetas Choniates, 2~7-zzg.Cinnamus, 297-298. Theodore Scutariotes-Sathas, 283.

i and the ridicule to which the guildsmen subjected him. Michael the Syrian, R.H.C.,
I%A., I, 355. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, “ Efbplow T o ~ v I K wyypagrai,”
~ in Noctes
Euthymius Malaces in K. Bones, ‘‘ EOBwplow TOG Mahkq pIlTpOTtOhlTOW Ndwv r[mpGv
(‘YIT&.TTls), 6bO iyKCdylaUTlKOi AbyOI, VGV Tb I T p 6 T O V &K6166VEV01, EIS TbV ahOK-
: , Pelropolzhm, (st. Petersburg, I9 IS), pp. 165-1 87 (hereafter Euthymius Tornices- ph-ropa Mavow~AA’ Kopvqhbv ( I 143/80),” OEohoyia, X I X (1941-48), 526-529,
’ . Papadopoulos-Kerameus). DGlger, Regeslen, nos. 1444, 1446, ’447. Vismara, Bisnizzio, 538-539, 546-547. Bar Hebraeus, I, 306. Chalandon, Les Comntnes, 11, 503-504. P.
P. 51- Wirth, “Kaiser Manuel I Komnenos und dic Ostgrenze: Riickeroherung und Aufbau
2aa Turan, “K& Arslan,” 691. Michael the Syrian, 111, 332. Bar Hebraeus, I, 293. der Festung Dorylaion,” B.Z.,L V (1962), 21-29. Dolger, Regesten, no. 1520. According to
a23 Turan, “ I W c Arslan,” 692. Michael the Syrian, 111, 357. Bar Hebraeus, I, 303. Michael the Syrian, 111, 369, h e set out to attack the Turkmens, killing them by the
aa4 Nicetas Choniates, 162-164. Theodore Scutariotes-Sathas, 253-254. Chalandon, thousands I n retaliation they entered Byzantine territory in the north and took away
Les Comnlnes, 11, 499. IOO,OOO captives, selling them on the slave markets.

I22 ‘23

but very slow, as there was a large contingent of unarmed men busy with that under such circumstances Kilidj Arslan called a halt to the battle by
the immense baggage train. The slowness had been enforced by the sending one of his officials, Gabras, to offer peace terms to the emperor.
appearance of the Turkmens, “numerous as the locusts,”220who realized The principal demands were that the newly constructed fortifications of
that the emperor had come to chase them from their habitats. The nomads Dorylaeum and Choma-Soublaion should be destroyed.234 Certainly the
harassed the army in groups of 5,000 t o 10,000,and on the eve orthe battle sultan’s behavior is incongruous with the nature of his victory, but Nicetas
Some 50,000 of them pillaged the emperor’s camp.230The sultan had made Chroniates mentions two facts that may have had something to do with
considerable preparations for the conflict by recruiting large numbers of the decision to offer the emperor terms. H e relates that the advisers of the
Turks from the regions of Mesopotamia and from the regions farther to the sultan had been in the pay of the emperor in peacetime and that they
ea~t.2~1As the Byzantine army had advanced, the sultan had withdrawn persuaded the sultan to propose peace t c r r n ~ After . ~ ~ ~the conclusion of
and scorched the earth, burning the villages and grassy plains and the treaty when thc Greeks began to withdraw, they saw the hosts of the
destroying anything that might be of use to the advancing Byzantine slain, and even though the Turks had won the victory it was obvious that
army. All the wells, cisterns, and springs were contaminated with the the numbers of the fallen on both sidcs had been great. As the emperor’s
bodies of dead asses and dogs, so that even before the battle took place troops withdrew they noticed that the skin had been removed from the
dysentery had spread throughout the whole of the imperial army.232 heads of the slain and that many of the slain had had the genitalia
In spite of the fact that the sultan appeared to be in a favorable position severed. The Turks had done this so that it would not be possible to
to deal with the invaders, he sent an embassy to the emperor asking for i distinguish the Christian from the Muslim corpses and thus the heavy
peace. Manuel, ignoring the difficulties of the army and the vigorous losses of the Turks would be obscured.280Finally, in spite of the cata-
objections of his most experienced generals, rejected the offers of peace. strophic nature of the Byzantine defeat, considerable portions of the army
Upon the refusal of the emperor, the sultan occupied the pass of and their commanders had succeeded in regrouping about the emperor.
Tzybritze, which the Greeks were about to enter as they left Myrio- I t was perhaps a combination of these reasons, as well as others, which
cephalum. The battle that ensued in the difficult mountain pass was a caused the sultan to offer peace, an action that he later regretted. When
disaster almost of the magnitude of Manzikert. Caught and surrounded Manuel retreated, the Turkmens began to harass his army and to raid the
by the Turks in the narrow defiles, the Byzantine army was subjccted to a countryside in small bands, taking booty and slaying the stragglers and
frightful slaughter. A fierce sandstorm SO obscured events that Greeks and the wounded. The emperor protested the violation o€ the treaty but
Turks were not able to distinguish friend from foe, with the result that they Kilidj Arslan replied that the Turkmens were independent of him and he
killed indiscriminately. By evening, with the subsiding of the storm, it was in any case unable to control them. The defeated were not able to
became obvious that the Turks had had the upper hand. The Byzantine relax their vigilance until they arrived at Chonae, safely within Byzantine
troops were further demoralized during the course of the night by the territory.237
Turks who came into the vicinity of the camp and called out to the Chris- This battle was the single most significant event to transpire on
tian Turks to abandon the emperor before it was too l~ite.~33 The plight AnatoIian soil since Manzikert ( I O ~ I ) ,and i t meant the end of Byzantine
of the army was such that Manuel seriously considered secret flight and the plans to reconquer Asia Minor. The empire suffered a sharp defeat and
abandoning oEall his troops to the mercies of the enemy. It is quite strange severe losses in its fighting strength at the time when it was on the verge of
collapse. The events of I I 76 must also have had a great demoralizing
2eQ Nicetas Choniates, 230-231. Michael the Syrian, 111, 371.
$80 Michael the Syrian, 111, 371. effect not only upon the empcror but, more important, upon the Greek
asl Nicetas Choniates, 232, ‘‘ ~ u p ~ a x i K d
v h 6 TE ~ f i sp b q s T&V .rrorap5v K a l asL T h e fourteenth-century anonymous history of the Seljuks, Histoire des Sebuitkides
TQV 8v0 wpcp\ihwu papp&pwv.” Theodore Scutariotes-Sathas, 284. d’Aste Mineure par un anonytne, Turkish trans. F. N. Uzluk (Ankara, 1952), p. 25, also
23s Nicetas Choniates, 231-232. Theodore Scutariotes-Sathas, 284. Michael the Syrian,
mentions that the emperor paid IOO,OOO gold and IOO,OOO silver pieces, horses, and cloth.
111, 371. R.v. Kap-Herr, Die nbendldndische Polilik Kaiser Mnnuels !nit besonderer Riicksicht
Dolger, Regesten, nos. 1522, 1524. Vismara, Bisnnzio, pp. 52-53.
artf Deulscfiland (Strassburg, I 881), p. 104. A. Vasiliev, “Manuel Comncnus and Henry Nicetas Choniates, 24-245, vapauupds y a p ofi-ros TaiS r & v pEyim&vWv afT0G
Plantagenet,” B.Z., XXIX (1929-30), 237-240, translates the letter of Manuel to Henry 3roOr]poo\ivais, o h p ~ ~ ~ V T ~ &Op cUp oV ~ i p ~hc i i ~ PauihiwS Ka-r& -rbv T ~ SE ~ P ~ V ~ S
11, on the disaster, which is preserved in the chronicle of Roger of I-Ioveden. The Annals of
I Kaipbv xpfipa-ra.” Theodorc Scutariotes-Sathas, 291.
Roger de Hoveden, trans. H . T. Riley (London, 1853), I, 419-423. F. Dirimtekin, Konya ve 2 8 0 Nicetas Choniates, 247. ‘‘ a t TE y a p cp&payyaS EIS~ Q & T E ~ O V&v@aivov, K a l ol
Duzbel 1rg6-rr~G(Istanbul, 1944,). K O I A ~ ~ E€S 1 ~K O ~ W V O ~ &vqyatpovso,
~S K a l T& ahuq rois 0vqutclaiois ~ E K & ~ U T T T O .
Theodore Scutariotes-Sathas, 290. ’ E d €2 vbc &rr?@e K a l r b v ~ A E U O E~CWUEV,

&6qpovGv fiv h a s , K a l oh TOTS &ri U U V ~ ~ T T E lVm 6 v , ~ T TOV

E x k p m a TE~IT~~XOVTES
h a s SB KEtpEvoS dnrOUUpE\s +I ~b 8ippa -rVs KEcpahijS, vohhol 6QK a l T O ~ Sl0uqdhhous
hE~auhtuOquav. B ~ ~ Y E T O61T O ~ llipoas
~ S T O ~ -rEXv&uauBai,
O Iva pfi TOG kpophmou
01 pappapoi cpovais & Y S K ~ ~ ~ O TWOV ~ bpoEfhiS,
S oi vhhat r p b s ‘Pwpatous 1 ~ p o o 8 ~ u y o v
6 &pTTEP[TOpOS 8laUTdhhOlTO KCd fi VIKr] O h W s E?q &pTlTdfiS Kai &pcpfipIUTOSt k
Kal ~ f i vbp066ocov v i m i v EGlcav-ro, r a p a i v o k m s @hOEiv r p b r ahohg, cjs 3Na cpwd
iKKa7iPWV T 6 V UTpOrrOd6WV KCiTapAQ06VTCW T O h h 6 V . ”
dmohou$~~vovT&V I v T+ X&pmi. Nicetas Choniates, 243.
Nicetas Choniates, 248-249. Michael the Syrian, 111, 372.
124 125

