559

xii
xiii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
FOREWORD ............................................................................................................. xi
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................ xiii
ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................. xv
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................ xix
SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... xxiii
ÖZET......... .............................................................................................................. xxv INTRODUCTION
.................................................................................................. 1 Outline of Thesis
................................................................................................ 2 Purpose of Thesis and Methodology ................................................................
.. 2
Primary Sources ................................................................................................
. 6
Modern Literature Review ............................................................................... 27
THE ANALYSIS OF THE TEXTS BETWEEN 867-1056 .............................. 33
Theophanes Continuatus .................................................................................. 33
Genesios ........................................................................................................... 55
Konstantinos VII Porpyhrogennetos ................................................................ 62
Ioannes Kaminiates .......................................................................................... 80
Symeon Logothetes .......................................................................................... 86
Leon Diakonos ................................................................................................. 92
THE ANALYSIS OF THE TEXTS BETWEEN 1056-1204 .......................... 111
Mikhael Psellos .............................................................................................. 111
Mikhael Attaleiates ........................................................................................ 115
Ioannes Skylitzes and Skylitzes Continuatus ................................................. 140
Georgios Kedrenos and Mikhael Glykas ....................................................... 170
Nikephoros Bryennios .................................................................................... 173
Anna Komnene ............................................................................................... 180
Ioannes Zonaras .............................................................................................. 203
Konstantinos Manasses .................................................................................. 210
Eustathios ....................................................................................................... 216
xiv
Ioannes Kinnamos ........................................................................................ 218
Niketas Khoniates ......................................................................................... 229
THE ANALYSIS OF MILITARY MANUALS............................................... 253
A General View on Byzantine Military Treaties ............................................ 253
An Analysis of Byzantine Military Treaties ................................................... 254
CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............. 261
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 269
CURRICULUM VITAE ........................................................................................ 281
xv
ABBREVIATIONS
Agath : Agathias
An Komn : Anna Komnene, Alexias
aka : also known as
Aristot Met : Aristoteles, Meteorologica
App : Appendix
Attal : Mikhael Attaleiates, Historia
BCE : Before Common Era
BZ : Byzantinische Zeitschrift
Ca : Circa (around)
Cae B Civ : Caesar, De Bello Gallico
Cass Dio : Cassius Dio
CE : Common Era
Cf : Confertur (compare)
CFHB : Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae
CSHB : Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae
De Adm Imp : Konstantinos VII Porphyrogennetos, de Administrando Imperio
De Vel Bel : De Velitatione Bellica
DGE : Diccionario Griego-Español
Diod : Diodorus Siculus
Ed : Editor
Eg : Exempli gratia (for example)
Et al : Et alii (and others)
xvi
Etc : Et cetera (and other similar things)
Eust Thess : Eusthatios, de Capta Thessalonica
Fig : Figure
fl : floruit (flourished)
fn : footnote
Ger : German
G Kedr : Georgios Kedrenos
Glykas : Mikhael Glykas
Hdt : Herodotos
Heb : Hebrew
Herod : Herodianos
Hom Il : Homeros, Ilias
Hom Od : Homeros, Odysseia
Io Gen : Ioseph Genesios
Io Kam : Ioannes Kaminiates, de Expugnatione Thessalonicae
Ios Ant Iud : Flavius Iosephus, Antiquitates Iudaicae
Io Skyl : Ioannes Skylitzes
Io Skyl Co : Ioannes Skylitzes Continuatus
Iuv : Iuvenalis, Saturae
Kinnam : Ioannes Kinnamos
Kons Porph : Konstantinos VII Porphyrogennetos
Konst Porph Mil : Konstantinos VII Porphyrogennetos, Tres tractatus de Expeditionibus Militaribus Imperatoris
LBG : Lexikon zur byzantinischen Gräzität
Leo Diak : Leon Diakonos
Leo Takt : Leon, Taktika
xvii
Lit : Literally
LSJ : Liddell, Scott, Jones Ancient Greek Lexicon
Louk : Loukianos, Concilium Deorum
LXX : Septuaginta
Manas : Konstantinos Manasses, Synopsis Khronike
mod : modern
NID : Naval Intelligence Division
Nik Bry : Nikephoros Bryennios, Historia
Nik Khon : Niketas Khoniates, Historia
ODB : Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium
P : page
Pp : pages
Paus : Pausanias
Plut : Plutarkhos
PM : Praecepta Militaria
Pol : Polybios
Prok Aed : Prokopios, De Aedificiis
Prok Arc : Prokopios, Historia Arcana