inhabitants of the Anatolian regions still held by the empire. The last affairs, control of the Anatolian districts slipped from the hands of the
hope for the removal of the Turkish power had gone up in smoke. That emperors. Rebellions mushroomed throughout the breadth and length
this military action in I I 76 took place SO many hundreds of miles west of of the area in question, and they were quite often supported by Turkmen
Manzikert was a clear demonstration of the great growth of Turkish troops who came in to plunder. Because of the Turkish support that the
strength in Asia Minor. Because of Manuel’s preoccupation in the west insurgents received and because they could readily seek refuge in enemy
with its attendant neglect of Turkish affairs, Kilidj Arlsan had had the territory, the weak government in Constantinople was not able to protect
time and the opportunity to remove his rivals and to consolidate his its subjects in the area against these rebellious elements. The more
kingdom. Though it is difficult to estimate the contribution of the Turk- frequent changes on thc throne also enabled the sultans to exploit these
men tribes to this victory in 1176, it seems safe to assume that the critical moments to raid and to conquer bits of the borders.
presence of large numbers of nomads in the border area served to absorb Upon Manuel’s death ( I I 80), Krlrdj Arslan’s armies captured Sozopolis,
i: theshock oftheByzantine attackand to exhaust the Christian armies before ravaging and subduing the surrounding villages; to the north Cotyaeum
their contact with the forces of the sultan, was sacked; and at the other extreme Attaleia was subject to a long
The remaining three years of Manuel’s reign ( I I 77-80) saw an inten- I
arduous ~iege.24~ When in 1182 Andronicus Comnenus set out from
sification of the Turkish raids on Byzantine territory along the bordcrs Oenoe on the Black Sea to claim the throne i n Constantinople, the
from northern Bithynia to the Maeander districts. As Manuel refused to military forces of Paphlagonia, Nicaea, and the Thracesian theme were
destroy the fortifications of Dorylaeum, the sultan sent the Atabeg with an withdrawn from the borders and employed in the civil war. The focal
army of 24,000 to raid the Christian lands. The Turks appeared suddenly center of resistance to Andronicus was the city of Philadelpheia under the
in the Maeander valley and sacked Tralles, Phrygian Antioch, Louma, command of John Comnenus Vatatzes. Until the latter’s defeat, the cities
Pentacheir, as well as other towns. Finding little resistance, the raiders of Byzantine Asia were caught up in a civil war that proved as destructive
turned to the coastal regions, which they also plundered. The imperial ~ 4 ~ the accession of Andronicus, and as a
as the ravages of the e n e m ~ . After
troops did arrive in time to attack the Turks as they were crossing the result of his measures against the aristocracy, rebellion broke out once
Maeandcr at Hyelion and Leimmocheir and destroyed most of them.238 more in Asia Minor ( I 184) centering on the cities of Lopadium, Nicaea,
On two other occasions the emperor himself appeared with the army in and Prusa. The rebels put up a very determined struggle, calling in the
unsuccessful efforts to drive the Turkmens out of the regions of Panasium, Turks to aid them, so that after their defeat Andronicus subjected the
Lacerion, and Charax (between Lampe and Graos Gala).239 I n cities to savage reprisals.244The disobedience of the provincial officials
northcrn Bithynia the emperor saved the city of Claudiopolis, besieged and took an alarming turn in the same year when Isaac, the governor of
suffering from famine, from almost certain capture at the hands of the Tarsus, rebelled and established himself independently at
Turkmens.240These isolated incidents indicate that the nomadic tribes- T h e chaos in the Byzantine regions of Asia Minor increased markedly
men on the borders had taken advantage of the battle of Myriocephalurn during the reign of Isaac I1 Angelus ( I 185-95). With the change in
to push their movements and depredations deeper into Byzantine territory. succession, and as the soldiers of much of the Thracesian theme had
The sultan himself, frec from the Byzantine threat, turned to the east, took crossed to Europe, Kilidj Arslan sent the emir Same to invade the
the last important vestige of the Danishmendid heritage (Melitene) in empire’s territory. The Turks, unopposed, entered the regions of Celbi-
I 177, and sometime later he destroyed the walls of Kaisum, carrying off anum and carried off large numbers of the inhabitants and livestock.240
its inhabitants into captivity.241 A few years later ( I 188-89), Theodore Mangaphas of Philadelpheia
The quarter century elapsing between the death of Manuel in I 180and
the fall of Constantinople to the Latins in 1204 witnessed a rapid disinte- 242 Nicctas Choniates, 340, Theodore Scutariotes-Sathas, 327. H e took other regions
also, b u t the names are not given.
gration of central authority i n the remaining Anatolian provinces and a 143 Nicetas Choniates, 340. “ 60av iugwhlwv crrdto~wv~ ~ -rrohdpwv r l a1 ’ A U I & T I ~ E ~
correspondingly greater activity of the Turkish tribes. As the empire Kal i‘iv T& ~ T E G ~ 6pcjpva
~ Y E ~ OT TV~ ~ E I S . EV -rrohh+ Swsa@bmEpa TQV & b1~6pwv
CW@fflV6VTWV &IQV, KU\ O h W s E l T E i V , 8 XElp O h h E ~ q h h J&Ahh6yOJmOS,T O h O
became inextricably drawn into the whirlpool of Balkan and Italian ?yXdplos 28ipl<E 8~51dt.”Theodore Scutariotes-Sathas, 327-329. The sons of Vatatzes
fled t o Iconium. Michael the Syrian, 111, 395-396.
z88 Nicetas Choniates, 25o-z5+ 2 4 4 Nicetas Choniates, 359-375. Theodore Scutariotes-Sathas, 337 ff. Brehier, Vie el
230 Ibid., 254-257. Theodore Scutariotes-Sathas, 296. Mort, p. 347. Dolger, Regesten, nos. 1558, t559,
Nicetas Choniates, 257-259. 205 O n the decline of Byzantine authority in Cilicia, Der Nersessian, “Cilician
a41 Michael the Syrian, 111, 373-376, 388. Bar Hebraeus, I, 308. It was after these Armenia,” pp. 642-644. Nicetas Choniates, 376-379. C. Brand, B’rantCaz Confronls the
events that KXclj Arslan revisited Mclitene and had his interesting mccting with Michael West, 1r8o-1~04 (Cambrldge, 1gG8), pp. 51-55.
the Syrian, Michael the Syrian, 111, 390-391. 240 Nicetas Choniates, 480-481.

126 127

revolted and raised the towns of Lydia with him,247and though two Bithynia. The most spectacular of these rebellions was that of the
expeditions finally succeeded in putting down the rebellion, Mangaphas Pseudoalexius who received a letter from the sultan of Iconium enabling
was able to make his escape to the court of Ghiyath &Din Kaykhusraw. him, in company with a Latin from the Maeandrian town of Armala, to
The latter refused to furnish the rebel with an army but instead gave him raise 8,000 Turkmens from the tribes under Arsanes. These nomads,
permission to recruit followers from among those adventurous Turks (the accustomed to raiding the lands of the Christians, proceeded to raid
Turkmens, no doubt) who were interested in booty and raiding. Having almost the whole length ofthe Maeander after having sacked the regions of
thus collected a sizable force, the Greek rebel returned to the environs of Chonae a n d having completed the destruction of its great church by
Philadelpheia, ravaging the rural populations and their livestock, smashing thc mosaics and altar. A number of the towns of the Maeander
Laodiceia and the districts of Caria were similarly pillaged, and a t Chonae valley surrendered to theinvaders but others resisted and so were destroyed,
the threshing A oors with the season’s harvest were consigned to the flames and because of the destruction of the harvests and the threshing floors
as was also the magnificent church of the Archangel Michael. Thence he the Pseudoalexius was nicknamed Kauocihchvqs. The revolt was termi-
retreated to Iconium, from which city the emperor was in the end forced to nated by the death of the rebel at the hands of a priest in the town of
purchase the A new element of confusion appeared with the Pis~a.~~l
march of the German Crusaders under Frederick Barbarossa. Phila- T h e rebellion of a second Pseudoalexius threw the regions of Paphla-
delpheia became the scene of conflict between Germans and Greeks, and, gonia into turmoil, and that of Basil Chortatzes at Tarsia near Nicomedia
once in Turkish territory, the Germans had to fight the Turkmens of the once more immersed Bithynia in chaos. There were numerous other rebels
borderregions and finally the forces ofthe sultan. The greater portion of the who made their appearancc at this time but the chroniclers, weary from
difficulties that Barbarossa encountered during his march from Laodiceia- the recitation of such events, dispense with them in very few w0rds.2~~The
Konya to Laranda and Cilicia was due largely to the Turkmen tribes.249 Turkish progress must have been quite vigorous if wc are to believe a
The defeat of the Turks at the hands of the Crusaders and the division letter that Kilidj Arslan sent to Michael the Syrian, According to its
of the sultan’s domains among his eleven heirs a few years before his death contents, the sultan had taken seventy-two places from the Greeks since the
in I I 92 permitted Isaac Angelus to undertake some modest actions against beginning of Isaac’s reign ( I I 85) .26s
the enemy. He was able to drive them out of parts of northwestern This pattern of rebellions, Turkmen raids, and invasions by the sultans
Anatolia and then built the fortress of Angelocastrum to prevent further I
prevailed for the next decade. A third Pseudoalexius appeared by the
tribal instrusions. In the south the monastic documents record that the side of the emir of Ankara and then proceeded to subject the fortresses
emperor restored some order and prospcrity to the monastic establish- in the regions north of that city. The emperor Alexius 111 waged a two-
ments on Mt. Latrus in the theme of Mylasa and Melanoudium after month campaign, and as he was not able to apprehend the rebel, hc
they had been destroyed again by the Turks.26oIf the victories of Bar- burned and destroyed those fortresses that persisted i n aiding Pseudo-
barossa and the squabbles of Kilidj Arslans’s successors provided the alexiu~.~64 The emir of Ankara, profiting from the confused state of affairs,
Greeks a temporary respite from Turkish raids, there was no pause in the besieged the city of Dadybra for four months and eventually forced it to
rebellions of the ambitious. The very year in which Kilidj Arslan died surrender in I 196. By the terms of the surrender, the Greek inhabitants
revolts broke out in the regions of the Maeander River, Paphlagonia, and were forced to leave the city and were replaced by Muslim colonists.26s
One year later relations betwcen Iconium and Constantinople became
247 H e coined silver with his own image. Nicetas Choniates, 522.
Ida Nicetas Choniates, 521-524. Theodore Scutariotes-Sathas, 387-389. Dolger, so bad that Kaykhusraw invaded the Maeander River valley, sacked
Regesten, no. 1581. Vismara, Disanrio, p. 53. Bachmann, Die Rede, p. 64. many of the towns, and took away captive the entire population of Caria
a 4 9 Nicetas Choniates, 539-541. Theodore Scutariotes-Sathas, 395-397. Ibn al-Athir,
R.H.C., H.O., 111, 22-24. Ansbert, p. 73. Salimbene, ed. 0.Holder-Egger, M.G.H.,
and Tantalus (5,000 i n all). He would have taken Phrygian Antioch
XXXII (Hannover-Leipzig, rgog-13), I 1-12 (hereafter cited as Salimbene). Gesta as well, as he came upon it at night. It so happened, however, that a
Federici I. Imperatoris in expeditione sacra, ed. 0.Holder-Egger, Scriptores Renctn Gerntanicanrm notable of the city was celebrating the marriage of his daughter and the
in usurn scholarurn (Hannover, ~Egr),pp. 86-95 (hereafter cited as Gesta Pederici), Bar
Hebraeus, I, 333. Brthier, Vie et Mort, pp. pp. 353-354, Cahen, “Selgukides et Allemands noises of the cymbals, drums, and singing made such a din that the sultan
au temps de la trosikme croisade,” W.Z.K.M., LVI (rgGo), 21-31, M. von Giesebricht, mistook it for the martial music of the defending army and so he withdrew
Geschichle der deulschen Kaiserreit V I (Leipzig, 1 8 9 5 ) ~258-278. Turan, “Kilic Arslan,”
IA,698. *5l Nicetas Choniates, 549-553. Theodore Scutariotes-Sathas, 399-400-
Miklosich et Muller, IV, 323-329. M.Bachmann, Die Rede, pp. 56-58. W. Regel, a ~ Nicetas
* Choniates, 553.
Fontes rerum byzanlinaruni (Petropolis, rgr y), 11, 258-262, 280. H. Ahrweiler, “Choma Michael the Syrian, 111, 394-395.
Aggtlokastron,” R.E.B., XXIV (1966), 278-283, distinguishes this Choma-Angelocastron Nicetas Choniates, 608-610. Dolger, Regesten, no, 1634. Vismara, Bisanzio, p. 53.
from Choma-Soublaion.
Nicetas Choniates, 624-626.
I 28 129
__ ______ ~ _ _ ~ r


to Philomelium where he resettled the 5,000 Greek captives.250 The


of Nicaea; and to Stephen of Perche, a duchy of Philadelpheia.200 As

emperor sent a n army under Andronicus Ducas to attack the Turks, and Theodore Lascaris had succeeded in rallying Greek forces about him in
he succeeded in falling upon the Turltmens of Arsanes and their herds, Asia Minor, the Latins were forced to make good their claims on Anatolian
killing many of them. Simultaneously the emperor had gone to Nicaea soil by military force. Following the centrifugal pattern of the last few
and Prusa in order to protect them from the Turkmens of the Bathys decades of the twelfth century, three Greek aristocrats established them-
area.257 Commercial difliculties once more led to a breakdown of relations selves as independent lords in the river valleys of western Asia Minor.
with the sultan (Rukn al-Din) in 1201,because of which the sultan un- I Theodore Mangaphas succeeded in taking control of the important urban

leashed new attacks on Byzantine territory. Profiting from the state of 1

center of Philadelplieia, whereas the father-in-law of the sultan, Manuel
affairs, a certain Michael, a tax official in the district of Mylasa, rebelled, ,
Maurozomes, was able to establish himself in the Maeander valley with
and though defcated, he followed the well-established pattern of seeking the aid of Turkish troops, and the third, Sabbas Asidenus, carved out a
refuge with the sultan, now a t war with the Greeks. The Turkish ruler small principality in the regions of Sampsun-Miletus.201 In the south the
gave him a Turkish army, which enabled the rebel to pillage the regions Turks wcre infiltrating the districts of Lycia and Pamphylia, and in
of the Maeander.268 Cilicia Byzantine authority had disappeared with the emergence of the
The final collapse of Byzantine authority in western Anatolia seemed Armenian princes Rupen I11 (I I 75-87) and Leo I1 (d. 12 IS), under whom
imminent. In the twenty-five years that had elapsed since the death of Cilician Armenia attained its independence.202 Particularly significant in
Manuel, effective central authority in Asia Minor had been seriously the fate of Byzantine civilization in Asia Minor was the capture of
threatened. The great internal weakening of the state and the successive Trebizond by Alexius and David Comnenus i n 1204 and the establishment
blows it received from the Latins and Balkan peoples made it virtually of the Trebizond state.263But contrary to the inauspicious developnients of
impossible to halt the gradual Turkish westward infiltration, and this L I 204, Greek fortunes i n western Asia Minor were to improve considerably.
progress of the nomads on the borders was greatly aided by the Byzantine During the course of the next decade Greek Anatolia was caught up in
rebels who arose in western Anatolia. What remained of Byzantine warfare, among Latins, sultans, and some half-dozen Greek aspirants.
military forces was consumed in civil strile, the rebels most often appealing Theodore Lascaris was hard pressed to maintain himself against all these
to the sultans and Turkmen chiefs for aid, and these latter very gladly foes simultaneously, but because of the Bulgarian attacks and defeat of
assisted in a process that could only benefit them. Byzantine political the Latins i n Thrace, the latter were not able to concentrate all their
domination in these regions or Anatolia seemed doomed to extinction. forces in Asia Minor. Thus Lascaris was able to push back the advance
Either the Turkmens and the sultan would overrun all of Anatolia, or of the Comnenoi in the north and to put an end to the independence of
some rebel would succeed in establishing a splinter state, as Isaac the Greek lords i n the river valleys. I n 1 2I I he defeatcd and slew the
Comnenus had done in Cyprus. sultan Ghiyath al-Din in the Maeander valley, and by so doing halted
Political Stability and Polarization : Nicaea and Koilya the further disintegration of Byzantine political control i n Anatolia. Three
years later (I 2 14)Theodore concluded the treaty of Nymphaeum, which
The year 1204 would seern to mark the next step in the dissolution of established a trucc between Greeks and Latins. According to the terms of
Byzantine authority in thc eastern provinces, for in this year a number of this treaty, the Latins were to keep northwest Mysia including the regions
new principalities wcre established in what remained of Byzantine of Ciminas and Achyraous, and Theodore received the lands south of the
Anatolian territory. Following the conquest of Constantinople, the Latin Caicus valley and east of Lopadium. This included Neocastron (Chliara,
emperor received, by the terms of the Partitio Romaniae, Byzantine Asia Pergamuin, Adramyttium), but Calamus was to bc left uninhabited as a
Minor.2GD Here he awarded fiefs to his brother Henry at Adramyttium; border region.264 The Trebizondine Comnenoi lost their lands west of
to Peter of Bracieus lands, “toward Iconium”; to Louis of Blois, the duchy
Nicetas Choniates, 653-657. Theodore Scutariotes-Sathas, 420-4a I . The difficulties R. L. Wolff, “The Latin Empire of Constantinople, 1204-61,” A I-lislory of the
began when the sultan detained two Arab stallions that the ruler of Egypt had sent to Crusades, 11, 191-191.
e61 G. Ostrogorsky, Geschicltte, p. 352, A. Gardner, The Lascarids of Nicnea, the story ofat1
the emperor. The latter retaliated by jailing the Greek and Turkish merchants of Konyn
and confiscating their goods. Embire in Exile (London, r q I z ) , p. 75. P. Orgels, “Sabas Asidenos, dynaste de Sampson,”
2 6 7 Nicetas Choniates, 657-658. Theodore Scutariotes-Sathas, 421, 427-428. Rukn x
~JkZntiO12, (1935), 67 ff.-
&Din, son of Kilidj Arslan, inherited Amisus and Amasra. He chased ICaykhusraw Der Nersessian, “Cilician Armenia,” pp. ,643-65 I .
203 Vasiliev, “The Foundation of the Empire of Trebizond, (1202-1222)~ Spectrlzltn,
from Konya and the latter fled to Constantinople.
2 5 8 Nicetas Choniates, 700-701. Dhlger, Regerleti, n. 1658, XI (‘9361, 3-37.
264 Gardner, Lnscarids, pp. 84-85. Ostrogorsky, Geschichte, p. 355. Dalger, Re@stetl, no.
Tafel and Thomas, Urknnden I, 464-50r.
1684, dates it after 1212.
= 30 I

Sinope to the new state a t Nicaea, and eleven years later John Vatatzes underwent a n even more lively development and expansion during this
further reduced the Latin holdings in Bithynia and eventually the Latins half century. Most important was the conquest of ports on the Black
were removed from Asia Minor. The boundary between Konya and and Mediterranean seas (Sinope, Antalya, Alaiya), the subjugation of the
Nicaea remained fairly constant between I 2 I I and the removal of the Saltukids and Menguchekids in the northeast, and the consolidation of
capital from Nicaea to Constantinople. The border ran from a point west the Taurus and eastern frontiers. The unification of these areas under
of Sinope in an arc that left Castamon, Cotyaeum, and Laodiceia to the Konya, the acquisition of seaports for the first time, and comparative
Seljuks, and continued to the Gulf of Macri (Fetiye) opposite Rhodes in internal peace and stability enabled economic life in most of Anatolia to
southwest Asia Minor.265 flourish for the first time since the eleventh century. A striking testimony
The Latin conquest of Constantinople was undoubtedly responsible to this development is the extensive number of caravansarays and khans
for the prolonged life of Byzantine authority i n Asia Minor inasmuch aq it that were built during the thirteenth century. Muslim and Christian
forced the Greeks to focus their energies and numbers in Nicaea. l‘he merchants frequented Asia Minor in increasing numbers, and treaties
disintegration of the maritime provinces was well undcrway by the end of between the Italian commercial cities and both Konya and Nicaea were
the twelfth century, and it is quite liltely that the Turltish conquest of the concluded. Seljuk art likewise experienced its short but amazing esJor
coastal regions might have taken place one century earlier than it actually a t this time.207
did had it not been for the events attendant upon thc Fourth Crusade.
By the marshaling of their forces in Anatolia, the Byzantines halted the Withdrawal of the Byzantines to Constantiizojde and the Decline of Konya;
Turkish penctration after it had attained Attaleia (1207)in the south and Establishineiit of the Emirates and Emergence of the Ottomans.
Sinopc (I 2 14.) in the north. T h e conditions responsible for the prosperity and comparative stability
The Nicaeaii state guarded its borders zealously, reorganizing its of Iife i n Anatolia were not sufficiently long-lived. The centralization of
defense forces. As both Seljuks and Greeks were preoccupicd with other authority a t Konya and the continued residence of imperial authority
foes, the history of relations between Konya and Nicaca is a relatively at Nicaea were responsible for the seemingly calm state of affairs, but
quiet one. The Seljuks were interested in events of the northern, southern, b y 1 2 6 1both these circumstances had begun to change; once more much
and eastern Anatolian regions; the Nicaeans, in the reconquest of of Anatolia gradually lapsed into disorder and then anarchy. Within the
Constantinople. With the cessation of active warfare between Byzantines Seljuk domains, it was the Udj Turkmens, concentrated along the
and Seijults for a half century, the borders remained comparatively Cilician, Trebizondine, and western borders, who destroyed the central-
stable and Anatolia once more began to experience the blessings of peace. ization of power in Konya and who, throughout the twelfth and early
The Lascarids did much to revive the economic prosperity of the western- thirteenth centuries, had not been overly amenable to the control of the
most provinces, monastic and other ecclesiastid institutions once more sultans. They had lived a quasi-independent existence and, when not
bloomed, and cities were rebuilt and fortified.25GThe sultanate of Konya engaged in raids on Christians, had on occasion become embroiled in the
dynastic strife of the Seljulc ruling house. These nomads, or seminomads,
Mrittek, Das F2rsteiitm Ade1iiescAe. Sltrdie ziw Gescliiclile M’eestkleitinsietis im 13-15 Jnhr. substantially increased in number with the arrival of new Turkish tribes
(Istanbul, 1934.),p. I . fleeing the Mongol conquest in Transoxiana and Khurasan. The pressure
A. Mcliarakes, ‘lmopfa 708 ~ ~ U I ) \ E [ O UT ~ Ni~a/cc$
S K a l 708 &EUTOT&TOW T ~ S
’Hmfpow I Z O ~ - I P G I (Athens, 1898). Uspensikii, Zstoriia, pp. 53G-GoG. Ahrwciler, from the new invaders out of tlic Altai was such that the Khwarazm-
“Smyrne”, Passini. Gardner, LascnridJ, pp. I 82 ff. D. Xanalatos, “Wirtschaftliche Aufbau- shah himself, Djalal al-Din Mankobirti, attempted to flee to Asia Minor
und Autarkiemassnahmen im 13. Jahrhundcrt (Nikgnisches Reich I~O~.-IZGI),’’
Le$ziger 14erte&dmsc/ir~tfiir Siidosieuroja, Jah. 3, I 939, Heft I, I 29-139. Charanis, “The 14-34. Also A. Bryar, “The Littoral of the Empire of Trebizond in Two Fourteenth
Monastic Properties and the State in the Byzantine Empire,” D.O.P., I V (194.8),98-109. Century Fortolano Maps,” A I I , , X X I V (1961), 97-127, and his other studies. Thc
W. Heyd, Hisfozk du coianierce du Leuanl (Leipzig, ~ g q ) I,, 304-307, 309. On the fortif- Trebizondine manuscripts now in Ankara are cataloged by N. Bces, ‘‘ r [ O V T l a K U
cations erected by the Lascarids to del’end the towns and the roads, W. Miiller-Wiener, XEipbypaqa 2u TQ ~.lowcrdqTOG KC~OTPOW~ i j ’Ayidpas,”
s A X . , IX (igsg), 193-248.
“Mittelalterliche Bcfestigungen im siidlichen Jonien,” I.M., X I ( I ~ J G I ) , 5-122. A. M. 287 Cahen, “The Turks in Iran and Rnatolia before the Mongol Invasions,” A I-lisfory
Schneider and W. Karnapp, Die Stadtmnuer UON Iziiik (Berliii, 1938), pp. IG ff. Schneider, of the Crusades, 11, 661-692 (hereafter cited as Cahen, ‘‘ Anatolia before the Mongol”);
Die riilnischen iind byzantinischen Dettkrnaler uon Iznik-Nicaea (Berlin, I 943), on building “Le commerce anatolien a u debut du XIIIc sitcle,” M&nges d’liistoire du moyen a l e
activity in Lascarid Nicaea. Glycatzi-Ahrweiler, “ L a politique agraire des cmpcrcurs dedib ci la tnimmoire de Louis Hnlfilien (Paris, Ig51), 91-101. “Alaeddin,” EI,.I<. Erdmann,
de NicCe,” Byzaiilion, XXVIII ( I 958), 51-66, I 35-136. T h c basic history of the Empire of Der Orientdische Knupfteppich (Tubingen, 1955)~14-20; Dns anntolisclie Karaunnsnriy des r3.
Trcbizoiid has not yet been written. W. Millcr, TreDirond (London, IgrG), pp. 20-27. Jahrlruriderls 2 vols. (Berlin, I 961). V. Gordlcvski, Izbmntp Socli., I, 56-61. M. Koprulii,
J. Fallmereycr, Gescliiclite dts Kaiserllisnis uoii Tra)erutzt (Munich, 1827), pp. 1 0 1 - 1 2 5 . The Les origities de l’enifiire oltoman (Paris, 1g35),gives an overall survey of Seljuk Anatolia at
Greek journal ’ApXEiou I?~UTOW is a vcritablc mine of primary and sccondary material. this time in chapter I I . For conditions in Cilician Armenia, Der Nersessian, “Cilician
See especially the studies of 0. Lampsides in this periodical, and more particularly his Armenia,” possiin. Canard, “Arnienia,” EI,. The work of Z. Togan, Uinwni Tiirk Inriliitie
article, ’ATTOYEIS61~1 TOG K P ~ O W STBVI.~EY&)\CJV Ko~uquGv,” A . II., XXIV, ( I ~ G I ) , girif (Istanbul, 1946), I, 197-210, must bc read with extreme caution and reservations.