Psel Hist : Mikhael Psellos, Historia Syntomos
Psel Khron : Mikhael Psellos, Kronographia
Ptol : Ptolemaios, Geographia
r : regnavit (ruled)
Ru : Russian
Steph Byz : Stephanos Byzantios
ST : Syllogue Tacticorum
Str : Strabon
xviii
Sym Mag : Symeon Logothetes
Tac : Tacitus, Agricola
Th Cont : Theophanes Continuatus
Thouk : Thoukydides
TIB : Tabula Imperii Byzantini
TNO : Taktika of Nikephoros Ouranos
Trans : Translator
Translit : Transliteration
Tr : Turkish
Xen : Xenophon
Zonar : Ioannes Zonaras, Epitome Historiarum
xix
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 2.1 Diabasis. ................................................................................................... 35
Figure 2.2 Strabon’s voyage ..................................................................................... 36
Figure 2.3 Sarkel. ...................................................................................................... 39
Figure 2.4 Dazemon and Anzes ................................................................................ 40
Figure 2.5 Poson, Lalakaon and Gyris ...................................................................... 42
Figure 2.6 Zarnoukh and its vicinity ......................................................................... 45
Figure 2.7 Bathys Ryax ............................................................................................. 46
Figure 2.8 Koukousos, Kallipolis, Pasadia, Germanikeia, Adata ............................. 47
Figure 2.9 The possible location of Anzes and Dazemon ......................................... 56
Figure 2.10 Dnieper Rapids ...................................................................................... 62
Figure 2.11 Wielka Przeprawa Tatarska in Tractus Borysthenis vulgo Dniepr et Niepr Dicti, à Kiovia ufque ad Bouzin, Willem Blaeu (detail) (Androshchuk, 2013, p. 171) ................................................................................................................... 66
Figure 2.12 Hagios Aitherios and Nekropyla............................................................ 67
Figure 2.13 Tamarkha and Zikhia ............................................................................. 67
Figure 2.14 The city of Tetrangourin ........................................................................ 71
Figure 2.15 Decatera "ἐστενωμένον καὶ πεπνιγμένον." ............................................ 75
Figure 2.16 Kotor's topography ................................................................................. 73
Figure 2.17 Dalmatian cities. Rivers marked with red indicators show the region's boundaries .......................................................................................................... 74
Figure 2.18 Khlum and Bona .................................................................................... 75
Figure 2.19 The possible location of Kanali ............................................................. 75
xx
Figure 2.20 Pentadaktylos Mountains and its vicinity .............................................. 77
Figure 2.21 Thessalonike and its vicinity according to Kaminiates .......................... 82
Figure 2.22 Kaloe, Mt. Tmolos and the River Kaystros ........................................... 90
Figure 2.23 Kilikia .................................................................................................... 92
Figure 2.24 Tarsos and the River Kydnos ................................................................. 93
Figure 2.25 Drize and Antigus .................................................................................. 94
Figure 2.26 Mysia (Bulgaria) between Haimos and Rhodope .................................. 99
Figure 2.27 The City of Amorion and the plains in the northeast direction ............ 100
Figure 3.1 The location of the pass at Kleidion ...................................................... 115
Figure 3.2 Kalabrye and the River Halmyros .......................................................... 116
Figure 3.3 Azez and Terkhala ................................................................................. 118
Figure 3.4 Anthiai in Ovacik, Tunceli ..................................................................... 122
Figure 3.5 Similar example of a karstic topography. This example is from Southern France, Prof. Şengör can be seen in the photograph, or at least part of him (Şengör archive, 2021) ................................................................................................... 123
Figure 3.6 The location of Podandos ....................................................................... 129
Figure 3.7 Amanos Mountains. The Belen Pass can also be seen in the south ....... 143
Figure 3.8 The location of Lapara ........................................................................... 144
Figure 3.9 Tzamandos ............................................................................................. 144
Figure 3.10 Argyrokastron ...................................................................................... 145
Figure 3.11 Pemolissa ............................................................................................. 145
Figure 3.12 Araxes-Oxus Confusion ....................................................................... 147
Figure 3.13 Mantzikert. ........................................................................................... 151
Figure 3.14 Stroumbitza and Mt. Balasitza ............................................................. 150
Figure 3.15 Albanian Belagrada. ............................................................................. 153
Figure 3.16 The vicinity of Tephrike and Argaoun. ................................................ 164