with his followers. Even though he was defeated a t the battle of course compromised in the eyes of the Mongols, and when Baybars
Yashichymen in 1230 by the Seljuks and Ayyubids, his group and other withdrew from Anatolia, the Mongols executed the pervane.2’2 Previously
Turkmens no doubt continued to flock into Anatolia.208 (1276) the Turkmens of the Taurus had revolted and under the leadership
Given the great differences in social and economic habits as well as in of the Karamanids attacked and captured Konya where they placed a
religious outlook of the Anatolian Turkmens and the Muslim sedentary certain Djimri on the throne. The Turkmens of the western borders also
society ofAnatolia, one is not overly surprised at the course of events in the seem to have been actively disobedient to Konya. Though the Turkmen
mid-thirteenth century. Out of close contact with Konya, the hostility rebellion failed and the Seljuk-Mongol forces eventually reasserted
of the Turkmens was galvanized by the religious preaching of heterodox authority over the towns of the plateau, Turkmen independence was
holy men flocking into Anatolia at this time. The friction between henceforth an accomplished fact. The Mongols took over direct control
scdentary and nomadic society came to a head for the first time in the of the Seljuk administration in Asia Minor imposing their own fiscal
explosive revolt of Baba Ishak c. 1239-4.0. H e and his followers, through institutions on those of the Seljuks. But if they continued to hold eastern
their preaching to the Turkmens of the regions between Amasya and the Asia Minor firmly, the western regions were far more difficult to control,
eastern Taurus, unleashed a revolt agaist Seljuk authority which attained and i n fact began to slip from the hands of the sultans at Konya. Even in
considerable proportions before its suppression by armies with considerable central Anatolia the struggle of the Ilkhanids and Mamelultes made this a
numbers of Christian mercenaries. The nomads had not been sufficiently border region subject to considerable political fluctuation and military
assimilated into the Seljuk system and would in the latter half of the vicissitude.
century partition and destroy the Seljuk Greatly weakened by The combined impact of Turkmen rebellions and Mongol conquest had
tbis spectacular Turkmen rebellion, the Seljuks were crushed shortly destroyed the political unity of the Seljuk state and removed the possi-
thereafter by the Mongols i n the battle of Kose Dag (I243), and hence- bility of a more peaceful development of the land i n social and economic
forth the Anatolian sultanate became a vassal state of the Mongols.270 matters. T h e territorial disintegration of the state was further accelerated
Though there ensued a period of varying stability down to 1275 as a by the degeneration of Mongol rule in Rnatolia during the late thirteenth
result ofthe appearance of capable Seljuk administrators, it was only with and the early fourteenth century. The great movements of commerce
difficulty that the Turkmens of the Taurus and western Anatolia were across Anatolia were partially disrupted, and, henceforth, the caravans
subdued.271 Seljuk-Mongol armies were forced to repress Turkmen tended to touch on the easternmost fringes of Anatolia. The Mongol
disorders in the regions of Laranda and in the west about the plain of intrusion aftcr I277 was marked by the further settlement ofMongol and
Dalaman Chay in 1261-62. T h e next great outbreak of Turkmen castern Turkish tribes with their military chiefs in eastern Anatolia.27a
rebellion took place against the background of Mameluke intervention. I n western Asia Minor, Byzantine rule collapsed in the half century
The Mameluke sultan Baybars, encouraged by his victory over the following the recapture of Constantinople from the Latins. The shifting
Mongols at Ayn Djalut i n 1260 and prodded on by certain Turkish of the capital from Nicaea to the Bosphorus entailed neglect of what had
Anatolian begs, invaded eastern Anatolia and defeated the Mongols at remained of the empire’s possessions in Asia Minor. The utterance of the
Kayseri (1277). As the position of the pervane was not clear, he was of protoasecretis Sennacherim the Evil, upon receipt of the news that
Constantinople had been retaken, was prophetic: “Let no one hope for
zosH. Gottschalk, “Der Bericht des Ibu. Nazif a1 Ilamawi iiber die Schlacht von
Ja:yydimen,)’ kY.2.K.M. LVI (1960),55-67. Spuler, Die Mongolen in Iran, 2d ed. (Bcrlin, good, since the Greeks again dwell in the City.”274The conquest of
ig55), pp. 33-34. Cahen, “Anatolia before the Mongol,” pp. 683-684, 690-691. J. A. Constantinople rekindled, as was to be expcctcd, Latin crusading fervor,
Boyle, “Djalal &Din Khwarazm-shah,” EI,.
Though the grave significance of the Babai rising has long been recognized, the and henceforth the Greek rulers werc forced to defend themselves,
paucity of the sources has obscured many of the important details. The Karamanids, diplomatically and militarily, against the counterattack of the Latins.
Baba Ilyas, and Hadji Bektash, of considerable importance in Anatolian history, were all
connected with the leader of the movement. The most rccent opinion of scholarship on The corollary to the reconquest of Constantinople was the repossession
the movement is embodied in the article of Cahen, "Baha'i," EI,. Bar Hebraeus, I, 405- of the empire’s former lands in Europe, so that the emperors were caught
406. under, “Eine neuentdeckte Quelle zur Geschichte der Seltschuken in Anatolien,”
W.Z.K.M., Lv (1959), 83-88. up i n the politics and strife of Slav rulers, Greek despots, and Latin
e 7 0 Cahen, “Anatolia before the Mongol,” p, 692. Spuler, Die Mongolen, p. 43. Dolger,
Regeslen, no. 1776 on the treaty between Vatatzcs and Ghiyath &Din Kaykhursraw in G. W e t , “Baybars I,” EI,.
1243. 278 Cahen, “The Mongols,” pp. 727-732; “Notes,” pp. 346 ff. Spuler, Die Mongolen,
For the details, Cahen, “The Mongols,” pp. 725 ff; Cahen, “Notes pour I’histoire dcs pp. 73 ff. Togan, Girig, I, 222-237. Cahen, “Sur les traces dcs premiers Akhis,” Fmd
Turcomanes d ’ h i e Mineure a u X I I P sikcle,” J.A., CCXXXIX (1951), 337-338, Kojrulii Arniaguni (Istanbul, 1955), pp. 81-91. On the economic decline see chapter iii
342-345 (hereafter cited as “Notes”). For the Byzantino-Turkish treaty of I 254-55, as also, Spuler, Die h!!ongolen, pp. 302, 321-312, 325-326.
Dolger, Regesten, nos. 1824-1825. Pachymeres, I, 149,

I34 ‘35

princes. The occupation of Constantinople also brought the empire into Michael’s, reign (1282) only twenty years after his entry into Constan-
the focal point of the Venetian-Genoese commercial fire. The manpower tinople, Byzantine Anatolia was militarily defenseless and economically a
and finances of the state were not equal to the demands and tasks that the shamble~.~7~
repossession of Constantinople had imposed. Thus the words of The emperors made occasional efforts to halt or drive out the Turkish
Sennacherim were ominously prophetic, though to contemporaries they raiders who were beginning to settle down in Byzantine lands, but each
were meaningless. military expedition failed for one reason or another to achieve its goal.
The removal from Nicaea coincided with the period of Seljuk decline The army, which succeeded in an extensive reassertion of imperial
and with the resurgence of Udj Turkmen aggressions. In 1261 and 1262 authority in parts of Caria in 1269, was soon recalled for service in
the Turkmens had been temporarily defeated by Seljuk-Mongol armies Europe, and so the Turks reentered. Nine years later (1278) Byzantine
and it is quite possible that rebuffed by Konya, they may have begun to generals attempted to clear the invaders from the Maeander valley, but
infiltrate the Byzantine regions to the west. The withdrawal of the govern- the progress of the latter was such that Antioch and Caria were irretriev-
ment and of considerable military forces to Constantinople were no doubt ably lost. Michael’s expedition was successful in driving the Turks across
sufficient i n themselves to consummate the necessary debilitation of Byzan- the Sangarius, but it was temporary and the land was already desolate
tine resistance in Asia Minor. Because of the actions and measures of the and in ruins. The efrorts of Alexius Philanthropenus i n the Maeander
new Palaeologan dynasty, there resulted an outright alienation from Con- valley in stemming the influx of the nomads were so successful that they
stantinople of large segments of Greek society in Bithynia and elsewhere. aroused the envy and suspicion of the central authority. The result was
Michael V I I I Palaeologus had usurped the imperial crown from the his rebellion, supported by Greeks and Turks, and the donning of the
youth John IV Lascaris and had blinded him. The Lascaris dynasty had, purple. Soon after Philanthropenus was defeated, Andronicus I1 crossed
by its economic and political accomplishments, by its piety and charity, to Asia Minor, but a frightful earthquake terminated the expedition
become endeared to the Christians of the Nicaean state and the ruthless before it made contact with the Consequently, with the collapse
treatment of John I V produced a strong reaction, culminating in a of the Nicaean and Seljuk states, there arose a considerable number of
rebellion that had to be repressed with cruelty, I n pursuing his dynastic beyliks or emirates which competed with one another in conquering the
and economic policies Michael abolished the tax immunities of the lands oE the sultan and the emperor. By the first decade of the fourteenth
acrites and attacked the privileges of the large landowners. These elements century, one-half century after the removal of the emperor from Nicaea to
were either removed from the armies or else, alienated, they deserted to Constantinople, the Turkmens had carried practically everything before
the Turks, whereas others were reemployed in Europe. The government them along a line stretching from the Black Sea to the Aegean. Trachia
imposed heavy taxes on the inhabitants and installed rapacious rnerce- Stadia and Strobilus on the Carian coast were already Turkish in 1 2 6 9 ;
naries who treated the inhabitants as enemies. The measures of Michael Caria and Antioch on the Maeander had fallen in 1278; in 1282 Tralles
V I I I made his dynasty unpopular in Byzantine Anatolia, and this and Nysta fell. During the first decade of the fourteenth century various
unpopularity was manifested in religious controversies as well as in Turkish emirs reached the sea as Pergamum fell in 1 3 0 2 ; Ephesus, Thy-
rebellions. I n the struggle between Josephites and Arsenites, and in the raia, and Pyrgi were taken i n I 304 despite the temporary relief brought
strife over the ccclesiastical union of Lyon with the Latins, the Asia Minor by the appearance of the Catalans in A n a t ~ I i a The
. ~ ~ main
~ cities of
populace by and large sided with the antigovernment party. The rebellion Bithynia resisted for another two decades, Prusa ( I 326), Nicaea ( I 33 I ) ,
of Alexius Philanthropenus i n 1296 also received a certain support from Nicomedia ( I 337). By default, the Turkmens had come in and within a
the Anatolians. T h e emperors in Constantinople were always wary of the half century Byzantine authority disappeared.270
presence of a successful or popular general in Anatolia, such as Philan- a7° Pachymeres, I, 502-505.
thropenus, and were never content to leave him there for any long period.276 a77 Wittek, Mentesche, pp. 26-34. Arnakis, ’Oeopavoi, pp. 44 if.Ahrweiler, “Smyrne,”
The dissolution of the local mililary defensc and the alienation of the pp, 9, I 5 I . 13.-G. Beck, “Belisar-Philantliropelios. Das Belisar-Lied der Palaiologenzeit,”
Serta Monacensia, ed. H. J. Kissling and A. Schrnaus (Leiden, I C J ~ Z ) , pp. 46-52, discusses
populace with the attendant rebellions and acts of disobedience brought the episode of Philanthropenus and shows that he was probably the model of Belisarius in
anarchy and banditry to many parts of the Anatolian provinces. I t also this late Byzantine epic, the poem of Belisarius. On the influx of Turlmens along the
river valley, M. Treu, Mnxiini Monachi Plotzrtrh Ej,istuZne (Amsterdam, I g60),
permitted the Turkmens to increase the extent of their raids. By the end of PP. 174-175.
G. Arnakis, 01 TPQTOI ’OOwpavol (Athens, 1g47), pp. 37-48. Wittek, Menlesche, Melikoff, “Aidinoglu,” EI,, says 1308, but see 1’. Lemerle, L‘Enhol d’Ajdin,
pp. 9-1 I, 16-17, 42. Arnakis, “Byzantium’s Anatolian Provinces in the Reign of Michael Byzatice et l’0ccidetrt (Paris, 1957), p. 20.
Palaeologus,“ Acles du XUdcongr2s internntiotrol des itudes byznntities (Belgrade, I 964), 11, a 7 0 Wittek, Mentesclie, pp. 24-60. Arnakes, ’OOwpwof, passim. Lemerle, Aydin, pp.

37-44. Dolger, Regestnr, no. z 199. 14-18.

136 I37

Anatolia was once more parceled into numerous independent princi- founder of Saruhan (late thirteenth or early fourteenth century), Saruhan
palities, and in the course of the two centuries between the collapse of the Beg, was like Aydinoglu originally an emir of the Germiyanids. EIe
Seljuk-Nicaean equilibrium and the final Ottoman conquest of Asia proceeded to establish a n independent state and dynasty that came to
Minor, over twenty principalities came into existence, approximately rule Magnesia on the Hermus along with Menemen, Gordes, Demirdji,
half of these taking form prior to the end of the thirteenth century. Some Nif, and Turgutlu.ZBo
ofthese, such as the emirate of Denizli (c. 1261-1278)~ the Eshrefo&dlari In eastern Anatolia there was a thread of continuity i n Ilkhanid rule,
at Begshehir (second half of thirteenth century- I 325), the Sahibo&dlari but by the end of the fourteenth century, Mongol administration had
at Karahisar between I h t a h y a and Akshehir, and the Pervaneo&dlari given way to the rule of Turkmen tribal confederations. When the Mongol
about Sinope were comparatively short-lived.280The remainder of the governor Timurtash fled to Egypt in 1327, he was replaced by Ghiyath
beyliks that had appeared prior t o the end of the thirteenth century en- al-Din Eretna (of Uighur origin) who succeeded in receiving official
joyed a longer life-span. That of the Karamanids in the Taurus region appointment from the Ilkhan Abu Sa’id. Profiting from the dynastic strife
seems to have begun to take form by the mid-thirteenth century and after of the Ilkhanids, he eventually established himself as the independent
1277 was in effect independent.281 The Germiyanids, who had their ruler of much of central and eastern Anatolia, including Sivas, Kayseri,
center at Kutahya, were perhaps independent by 1277.282 Farther to the Nigde, Aksaray, Ankara, Develi Karahisar, Darende, Amasya, Tokat,
West in the regions of Adramyttiuin and Balikesri, the descendants of the Merzifon, Samsun, and Sharki Karahisar. The rule of his dynasty be-
Danishmendids founded the emirate of ICarasi at the end of tlic thirteenth came so weak by the 1360’s that his governors had usurped control of the
and beginning of the fourteenth century. The DjandarogullarI, having main towns and in 1365-66 the beys revolted. In 1381-82 Burhan al-Din
received Castamon as a fief from the Ilkhanids in 1292, madc this the core proclaimed himself sultan of the lands of Eretna, but was himself dcfeated
of an extended state in 1 3 0 7 , The Ottomans, if indeed thcy were in and executed by the Akkoyunlu in 1398, thc intervening eighteen years
existence prior to the end of the century, were located on thc borders of having been filled with the anarchy and strife of rebels, Ottomans,
BithyniaaZs3 In the fourteenth century a number of new emirates appeared. Karamanids, Mamelukes, and A k l t o y ~ n l u s Other
. ~ ~ ~ powerful Turkmen
At the turn of the century the dynasty of the Hamidogullari established states appeared in the cast during the fourteenth century. The rise of the
itself in the districts of Egridir, Uluburlu, Yalvach, and Anatalya. Akkoyunlu (fourteenth century to I 5 0 2 ) , Karakoyunlu, Dhu ‘l-Kadr
Sometime later the family holdings were split into two independent bey- (1337-1522) , and Ramazan was indicative of the density of the Turkmen
liks, one containing the morc northerly region, the other containing penetration i n the eastern provinces during this period.288
Anatalya and its environs.284Aydinoglu Muhammad Beg, an oficial of I n destroying the Byzantine and Seljuk structure of Anatolia, the Turk-
the Germiyanids, founded an independent dynasty in the western riverine mens further intensified the politically disunified character of this region
regions about Izmir and Ephesus (Ayasoluk) in the very early years of the and brought the spectcr of tribal raids and the unceasing warfare of petty
fourteenth century. This principality became so powerful that it intcrvened states, putting upon the Anatolian population the heavy burden of
actively in the European affairs of the Byzantine Empire.2*6 The supporting numerous governments and armies.
As the period of these conquests receded into the historical past, how-
280 Cahen, “Notes,” pp. 336-340, I. I-I. Uzunpyili, Ariadoln Beylikleri ue ilkkoyirnlu

Deuletleri (Ankara, 1937),pp. 13-14., 3G-38. Thc Turkinens about Denixli seein to have ever, the capitals of the many emirates served as administrative, economic,
formed an independent principality but were crushed after the rebcllion of Djimri by and religious centers that gradually restored varying degrces of stability
the sultan, The emirate of the Eshrefoogullari was suppressed by the Mongol governor and prosperity, a process clearly discernible by the third and fourth
Timurtash in 1325. (AliBey, “Eshrefogullari halckinda bir kac; S ~ Z , ” Tarill i osninni eticiinieni
mecmunsi, no. 26 (1330),pp. 251-25G.That of the Sahibo~ullnri,which was originally a decades of the fourteenth century. Nevertheless, the degree of recovery
Seljuk fief on the Byzantine frontier, seems to have been absorbed by its larger neighbors,
the Germiyanids. The Pervaneogullari, whose principality about Sinope dated from its
reconquest (from the Greeks of Trebizond) c. 12G4,was eventually absorbcd by the Dergisi, V (1947-48), 103-108. See also E. Zachariadou,” ‘lUTOpiK& o-roixeia crivcc
Djandnrogullari in the first hall of the fourteenth century. O a f i M a TOG ‘Aylou @avowpiow,” A.m. XXVI, (1964.),309-318. F. Thiriet, “Les relations
281 Cahen, “Notes,” pp. 34.0-349. UzunGarqli, Bcylikleri, pp. 3 4 . entre la Crete et les Rmirats turcs d’Asie Mineure au XIVe siecle (vers 1348-1360),”
281 Melikoff, “Germiyan okullari,” Er,. Cahen, “Notes,” pp. 34.9-354. Uzunc;argili, Acles dtc XU6 congrks iriternnlionnl des h d t byzantines
~ (Belgrade, 1964),11, 213-221.M. J.
Bgdiklrri, pp. 9-1 I;Ktdahya FeSelrri (Istanbul, 1932). Manusakas. ‘‘ ‘H I T P ~ ~T F~I T O ~ I-rrapoiKLa
K ~ ~ V llcchha (Mih~’t.0)T ~ S
283 Uzunc;ar$, Beylikleri, pp. 19-22, 23-26. Wittek, Metilesche, pp. 24-56. J. H. M. ’Aolas(hm t A h q v i ~ b Eyypaqo TOG 1355),” A E ~ T ~ O ~ Vi i Xpio-riawiKijS
s ’Apxai-
Kramers, “Karasi,” EI1. Arnakis, ’ O O ~ ~ a v opp. i l 7 1 ff. ohoyiKq~‘E-raipdaS, 111 (1962),231-240.
X. de Planhol, “Hamid,” EI,. R. Flemmlng, Lnndsc/rnfls~esc/ric/rleuon Pnntphylien, asu Uzunc;ar$li, Beylikleri, pp. 3 I -32.
Pisidien toid Lykien itn Sjiilniillelalter (M’iesbaden, I 964.).Taeschncr, “Anntalya,” EI,. Ibid., pp. 48-52, Cahen, “Eretna,” EL,. .J. Rypka, “Burhan al-Din,” EI,.
z8G Melikoff, “Aidinoglu,” EI,. Lemerle, Ayditr, pnssini. I-I. Akin, “Results of Studies in Uzunpr$li, Beylikleri, pp. 42-57. The articles, “Ak-Koyunlu,” “Dhu’l Kadr,” XI1;
the History of the Aydin Ogullari,” Ankara Utiiversitesi Dil ue Tnriii-CograSya Fnkultesi “Akkoyunlar,” “Karakoyunlular,” IA.

133 I39

destroyed.200The effect of Timur’s Anatolian campaign was to unsettle

does not Seem to have been uniform or to have attained the prosperity of
Anatolian political conditions for another half century as he restored
the preceding era of stability in the thirteenth century, for the very
many of the Turkish emirates to their former rulers and promoted
existence of so many principalities in a constant state of war precluded such
division and strife within the domains of the sons of Bayazid. After the
an attainment. By the middle of the century, the Ottomans had not only
battle of Ankara, Timur added his personal touch to the catastrophe,
consolidated their position i n Bithynia but had, significantly, absorbed
remaining in Anatolia for a considerable period of time and sending
the neighboring emirate of Karasi on the southwest borders of the
detachments of his army to reduce and plunder the regions of central and
Ottoman lands. Though the primary impetus of expansion for several
Western Asia Minor.291
decades thereafter carried the house of Osman into Europe, the sultans
T h e reassertion of Ottoman authority in the peninsula following the
took an active interest in Anatolian politics in the reigns of both Orhan
Timurid holocaust was to stretch over the entire fifteenth century,
and Murad I. When a number of the Anatolian emirs, primarily Burhan
though i t was finally established in most of the regions by the end of tlie
al-Din and the princes of Gerrniyan and Karaman, sought to exploit
reign of Muhammad I1 (1481). Muhammad I laid the foundation for
Ottoman involvement in Europe ( I 389) by territorial aggression, Bayazid
recovery from his base in Amasya as he removed his brother Isa from
I rapidly marched to the east to confront his enemies. His appearance in
Bursa and united the European possessions with those in western Asia
Anatolia shortly after the battle of KOSSOVO Polye marks the next im-
Minor. Some of the emirates, such as Saruhan, he annexed, while others
portant stage in the political development of Anatolia and indicatcs how
he subjected to vassal status. His task in Anatolia was further complicated
far the Ottomans has outstripped the other Anatolian states. In his first
by the socioreligicus movement ofBadr al-Din of Samavna, whose followers
Anatolian campaign ( I 389-go), Bayazid reduced the last independent
threw the regions of Aydin into a state of political and religious ferment in
Greek city in western Asia Minor, Philadelpheia (Alashehir), and
1 4 1 6 . 2 ~ 2I-Iis successor Murad I1 extended Ottoman possessions in the
annexed the principalities of Aydin, Saruhan, Menteshe, Hamid, and
south and east with the annexation of Tekeili in 14.24and more importantly
Germiyan. An alignment of Karamanids, Burhan al-Din, and the
with the land of Germiyan which Yakub Chelebi ceded in 1428-29.20s
Djandarids temporarily halted Bayazid’s further expansion in central and
Muhammad I1 conquered the Black Sea coastal region ofAnatolia in 1460-
eastern Anatolia, but by 1397after having dcfeated the western Crusaders
at: Nicopolis, he beat Karamanoglu a t Akchay, executed him, and
G I , taking Amastris from the Genoese, Sinope from the house of the
annexed his lands with the city of IConya. One year later Bayazid’s Is€endiyaro,@dlari, and putting an end to the empire of Trebizond.294
T h e turn of the Karamanids came next when from 1465 to 1468
victorious armies occupied the regions of Djanik, the domains of Burhan
al-Din, and the towns of Albistan, Malatya, Behisna, Kahta, and Muhammad occupied Konya and their lands, though the dynasty con-
Divrigi.28 tinued to be a factor in Anatolian affairs until the end of Muhammad’s
It seemed that Anatolia, now largely (though not completely) in the reign. Uzun Hasan, ruler of the Akkoyunlu tribal confederation, having
possession of one ruler, would finally enjoy peace. But this was not yet allowed himself to be isolated politically by Muhammad 11, eventually
to be the case because Bayazid’s expansion had been too rapid and the $ 0 0 M.-M. Alexandra-Dcrscn, La cnmnpagne de Tz’tnrir en Atintolie (Bucharest, I 942).
foundations of the empire were not set firmly. I n the east the last great Inalcik, “Bayazid I,” EIS. G. IZoloff, “Die Schlacht hei Angora,” Hislorisclie Zeitschrifl,
world conqueror, Timur, had turned his eyes westward, and when the CLXI ( I 94o), 24.4-262. Sharaf al-Din Ali-Yazdi, The History of Titnnr-Bec, Ktzowri b the
Name of Tnrnerluin the Great, Ernperor OJ the Mongols arid Talars; Being an Hislorical Jorirrial
Turkish emirs so recently dispossessed by Bayazid looked about for possible OJ‘ h i s Conquests in Asia and Europe, trans. l’etis d e la Croix (London, i g q ) , 11, passin2
support, they very naturally found it at Timur’s court. The rclations of the (hereafter cited as Sharaf al-Din Yazdi). Ashikpashazade, Voni Hirtenzelt zr1r Aohen
T#brte, trans. R. ICreutel (Graz, 1959)~pp. 109-115 (hereafter cited as Ashikpashazade-
two rulers progressively worsened as Timur captured and sacked Sivas in Kreutel). E. Werner, Die Gcbtcrt eiriet Grossinnclrt-die Osntnriett (rgoo-r&) (Berlin, 1966),
1400, and two years later at the battle of Chubuk-ovasi near Ankara he PP. 170-1 79.
Sharaf al-Din Ali Yazdi, 11, 258-293. Uzunpr$li Fetiline Kadnr, pp. 301-323,
scattered the armies of Bayazid and so thoroughly crippled the Ottomans
H. J. Kissling, “Badr al-Din ibn Kadi Samawna,” EI,. Wittck, “De la dtfaite
that to contemporaries it appeared the Ottoman Empire had bccn forever d ’ h k a r a A la prise de Constantinople (un demi-si&cled’liistoirc ottomane),” R.E.Z., XI1
( I 9311), I 6-23. i\shikpsliazade-ICreutel, pp. 130-132. Ashikpashazade, Tevarik/i-i Ali
H. Inalcik, “Bayazid I,” EI,. Uzunqarsill, Bnndolri Selcnklnlnri ue Aiiadolri beylikleri Otliiimn, cd. Ali Bey (Istanbul, 1332), pp. 91-93 (hcrcafier cited as Ashikpashazade-Ali).
203 Melikoff, “Gcrmiynn-oghullari,” EI,. dc I’lanhol, “Hamid,” EI,. Tacschner,
h a k k k d a bir miiknddirne ile Osmanli deuleliain kurth1.pizdaa Ishibul’rin fcthirie kndnr, 2d ed.
(Ankara, 1961), pp. 246-249, 260-268, 275-278, 295-301. Mclikoff, “Germiyan- “:lntalya,” EI,.
ogullari,” EI,. Flemming, Lniidsclraflsgescliichle, jassinz. M. Berger de Xivrey, ACrLinoire sur w i Ashilcpashazadc-I(rctltel, pp. mr)-z26. ~ t i i ~ I ) n ~ l l a z a d c - A l i ,155-160. Bnbinger,
le vie el les ouurngu de L’etiipereur Manuel Pulblogcie (l’acis, 1851), pp. 52-G0, translates “La date de la prise dc Trcbizonde pnr lcs Turc.r ( I ~ G I ) , ” R.E.B., VII (rgso), 205-207;
writings of Manuel I1 which have to do with a part of Dayazid’s campaign. The trans- Mnhoniet II le Corzquiratil el son tcin.6.r (r432--1+81)(Paris, 1954), pp. 236 ff, Lampsides,
lations, however, are not always accurate, ‘I TTG5 jAw0q fi Tpm~<oCi~,”All., X V I I ( i g ~ r ) 19-54. ,