Figure 3.17 Vardar. ................................................................................................. 174
xxi
Figure 3.18 The possible location of Dekte at the northern coast of Lake Boane. . 188
Figure 3.19 Vardar's Delta. ................................................................................... 1881
Figure 3.20 Hydrounton-Aulonia, Brundisium-Dyrrakhion controversy. .............. 183
Figure 3.21 Elissos. ................................................................................................. 184
Figure 3.22 Black Drin (Red), White Drin (Dark Blue) and Drin (Purple). ........... 189
Figure 3.23 Sidera and the River Bitzina ................................................................ 187
Figure 3.24 The possible location of the Hundred Hills and the Lake Ozolimne ... 190
Figure 3.25 Domenikon, the River Peneios, Larissa. .............................................. 192
Figure 3.26 Aretai and the other candidates ............................................................ 197
Figure 3.27 Anazarva and Podandos ....................................................................... 202
Figure 3.28 Sozopolis in Pisidia .............................................................................. 216
Figure 3.29 Fort Kaballa and Ikonion ..................................................................... 218
Figure 3.30 The possible location of Pithekas. ....................................................... 222
Figure 3.31 Maender's Source according to Kinnamos .......................................... 220
Figure 3.32 The Golden Horn, Pikridou, Petra, Kosmodion and the river Kinnamos depicts. ............................................................................................................. 226
Figure 3.33 Monembasia ......................................................................................... 224
Figure 3.34 Akrokorinthos is situated on the top of a sharp-peaked monolithic rock known by the same name, which stands on a table-shaped plain .................... 232
Figure 3.35 Angeloukastron in Kerkyra .................................................................. 234
Figure 3.36 The Citadel of Kerkyra ........................................................................ 234
Figure 3.37 Zeugminon, Sava and Danube in the north.......................................... 236
Figure 3.38 Myriokephalon and the possible location of Tzibritze. ....................... 241
Figure 3.39 Ankhialos and Sredna Gora ................................................................. 242
Figure 3.40 Didymoteikhon and the River Euros ................................................... 249
Figure 3.41 The location of Prosakos Fortress. ....................................................... 249
xxii
Figure 3.42 Thermopylai and Mt. Oeta. The red line indicates the loosely represented Medieval shoreline. .......................................................................................... 250
xxiii
AN ANALYSIS OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF EARTH SCIENCES IN MIDDLE BYZANTINE HISTORIES, CHRONICLES AND MILITARY MANUALS (867-1204)
SUMMARY
This Master of Science thesis handles the novelty and the accuracy of the knowledge of Earth Sciences in Middle Byzantine histories and military manuals (taktika). Its aim is to understand the knowledge regarding the Earth Sciences, which Byzantines brought forth through the analysis of the original Byzantine texts and their comparison with the classical texts and modern science.
The year 867 AD witnessed a great blossom in fields of science, education, literature and culture in general. This flourishing period following the Byzantine Dark Ages (seventh and eighth centuries) called as Macedonian Renaissance, after the eponymous Macedonian dynasty (867-1056) or Middle Byzantine Renaissance created some of the greatest minds the Empire has ever seen such as Leon the Mathematician, Mikhael Psellos etc. Thanks to the developments made during this period the accessibility of classical texts was at its peak. Therefore, the intellectuals of this period were both educated in religious and classical texts. This thesis is based on the works of Byzantine history and taktika writers educated during the Macedonian Renaissance, beginning from 867 until the infamous Sack of Konstantinoupolis during the Fourth Crusade in 1204. Therefore, it includes all Middle Byzantine history, chronicle and taktika authors whose works have survived and can be reached. The main reason for choosing this period for study is the revival of classical education as we have stated above, and the reason for choosing the authors of history and taktika genre is that it would be the rational start for a master study with limits such as these. Because these sources are in a better position than their predecessors in terms of variety and accessibility.
The Byzantine knowledge analysed in the thesis contains all fields of Earth Sciences from geomorphology to atmospheric phenomena and seismic phenomena, which Byzantines recorded frequently. In addition to the analysis, this thesis also studies how the Byzantine intellectuals perceive and interpret natural phenomena given their education in both religious and classical texts and how did they use this knowledge in historical work, military manuals.
One of the purposes of this study is to draw attention to the lack of similar studies. There are many studies about the earthquakes or climatic changes in the Byzantine Empire or how the Byzantines interpreted these. However, there were none that studies Earth Sciences under the scope of the History of Science or the History of Geology. History of Earth Science in Byzantine Empire is an overlooked field of study. Therefore, this study attempts to focus on this particular overlooked subject.