suffered a decisive defeat at Otluq Beli in 1473.”‘ The reign of

Muhammad I1 was the decisive stage in the political reunification
of Anatolia under the rule of a single state, yet the Turkmen dynasties of
the Akkoyunlu (1502),Dhu’l-Kadr (1522)),and Ramazan (1517) survived
into the early years of the sixteenth century.296

Conclusiotis rri. The Beginnings of Transformation

The detailed analysis of Byzantine internal history prior to the battle of
Manzikert (1071) and the narration of the critical political and military
events in Anatolia over four centuries have, it would seem, demonstrated
two propositions :
1. The Byzantine defeat at the hands of the Turks in 1071 and the
subsequent penetration of the Turkmen tribes in the following decade
Nature of the Turkish Conquest in the Eleuenth and Twelfth Centuries
were in large part the result of a half century of violent internal disorders.
2. The Turkish conquest, settlement, and political unification of Having established a general chronological structure and periodization
Anatolia was a long process, the final completion of which occurred of the Turkish conquests in the preceding chapter, the beginnings of thc
four hundred years after the battle of Manzikert. transformation by which Anatolia became Muslim must next be
examined, This will entail discussion of three broad topics: the nature and
2 0 6 Minorsky, “Akkoyunlu,” EI,. Babinger, Muhoniat, pp. 373-374. Kramers, “ICara-
man,” EI,. J. Aubin, “Notes sur quelques documents Aq Qoyunlu,” Milunges Louis
effects of the Turkish conquests during the eleventh and twelfth centuries;
Mussignon (Damascus, 1956),I, I 23-147. the degree to which the Anatolian Christians had been integrated into
P M Canard, “Cilicia,” EI,. J , H. Mordtmann-V. L. Menage, “Dhu’l ICadr,” ELB.The
Muslim society by the mid-thirteenth century; the character and results of
unification of Anatolia did not bring a permanent end to upheaval and disruption o f
settled life, The rise of the Safavis as well as other internal disturbances had repercussions the breakdown in the Konya-Nicaea equilibrium from the late thirteenth
for the stability and security of parts ofhnatolia. M. Akdag, Celnli isyanluri (r550-1603), to the late fifteenth century.
(Ankara, I 9153); C. Orhonlu, OsninnlZ b n ~ n r u ~ o r l i i ~ ~ iaSiretleri
nda iskan tcgebbiisii (Istanbul
1963). By h e sevcnteenth century, villages and agricultural activity had suffered from Perhaps the single most fateful characteristic of the Turkish conquest
these rebellions, and the Right ofsome of the rural population from the land had followed. in Anatolia was the longevity of the process, for this drawn-out period
Because of this the government in Istanbul began to settle tribal groups in the deserted
areas. subjected Byzantine society to repeated shocks and dislocations. The
Turks were not able to subdue Asia Minor quickly but achieved its corn-
plete conquest in a continuous process that lasted four centuries. Thus the
conquest operated in piecemeal fashion. At certain periods it proceeded
at an accelerated pace; at other times it made little progress; and on rarer
occasions it was even reversed. Consequently, a significant number of
towns and extensive regions were besieged, conquered, or raided on morc
than one occasion. In this, the Turkish subjugation of Asia Minor
differed from the Arab conquest of the eastern Byzantine provinces in the
seventh century wherein the regions of Syria, Palestine, and Egypt,
disaffected because of religious persecutions on the part of the central
government and weakened by the disbanding of the Arab client armies,
fell rapidly and definitively to the Arabs in less that a dccade, the issue
having been dccided by a few key battles. The striking difference between
the rapidity of the Arab conquest and the slower progress of the Turks
was due to geographic, ethnographic, and political factors. Anatolia is not
only a large territory, but it is possessed of extensive mountainous areas
that served as natural defenses against the invaders. In addition, the factor
of religious disaffection, though present among Armenians and Syrians
in easternmost Anatolia, played no comparable role in central and western


Asia Minor. Finally, Anatolia was much closer to the center of the Byzan- regions of Anatolia, a number of these being pillaged on more than one
tine Empire than had been the provinces occupied by the Arabs and SO 0ccasion.l I n some instances the sacking of a city or town entailed its
complete destruction. But in the majority of cases the sacking of a city
was capable of greater resistance. As the state depended primarily on
or town did not result in complete or immediate destruction, for these
AnatoIia for its resources and for much of its manpower, it could not and
urban centers continued to exist, though often in a less prosperous state.
did not quietly acquiesce in the Turkish occupation. T h e loss of Asia
Minor was tantamount to the destruction of the empire. The Byzantines, The Turkish conquest was, however, accompanied by considerable
destruction in terms of public buildings, houses, and churches. The Turkish
therefore, made serious &or@, i n proportion to their sadly declining
epic, the Danishmendname, which gives a picture of the psychology of the
strength, first to reconquer and then to hold on to parts of Anatolia down
to the period when Michael Palaeologus reconquered Constantinople in conquerors, is replete with accounts of destruction of churches, mon-
asteries, and places of habitation. The Byzantine sources characterize this
Related to the long-term, piecemeal nature of the Turkish conquest period as one in which towns, churches, and buildings were destroyed by
the Turks.2 Though the Greek historians have exaggerated in speaking of
was the disappearance of political unity and stability from Anatolia for
complete destruction, nevertheless this exaggeration was the result of the
significant periods of time. Prior to the appearance of the Turks, the
extensive destruction to urban and rural life resulting from this one and
Anatolian peninsula had enjoyed a political unity under Constantinople
8 one-half century of warfare. That there is a substantial and significant
which had ensured comparative stability (at least for the regions west ofa
truth in this exaggeration becomes evident upon examination of the
line running through Trebizond, Caesareia, Tarsus; but also to a certain
circumstanccs of the conquest in the various regions of the peninsula.
degree for the regions to the east as far as Antioch, Melitene, and h i ) .
Prior to the battle of Manzikert, the important cities of Artze, Perkri,
Society was obliged to support only one ruler, one administration, and one
Melitene, Sebasteia, Ani, Caesareia, Neocaesareia, Amorium, I c o n i u q
army. The invasions and prolonged period of active subjugation by the
and Chonae had been sacked by the Turks.3
newcomers changed this situation abruptly and radically as the invasions
resulted in a bewildering proliferation of political entities on Anatolian
soil. This generalization should, of course, be qualified. These conditions WESTERN ANATOLIA
were not as exacerbated in the first half of the thirteenth century when During the late eleventh and throughout the twelfth century, many
there was stability for much of Anatolia as the result of developments at parts of western Asia Minor were the scene of Turkish invasions, Byzantine
Kenya and Nicaea. But this was an isolated situation in the period between counterattacks, and the ocasional appearance of Crusading armies. At
the eleventh century and the Ottoman unification of Anatolia in the the beginning of this period, as Alexius I succeeded to the throne (IO~I),
fifteenth century. In the period down to the mid-thirteenth century, there western Asia Minor was largely in the grip of the invaders. When the veil
arose on Anatolian soil Greek states on the Aegean and Black Sea coasts, of historical silence covering the events ofthis first Turkish conquest is lifted
an Armenian state in Cilicia, and a number ofTurkish principalities in the two decades later, the sources reveal that the coastal towns of western
central and eastern regions-Seljuk, Danishmendid, Saltukid, Mcnguche- Anatolia were in a dcstroyed statea4The western Anatolian districts
kid, Artukid. With the collapse in the relative and ephemeral stability continued to experience the rigors of an unusually savage border warfare
of the Setjuks and Nicaea i n the late thirteenth century, the appearance throughout much of the twelfth century.
of the emirates throughout Anatolia brought a reversion to periods of A brief glance a t the various regions of western Anatolia will clearly
anarchy and chaos until the emirates began to consolidate. The dis- demonstrate the unrest that the Turkish invasions and settlement brought.
appearance of political unity attendant upon the Turkish invasions not
See thc comment of Eustathius oTThessalonikc in his address to Manuel I Comncnus,
only brought considerable upheaval but often placed the Anatolian P.G.,CXXXV, 944. “R I T O A E ~ ~ K~ Q
populations under the onerous burden of supporting a large array of
I I‘ K EV~ V C W
n d h ~ w v$v BTE irrrovopE6uavTEs & v ~ ~ ~ ~ y v u o v . ”
miupcjv, oi ~ 0 6 s O ‘PwpaiKGv
I * Theodore Scutariotes-Sathas, 169. ‘‘ Kai V&VTWVTQV okqpi-rwv K a i TGV ~ w p i w v
courts, administrations, and armies. 1
K a i a h G v TQV ~ K K A ~ U I QTGV
V hr Bhois Tois T?S ‘AvaTohijs PepEUIV irrr’ &Gv
The cffects of the invasions down to the late twelfth century were most
dramatically manifested in the pillaging and partial destruction of many
I bpq pW86VTWV K d TihEOV KUTCITpOITWfhTWV K d EiS Tb pq@V dor0KaTUirraVTWV. Anna
Comnena, 111, 229. ’HrpVl@v-ro pkv n d h ~ i sIhflCov-ro
, 61 Xtjpai K a i r8ua i‘Popa-
iov yii Xpiu-riavQv alpauiv 6piaivvro.”
urban and rural areas. Though no documentary materials survive which i 3 For details see chapter ii.
describe the process systematically, the existing chroniclcs give a clear t
overall picture of the upheaval. The most striking feature of this first
period of Turkish conqucst was the sacking of towns and villagcs in many

I44 ‘45

The Bithynian regions were mostly in Turkish hands until the First valley was i n part conquered by Tzachas,16 and in 1110-11 Hasan of
Crusade. While the emperor was concerned with Robert Guiscard in the Cappadocia pillaged the eastern reaches o f the valley,l7 and shortly
west, the Turks were ravaging all Bithynia and Thynia to the Bosphorus thereafter the Seljuk prince Malik Shah threatened Philadelpheia and
which was not as yet in their possession.6The second Byzantine-Norman the coastal regions.18 The Cayster-Celbianum region was threatened by the
war gave the Turks another opportunity, so that Abu’l-Kasim once more armies of Hasan i n I I I 0-1 I , again i n the reign of Manuel I, and by the
pillaged Bithynia all the way to the Bosphorus.ODespite the reconquest of emir Same when Isaac I1 Angelus summoned the Byzantine troops of that
Nicaea following the First Crusade,Bithynia continued to suffer from heavy area to Europe.lD The towns and countryside of the fertile Maeander
raiding throughout the reign of Alexius.7 In I I 13 an army of between valley in particular suffered from Turkish raids in the late eleventh and
40,000 and 50,000 from Persia devastated this and other neighboring
the twelfth century. Though Alexius was able to restore some order to the
regions (Prusa, Apollonias, Lopadium, Cyzicus, Lake Ascania) ,* and Maeandrian regions, soon after his death John 11 Comnenus was forced
such attacks continued from the direction of Iconium in I I 15-16. There to move against the Turks who were once more pillaging the valley.20 By
is Some record of further Turkmen incursions into Bithynia in the last the reign of Manuel, the Turks seem to have raided the valley with
quarter of the twelfth century when the emperor Alexius 111 entered the regularity. Early in his reign Manuel I was forced to relieve the suffering
regions of Nicaea and Prusa to protect the cities from the attacks of the towns,21 for the Turkmens had settled at the source of the Maeander and
Turkmens encamped about the Bathys near Dorylaeum.I! But inasmuch were, apparently, raiding almost unhindered.22 More imposing from the
as the Turkmens had been’settled near Dorylaeum for most of the period, point of view of size was the raid of the Atabeg, with an army of 24,000,
it is not unlikely that they had continued their raiding expeditions into down the Maeander to the sea, which ravaged many of the towns
Bithynia during the reigns of John I1 and Manuel I.l0The breakdown of severely.23Upon the death of Manuel the last semblance of vigorous defense
Byzantine administrative cpntrol, especially as a result of the rebellion disappeared and the Turks raided even more frequently, on occasion
against Andronicus I Comnenus in I 183-84, no doubt greatly hastened being brought in by Greek rebels. After his defeat in I 192, Pseudoalexius
the process, as the revels utilized Turkmens in their armies.11 T h e acquired 8,000 Turkmens from the emir Arsane (Arslan?) and pillaged
appearance o’f the Latins in Bithynia immediately following the capture the valley desiroying the harvests. 2R Kaykhusraw, falling unexpectedly
of Constantinople added to the confusion.12Mysia and the Propontis bore upon the middle and upper regions of the Maeander, captured a number
the brunt of the invasions and raids of the emirs Tzachas and Elchanes a t of towns and took away the inhabitant^.^^ A rebellious tax collector,
the end ofthe eleventh century,13 and though Alexius succeeded in remov- Michael, obtained troops from the sultan Rukn al-Din and the towns of
ing both Gom this district, the latter years of his reign witnessed severe the Maeandcr were once more raided.20I n the early thirteenth century
raids, in I I 13 and again in I I 15-1 6, by the Turkish armies from Persia.14 Manuel Maurozomes, with the aid of Turkish troops, ravaged the valley
The western river valleys of the Caicus, Hermus, Caystcr, and. Maean- towns but was driven out by Theodore Las~aris.~7
der were frequently invaded and wasted. The Caicus as well as the regions Many of the districts and towns of Phrygia were in the center of the
north of Adramyttiurn were sorely vexed by incursions throughout thc battleground between Muslim and Christian armies. After thc defeat of
twelfth century, and large rural areas became depopulatcd.16 The Hcrmus the Turks by the First Crusades at Dorylaeum, the Turks retreated
‘0 Anna Comnena, 11, I 10; 111, 143.
5Anna Comnena, I, 136, Even bcfore the accession of Alexius, Attaliates, zGg, , , ‘I . Ibid,, 111, 144-145.
T ~ T V O~PKW T+JV dnr6 Oah&uaqS &pi NiKalas V E ~ O V ~ V WI TVE ~ ~ X W P O V . ” Ibid., 154.-155.

O Anna Comnena, 11, 63. Ibid., 111, 144-145, 157. Gintiamus, 39-40, Nicetas Choniates, 481.
7 The followers of Peter the Hermit also contributed by ravaging the area up to Nico- so Thcodore Scutariotes-Sathas, rgo.
media. Anna Cornnena, 11, 2 1 0 . a1 Nicetas Choniates, 7 I .
8 Ibid., 111, 159-169, 187 ff, 193, reports the advance of another Turkish army on aa On returning from the battlc against the sultaI1, Manuel made his way to the source
Nicaea. of the Maeander thinking himself to be safely out of Turkish territory there. But here he
Nicetas Choniates, 657-658. came upon a large encampment of Turkmens and their tents. These Turkmens, who were
l o This is specifically stated for the regions of Pithecas and Melangeia during the reign under a certain Rarna, were in the habit of plundering the neighboring land of the Greeks.
of Manuel. Nicetas Choniates, 71. Cinnarnus, 36, remarks that Bithynia had been very Cinnarnus, 60, Kai cbs K ~ T ’ E0o~~b a h G v T O ~ Sk ~ T ~ U W‘Pwl.ralou
V i S q Kal ucv
accessible to the Turks. A I ~ T E ~ O U U T Ehacpirpov
S - rrhqo& ~~vo~
l1 Nicetas Choniates, 363-375. Theodore Scutariotes-Sathas, 337-340. The reprisals of s3 Nicetas Choniates, 250-252.
Andronicus against the cities were savage. Ibid., 550-55 I . He came to be called KauaaAGuqs. These Turkmens were habitually
l2 Nicetas Choniates, 796, reports that I-Ienry &EIPE‘I ~ h sI T ~ ~ E IKSa1 ~ I E T ( ~ EKWGS.”
I . .
raiding Greek lands, “ , oi ATJUTEI~EIUTU ‘Pwpafwv Eh.&pau.”
Is Anna Cornnena, IT, 79, 165-166. 2B Ibid., 655.
l4 h i f . , 111, 159-169, 187-188. 2Q I&’., 700-701.
lGNicetasChoniates 195, ‘ I , .
, T ~ Zpqflov
U .
, . T$V 1 ~ p 0 q v&O~K~TOV.” p7 Ibid., 827.


who at the end of the eleventh century were “plundering all,”34 and of the
toward Iconium, and in a n effort to scorch the earth in the path of the
“plundering and complete ruin of the cities and lands situated on the sea
Crusaders, they gained entrance into the Greek towns, pillaged the houses
coast.”SS After the second Norman crisis ( I 107-08), Alexius devoted his
and churches, carried off the livestock, silver, gold, and other booty, and
attention to the cities of western Asia Minor, “reasoning that the bar-
then burned and destroyed everything that they could not carry away and
barians had completely destroyed the coast from Smyrna to Attaleia
that might have been of some use to the Latins. Later in his reign, the
emperor Alexius I passed through the same areas and sought to destroy itself. ”SG
When the Second Crusaders came to Anatolia almost half a century
the Turkish encampments and to waste the area so that the Turks would
later the situation had changed very little. Odo of Deuil remarks that the
not be able to use it to attack the empire. The sultan also scorched the
Turks had expelled the Greeks from a great part of “Romania,” and had
earth about Iconium. As the region had become the border between
devastated much of it. AS the Crusaders advanced south of Adramyttium
Greek and Turkish possessions, it was slowly being turned to wasteland
they found many cities along the coastal regions in ruins and they
as a result of the frequent military campaigns and by express desire of
observed that the Greeks still inhabited only those towns that had been
both sides so that invaders might not find sustenance in these regions.28
As Phrygia remained a critical frontier area in the reigns of John and rebuilt and girded with walls and towers.87
The question arises, however, as to whether such general statements
Manuel, it suffered considerably from Turkish raidingJRObut with the
battle of Myriocephalum it was largely lost to the Turks. Pamphylia and that Anna Comnena and Odo of Deuil have made are historically
reliable. The account of Anna Comnena in regard to the destruction of the
Pisidia had a fate similar to t hat of Phrygia. After the initial recovery ofthe
area by Alexius and John, the Turks raided and expanded into the region, coastal towns and to the destruction in western Asia Minor seems to be
corroborated by an examination of the fate ofa number of towns, villages,
until by 1204little outside Attaleia remained Byzantine.30 In the mid-
twelfth century the fertile agricultural area of Attaleia was so unsafe and areas, as well as by certain archaeological evidence.
because of the Turks that the inhabitants had to import their grain by Cyzicus fell to the Turks in the reign of Nicephorus I11 Botaniates,
was taken a second time by the emir Elchanes i n the reign of Alexius I,
sea.81 There are indications that Lycia and Caria also saw repeated
and then pillaged by a Turkish army from Persia in I I 1 3 . Elchanes~ ~
waves of incursion^.^^
Though the contemporary narratives give only a partial account of the took Apollonias, and though recaptured by the Byzantines, the Turks
events and situation in western Anatolia, these are sufficient to indicate ravaged its environs in I I 13.”Anna Comnena relates that the environs or
that the invasions and warfare brought considerable upheaval to the Lopadiuni suffered ravaging in the reign of Alexius I, and that shortly
western Anatolian districts of Bithynia, Mysia, Lydia, Caria, Ionia, afterward the Turks who had taken and pillaged Cyzicus in I I 13 sacked
Lycia, Phrygia, Pamphylia, and Pisidia. The majority of the raids have Lopadium during the same campaign.4oThe extent of the destruction of
remained unchronicled, for the Seljuks at this time had nothing in the way Lopadium, and perhaps by implication that of Cyzicus, Apollonias, and
of chronicles (at least chronicles that have survived) , and the Byzantine Cius, is indirectly revealed by the historian Cinnamus who remarks that
historians were too concerned with the capital to note the recurring the emperor John I1 had to rebuild the fort of Lopadium anew,*i It
raids, It is to be assumed that the border raids of the Turkmens were suffered severe chastisemcnt after its unsuccessful rebellion against Andron-
constantly operative, and in fact the language of the Byzantine Chronicles icus I Comiienus in I I 84.4zPoimainenurn must have experienced the same
states this explicitly.33 The disruption and destruction often brought by
Anna Comnena, 111, 23.
the Turkish raids to Byzantine urban and rural society in western Asia 86 Ibid.
Minor were extensive, and a number of authors refer to this phenomenon Ibid., 14.2,
‘I . . . AOyl(6VEVOs deI5 6lTWS T& KaTdc T q V TUpaAlffV Tfis &bpVqs
KC~I pixpis f f h f j s ’Anahatas ol P&ppapol TE’hetwSipllrouav.” That this destruction in-
in very general terms. Anna Comnena speaks of the Turkish “satraps” cludes the cities is specifically stated, “ Iv 6~ivQhoiEiTo, €1 pq K a i T&S .rr6he15a6815 I s
TT)V iTpOT6paV hTsraVUy&)’Ol KaTdtUTaUlV Kal TbV lr&?lV drrrO6Ofq K6UpOV K d ~ o b 5
Gasta Fratzcorum, pp. 54-55. Alexius burned Turkish settlements wherever he found drrrav-raxfl m6au8hvTas IITO~KOU~ ahair h.rravaudmolTo.”
them in order to protect his lands from the Turkmen raids, William of Tyre, VI, xii. S T Odo of Deuil, pp. 86-89, “Quam cum tota esset iuris Graecorum, hanc ex n~ngna

Alexius had the villages of Bourtzes burned because of the Turks, and then removed all parte Turci possident, illis expulsis, aliam destruxerunt.” Pp. 106-107, “Ibi multas urbcs
the Greeks, Anna Comnena, 111, 200-203. Tudebodus, A.H.C., O.C., 111, 29. .”
destructas invcnimus . I . The accounts of the Third Crusade also bear testimony to
aD Theodore Scutariotes-Sathas, I 90.Nicetas Choniates, 7 1-72. Cinnamus, I 79. destroyed towns.
Theodore Scutariotes-Sathas, 190-191, 208. Nicetas Choniates, 50, 689. aaAnna Comnena, I, 69; 11, 79-80; 111, 165-166.
31 William of Tyre, X V I , xxvi. Ibid., 11, 79-80; 111, 165.
Miklosich et Mdler, VI, 17, 19, 84, 87; IV, 323-319, where it is implied that the Ibid., 111, 113,165.
destruction ofLatrus a t the end of the eleventh was repeated again in the twelfth century. Cinnamus, 38, t%8a PauihEi ’lo&vvg qpoirpi6v TI k~ ~ a i u f&V(?KO8Opf$q.”
‘I i~
3 a Cinnamus, 59-60. Nicetas Choniates, 551. 43 Nicetas Choniates, 374-375.