Both Byzantine and classical texts used in this work were studied in their original Greek with a philological approach. The information gathered was tracked whether it belongs to the author or belongs to one of the classical authors, or whether it has a
xxiv
religious, biblical origin as it was in most cases. In addition, the information gathered is evaluated according to modern geology.
xxv
ORTA BİZANS DÖNEMİ TARİH KAYNAKLARI, KRONİKLERİ VE ASKERİ TALİMNAMELERİNDEKİ YER BİLİMLERİ BİLGİSİNİN ANALİZİ (867-1204)
ÖZET
Bu yüksek lisans tezi Orta Bizans Dönemi tarih kaynaklarında, kroniklerinde ve askeri talimnamelerinde (taktika) yer alan yer bilimleri bilgisinin analizini ihtiva etmektedir. Tezin amacı bu bilginin orijinalliğinin ve doğruluğunun klasik kaynak metinler ve modern bilim ışığında mukayeseli incelenmesidir.
867 yılı Bizans tarihinde bilim, edebiyat, eğitim ve kültür alanlarında büyük bir yükselişin yaşandığı bir dönemdir. Yedinci ve sekizinci yüzyılları kapsayan Bizans Karanlık Çağı’nı izleyen bu dönem, Makedon Hanedanlığı’na (867-1056) atfen Makedon Rönesansı ya da Orta Bizans Rönesansı olarak bilinir. Siyasi bir restorasyonla birlikte sanat, edebiyat, bilim alanlarında da yaşanan hareket sayesinde dönem Leon Mathematikos, Mikhael Psellos gibi imparatorluğun gördüğü en parlak zihinlerden bazılarını çıkarmış, Magnaura’daki üniversite diyebileceğimiz yüksek eğitimin kurumu Πανδιδακτήριον’un (Pandidaktērion) yeniden tesisini ve islahatını görmüştür. Ağırlıklı olarak klasik temelli bir eğitim veren bu kurumda dolaylı olarak coğrafya eğitimi de verilmiştir. Mikhael Psellos, Anna Komnene, Niketas Khoniates gibi Orta Bizans tarih yazıcılığının en büyük üç ismi de bu dönemde yaşamış ve eser vermişlerdir. Dönem içinde yaşanan gelişmeler sayesinde klasik metinlere erişim zirve noktalarından birini görmüş, bu sayede de hem dini hem de klasik metinler üzerine iyi eğitim almış bir entelektüel grup ortaya çıkmıştır. Klasik metinlerin rağbet görmesi kaçınılmaz olarak Bizans eğitiminde Ptolemaios ve Strabon’un baskın rol oynadığı coğrafyanın rolünü canlandırmıştır. Bizans biliminin geneline atfedilen, üzerine yeni bir şey eklemeksizin klasik bilim mirasını koruma anlayışı da tez içerisinde tartışılmıştır.
Bu tez 867 yılında Makedon Rönesansı’yla başlayıp Dördüncü Haçlı Seferi sonucu Konstantinoupolis’in 1204 yılındaki zaptına kadar geçen sürede eser vermiş tarih, kronik ve taktika yazarlarını temel almıştır. Dolayısıyla bu çalışma, eserleri günümüze gelmiş ve hâlihazırda ulaşılabilir olan tüm Orta Bizans Dönemi tarih, kronik ve taktika yazarlarını ihtiva eder. Çalışma için bu dönemin seçilmesinin esas sebebi bahsedildiği üzere bu dönemde klasik eğitimde yaşanan yenilenme ve klasik kaynaklara erişilebilirliğin kolaylığıdır. Bununla birlikte dolaylı olarak coğrafya eğitimi de yaygınlaşmıştır. Askeri talimnameler ise Bizans Tarihi’ndeki zirve noktalarını görmüşlerdir. Öte yandan tarih ve taktika yazarlarının seçilmesinin esas sebebi bu denli geniş bir aralığa sahip bir yüksek lisans tezi için makul bir başlangıç teşkil edecek olmasındandır. Zira bu kaynaklar çeşitlik ve erişilebilirlik açısından da öncekilerinden daha iyi bir durumdadır. Bir diğer husus da döneme damgasını vuran siyasi olaylar nedeniyle tarih anlatısının günümüz Türkiye Cumhuriyeti topraklarına daha fazla odaklanmasındandır. Söz gelimi, 1071 Malazgirt Muharebesi’nde mağlup olan
xxvi
İmparator Romanos IV Diogenes’in seferlerine eşlik eden Attaleiates Anadolu coğrafyasına dair birinci gözden kıymetli bilgiler sunmaktadır.