148 I49

fate as Apollonias, having fallen to Elchanes and its environs having been such as those that had sought to enter the valley in I I 10-1 I , again in the
wasted in I 113.4~The environs of Abydus were devastated by Tzachas reign of Manuel Comnenus, and during the rule of Isaac 11.64 Odo of
and by the Turkish invasion of I I I 3,44but there is no indication that the Deuil notes that in the mid-twelfth century the toInb of St. John at
town itself fell. The nature of the destruction the emir Tzachas wrought Ephesus was surrounded by walls to keep the “pagans” out, and that there
is most clearly depicted in the case of Adramyttium. were “ruins” in E p h e s u ~ Phihdelpheia
.~~ was retaken frorll tlie Turks
It was formerly a most populous city. At that time when Tzachas was plundering after the recapture of Ephesus, but because of its more easterly location it
the regions of Smyrna, destroying, he also obliterated i t [Adramyttium]. The sight was under constant pressure from the neighboring Turkmens. I n I I 10-1 I
of t h e obliteration of such a city [was such] that i t seemed that man never dwelled Hasan besieged the city with 24,000 men, sending them out to plunder
in it.45
the villages about Celbianum, Smyrna, Nyrnphaeurn, Chliara, and in
Shortly afterward in I I 13 the Turks raided in the vicinity of Adramyttium. I I I I the armies of the prince Malik Shah raided the territory around
Indeed Adramyttium and its nearby villages suffered severely throughout Philadelpheia as well as about Pergamum, Chliara, and Celb’~anum.~G
the twelfth century from Turkish raids until Manuel walled the city and It was the scene of two rebellions and of opposition to tI1e Third Crusade
built fortresses in the depopulated countryside t o protect the peasants.48 in the latter part of the twelfth ccnturySG7 In I I 76 the Atabeg and Iiis
Odo of Deuil remarks that the Crusaders immediately upon proceeding troops took and sacked many of the Maeandrian towns including Tralles,
south of Adramyttium encountered ruined towns.47 Chliara and Perga- Louma, Antioch, and Pcntacheir.‘* Farther to the south thc coastal towns
mum probably experienced much the same fate as Adramyttium, thesc also received rough handling. Mclanoudium and the mountain regiolzs of
regions having been devastated by at least three Turkish raids i n the reign Latmus were sacked prior to the acccxiion of Alexiiis 1 ; G O StrobiIus was
of Alexius I,*8 and they continued to be subject to pillaging i n the reigns destroyed by the Turks, as Saewulf reported when he visited the site in
of John I1 and Manuel I. Before the latter fortified the cities and the I 103.GO The Turks sacked the nunmolls monastic establish~~len~s of tllcsc
countryside, the rural area had been abandoned by the inhabitants.49 regions, destroying and desecrating them, arlcl driving out the monks,
Calamus, one of the villages of the theme of Neocastron (Adramyttium, The monasteries of Latrus WCK once more pillaged toward t]l(! end of tile
Pergamum, Chliara), was no longer inhabited by the time of the third twelfth century. Thc town of Myra suiIi.rc.d rhc fate of StrobiIus a11c1the
&usade,5O and Meleum (located between Calamus and Philadelpheia) other coastal cities.G1
was i n a destroyed state by the latter part of the twelfth century.61Tzachas The Turks sacked Attalcia i n tlic eIc\rc.lltll crntury, allcl conscqt1cnlly
took Smyma, Clazomenae, Phocaea, and reached the Propontid regions
wasting their environs,Kzand somewhat later Hasan raided Nyrnphaeurn
and the district of S m ~ r n aEphesus
. ~ ~ had fallen to the emir Tangripermes
but was reconquered in the reign of Alexius I. Located on the convenient
river route of the Cayster, it was no doubt accessible to raiding parties
43 Anna Comnena, 11, 80-81; 111, 165.

46 Nicetas Choniates, I 94-195. Theodore Scutariotes-Sathas, 268.

47 Odo of Deuil, p. 107.He adds that the Greeks inhabited only the fortified towns, no
doubt a reference to the towns that Manuel and his predecessors had fortified,
Anna Comnena, 111, 144-145, 155, 166. The expeditions of Hasan, I 109-1 I , Malik
Shah, I I I I , the Turks from Persia, I I 13,
4 0 Nicetas Choniates, 194-195. Theodore Scutariotes, 268, ‘I al m p i a h i s xiSpat
&OiKllTOi T E fi(TcN T6 ITPfV.”
W. Ramsay, The Historical Geograply of Asia Minor (London, ‘ago), p. 130.
51 Historia Peregrinorum, ed. A. Chroust, M.G.H., S.R.G., nova series V (Berlin, 1928),

P. ‘54.
62Anna Comnena, 11, 110; 111, 25. Tzachas surrendered it peacefully, but when a
Syrian killed the Byzantine admiral, the sailors are reported to have slain 10,000
68 Ibid., 111, 145. Sardes, which had previously been in Turkish hands, would likewise
have been exposed. &id., 27.


it was one of the cities Alexius rebuikG2Because of its geographical location

and Turkish pressure from the north, the city was largely isolated in terms
of land communication. John Comnenus made two expeditions in the
regions to the north of Attaleia in order to settle conditions there, but
evidently he achieved only partial ~uccess.6~ By the time of the Second
Crusade ( I I ~ ? ) , Attaleia was so hard pressed b y the Turks that the
inhabitants could not cultivate their fields and as has already been
mentioned they had to bring grain by sea.G4 During the revolt of
Andronicus Comnenus ( I 182)the sultan of Ronya subjected the city to a
severe siege.65
The mountainous regions to the east of the river valleys, which separate
the Anatolian plateau from the coastal districts, constituted areas of
almost continuous strife. This geographical district, stretching from
Dorylaeum in the northwest to Iconium in the southeast came to be a
no-man’s land which Greeks, Turks, and Crusaders repeatedly devastated.
On the northern edge of this region the Bithynian towns and countryside
experienced numerous raids immediately following the battle of Manzikert.
Nicomedia, recaptured by the Byzantines in the late eleventh century,
was still a “lofty ruins” set among thorns and bushes in the mid-twelfth
century.60 Nicaea, while yet in the hands of the Turks, was besieged by the
emir Burzuk for three months,G7and shortly thereafter by Buzan.08 The
reconquest of the city by the Crusaders entailed some difficulties, for the
unruly troops of Peter the Hermit pillaged the houses and churches en
route to Nicomedia. In the north the depredations begun by the Norman
mercenary Roussel terminated in the destruction of both towns by the
Turks who left them desolate ruins.GgThe Turks once more laid siege to
Nicaea in I I 13, when they ravaged Bithynia and the Propontis.70 I n the
latter half of the twelfth century the pressure of the Turks about the
Bithynian region, as well as an abortive rebellion against Andronicus
Comnenus, brought some hardship to Nicaea. 71 Prusa experienced
practically the same history as Nicaea down to the end of the twelftll
century. The fate of eastern Bithynia, however, is not at all clear, with the
solitary exception of Claudiopolis which almost fell to the Turks but was
82 Anna Comnena, 111, 142.Al-Idrisi, 11, 134, refers to it as the “Burnt,” and remarks
that it is built away from the old site, but this probably refers to Side. See A. M. Mansel,
Die Ruinen uoii Side (Berlin, 1963); Mansel, “Side,” P.W,, Suf,plementband, X (1965)~
.- -
O8 Nicetas Choniates, I 7-19, 50. Cinnamus, 7, 2 2 . Theodore Scutariotes-Sathas,

iqo-iqi. 208.
-04 Wiliiam of Tyre, XVI, xxvi.
E6 Nicetas Choniates, 340.
OG Odo of Deuil, pp. 88-89.
Anna Comnena, 11, 72.
Ibid,, 11, 74. Matthew of Edessa, p. 203.
O U Anna Comnena, 11, 210.Attaliates, 267-268. In the days of Michael VII this region

had become ‘I. . .”

. Epq~osKal &okq-ros Kai 6Pa-ros . , Gesia Frascorunz, pp. 6-9.
7 0 Anna Comnena, 111, 164.
’I1 Nicetas Choniates, 363-371, 658.


Barbarossa burned Phil omeli~ m. *~ By the latter half of the twelfth the region, they found both Hierapolis and Tripolis destroyed ( I I go), 08
century, Myriocephalum was ~ n i n h a b i t e dThe
. ~ ~ towns between Limnai Kaykhusraw, in raiding the towns of the Maeander, carried away the
and the middle Maeander were especially exposed to raids by both the populations of Tantalus and Caria. O g Caria had previously been sacked
neighboring Turkrnens and the forces of the sultan in Konya. Sozopolis, and part of the population enslaved by the Turkish troops under Theodore
in the hands of the Turks for about half a century, was retaken by John Mangaphas,loOand Antioch a d Maeandrum was among the riverine
Comnenus,85 but the Turks besicged it soon afterward. *O Relatively towns that the Atabeg sacked in I I 76.101
isolated, Sozopolis and the neighboring villages were taken and sacked by
the sultan (during the revolution of Andronicus Comnenus when the
cities of Byzantine Asia Minor were engulfed in civil strife) * 7 and hence- Greater Armenia, the lower Pyramus district, the eastern regions
forth remained Turkish. T h e towns of the Pentapolis were in ruins by the of the Halys, and Cappadocia were partially convulsed by invasions and
end ofthe twelfth century;s8 Manuel found Choma-Soublaion a sharnbles,*g raids in this same period. The invasions were followed by struggles of
and Lampe probably suffered extensively from the raiding of both sides.90 Seljuks, Danishmendids, Saltukids, Menguchekids, Artukids, and
Though Laodiceia and Chonae fared better than most of the cities between Armenians, which kept eastern Anatolia in a state o f war. Cappadocia
Limnai and the M ~ a n d e r the,~~latter city was pillaged by the Turks in was raided repeatedly in the eleventh century. I n 1067 the Turks plun-
1070,9% and both cities were certainly in Turkish hands by 1081.
dered and burned the city of Caesareia and sacked the celebrated shrine
Laodiceia and possibly Chonae as well were reoccupied by the Byzan- of St. Basil,lo2and in 1069 they once more ravaged Cappad0cia.10~Shortly
tines a t the end of the eleventh century.93 The Turks retook Laodiceia, after the battle of Manzikert the Turks again appeared before the remains
however, and so once more the Byzantine emperor John Comnenus had of Caesareia and, spreading out, sacked the Cappadocian viIlages.lO*
to remove them. During the reign of Manuel the armies of Kilidj Arslan
Though Cappadocia passed in part under the control of the Danishmen-
sacked the city so thoroughly, that it eventually had to be restored.D6 dids in the late eleventh century,los Caesareia still lay in ruins when the
T h e environs or both Laodiceia and Chonae were ravaged by the Greek First Crusaders came through the arealoBand until 1134 when the
rebel Thcodore Mangaphas and his Turkish troops,D0and somewhat Danishmendid Muhammad rebuilt the city.lo7An eight-year period of
later the rebel Pseudoalexius ravaged the outskirts of Chonae with 8,000 ravages by Turkmens in Cappadocia and adjacent regions began in I 185
Turkish troops who destroyed the church of the Archangel Michael, (or I 186-87); these raids were quite serious.losAccording to the archaeol-
its famous mosaics and the altar.*? T h e towns of the upper Maeander ogical and epigraphical evidence, the famous Byzantine troglodyte mon-
seem to have fared less well and when the Third Crusaders passed through astic communities of Cappadocia declined in the late eleventh and twelfth
centuriesloDand were to revive only with the stability of the thirteenth
83 Anna Comnena, 111, 27, I ~ ~ Z O 203. I , Nicetas Choniates, 71-72, 540. Cinnamus,
41-42.Salimbene,.~. I I.
8o Nicetas Chonlates, 23 I. OE I .
Ansbeut, pp. 74-75. Historin Percgritiorunz, p. 154,‘ I . , a Turcis dirutarn , .’>
Cinnamus, 6-7. Nicetas Choniates, I 0. Theodore Scutariotes-Sathas, I g o - ~ g ~ . 60