Tezde incelenen yer bilimleri bilgisi, jeomorfolojiden, Bizans yazarlarının sıklıkla kaydettiği deprem ve iklim olaylarına kadar modern yer bilimlerinin tamamını kapsayacak şekildedir. Bu bilgilerin analizi dışında çalışma, dini ve klasik bir eğitime sahip Bizans yazarlarının bu olayları nasıl algıladıkları, nasıl yorumladıkları ve tarih, askeri talimname içerikli eserlerinde nasıl kullandıkları üzerinde de durmaktadır. İlaveten, Bizans metinlerinde bahsi geçen ancak henüz saptanamamış bazı yerlerin de konumlandırılması için uğraşılmıştır. Nitekim izlenilen metodolojik yaklaşım çerçevesinde isabetli bir analizin yapılması için öncelikle kaynaklarda geçen yerlerin tespiti gerekmektedir. Askeri talimnameler ve Konstantinos Prophyrogennetos özelinde dönem bağlamında harp-coğrafya ve istihbarat-coğrafya ilişkisi üzerinde de durulmuştur. Bu ilişkiler terminolojik bağlamda da ele alınmıştır. Çalışmada orijinal kaynaklarda geçen toponimlerin kaynağı da incelenmiştir. Böylece klasik literatürden aktarılan toponimlerin sürekliliği, karşılığı ve Bizans’taki algısı, kullanımı ve konumlandırılması da irdelenmiş ve tartışılmıştır. Yine analiz edilen kaynaklarda, özellikle de askeri kılavuzlarda haritaların varlığı ve -varsa- rolleri üzerinde durulmuştur. Bununla birlikte, askeri talimnamelerde yer alan coğrafyaya dayalı taktiklerin pratikteki kullanımlarına dair örneklerin izi tarih eserlerinde sürülmüştür.
Çalışmanın amaçlarından biri de benzer çalışmaların olmayışına dikkat çekmektir. Yapılan modern literatür taraması sonucu Bizans İmparatorluğu’nda gerçekleşmiş depremlere ya da iklim olaylarına, bu doğa olaylarının nasıl algılandığına dair çeşitli çalışmalar yapıldığı ya da bu afetleri değerlendirmeksizin ihtiva eden katalog çalışmaları saptanmıştır. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften bünyesinde yürütülen Tabula Imperii Byzantini’den, 1912-1964 yıllarında Birleşik Krallık Deniz Kuvvetleri bünyesinde hizmet vermiş Naval Intelligence Division’a kadar pek çok kurum yahut kişi tarafından yapılmış tarihi coğrafya çalışmaları da mevcuttur. Öte yandan tüm bunlara yer bilimlerini de dâhil ederek tümleyici bir bakış açısıyla Bilim Tarihi, Coğrafya Tarihi ya da Jeoloji Tarihi perspektifinden bakan bir çalışmaya rastlanamamıştır. Bizans’ta Yer Bilimleri, Bizans Çalışmaları’nın en bakir ve ilgi görmemiş alanlarındandır. Dolayısıyla bu çalışma hâlihazırda ilgi görmeyen bir alana odaklanmaktadır.
Bu tezde yer alan Bizans ve Eski Yunan metinlerinin tamamı kendi orijinal dillerinde filolojik bir yaklaşımla incelenmiştir. Analiz için orijinal kaynaklardan yapılan alıntılar, Yunanca asılları ve tarafımızdan yapılmış çevirileriyle çalışma içinde sunulmuştur. Bu doğrultuda çalışmamızda bir commentar yaklaşımından söz edilebilir. Çalışmada yer alan tüm Yunanca isimler, Bizans Yunancasına ya da Çağdaş Yunancaya değil Klasik Yunancaya uygun şekilde translitere edilmiştir. Diğer özel isimlerde de benzer hassasiyet güdülmüş ve olabildiğince orijinal dillerinde verilmeye özen gösterilmiştir. Analiz sonucu elde edilen verinin, yazara mı, bir başka çağdaşına mı yoksa klasik yazarlardan birine mi ait olduğu hususunda yahut dini bir referans mı olduğu hususunda izi sürülmüştür. Bununla birlikte elde edilen veri modern jeoloji bilimi ışığında da irdelenmiş ve Bilim Tarihi bağlamında değerlendirilerek sunulmuştur. Çalışmanın amacı doğrultusunda tez içerisinde sıklıkla haritalara ve topografyayı göstermek adına özellikle uydu fotoğraflarına yer verilmiştir.
Analiz edilen yazar ve eserler, 867-1056 yılları, 1056-1204 yılları ve askeri talimnameler olmak üzere üç farklı ana başlık altında sunulmuştur. Tarih eserleri ve kronikler yazar özelinde incelenmiş ve analizleri de bu şekilde sunulmuştur. Askeri
xxvii
talimnameler ise sıklıkla aynı bilgileri tekrar ettikleri hasebiyle aynı başlık altında birlikte incelenmiştir.
Tezin birinci bölümü giriş niteliğindedir, Orta Bizans Dönemi’nin ve Bizans biliminin genel hatları, coğrafya ve meteroloji konusundaki yaklaşımları, tezin amacı, aranan sorular, ana hat planı, analiz edilecek birincil kaynaklar ve yazarları hakkında bilgilerin verildiği ve modern literatür taramasının eleştirel bir şekilde sunulduğu bölümdür. İkinci bölüm bahsettiğimiz üzere 867-1056 tarih aralığında eser vermiş olan tarih ve kronik yazarlarının analizlerini ihtiva eder. Üçüncü bölümde ise 1056-1204 tarih aralığında eser vermiş tarihçi ve kronikçilerin ilgili eserleri aynı şekilde analiz edilmiştir. Dördüncü bölüm dönemin askeri talimnamelerin birlikte incelendiği kısımdır. Nihai bölüm olan beşinci bölüm ise sonuç, buluntular, katkılar, tartışma ve tavsiyelerin yer aldığı sonuç kısmıdır.
xxviii
1
INTRODUCTION
The Byzantines were not the remnants nor the heirs of the Roman Empire, in fact, they were the “Roman” Empire itself. Not only they sat on its political legacy and might, but also on the wisdom of Ptolemaios, Strabon, Aristoteles, and of many other great minds. Unlike their Western counterparts or claimants to be more precise, such as Carolingian Empire or Holy Roman Empire, Byzantines never lost their access to this “treasure” of a great scientific heritage. However, what Byzantines did with this knowledge or how did they contribute to this knowledge is a question, one worthy of pursuit.
Byzantine science in general sometimes characterised as preserving the Ancient Greek-Hellenistic science rather than contributing in any significant way (Vogel, 1967, p. 267). Whether it is true or does an injustice is the subject of an ongoing -and rather heated- debate and the purpose of another work. However one thing is certain, Byzantine science is simply a less-investigated field that one can not claim to give a complete account of Byzantine scientific achievements. That being said history of geography and earth sciences in Byzantium is a less-investigated subject.
General view regarding Byzantine geography is that despite the Byzantine intelligentsia produced many great figures in history writings and other fields, it produced no geographers or travel writers who can be compared with their antecedents or with their contemporaries, despite the fact that geographical knowledge played a major role (and vital even) in forging Byzantine cultural identity (Martín & Andreotti, 2020, p. 231). In short, Byzantine Empire has no equivalent of Strabon, Ptolemaios, Pausanias, Ibn Hawqal, al-Idrisi, Gerald of Wales, Willem van Rubroeck, Marco Polo, or Evliya Çelebi. (Magdalino, 2013, p. 23), or maybe that equivalent is waiting to be discovered. Geography in Byzantium generally consisted of preserving Strabon, Ptolemaios or writing commentaries on them.
In regard to the Byzantine view on natural phenomena or their interpretation, it can be said that Aristoteles was the solid base for seeking answers, especially during the Middle Byzantine period (Telelis, 2020, p. 191). From earthquakes to meteorology
2
Aristoteles’ Meteorologica, which contains one of the earliest global tectonics theory, (Şengör, 2020, p. 15) was like a reference book, even though the Byzantine author prefers the Biblical explanation, which was often the case. Outline of Thesis
The first chapter of this master thesis is the introduction, where it deals with the thesis’ purpose and methodology along with the approaches used, and includes a very brief summary of the period in question, primary sources which will be analysed, and the literature review.
The second chapter covers the analysis of the Byzantine sources belonging to authors who flourished under Macedonian Dynasty, namely the anonymous authors of Theophanes Continuatus, Konstantinos VII Porphyrogennetos (r. 913-959), Symeon Logothetes, and so on. Therefore it roughly covers the years 867-1056.
The third chapter encompasses the analysis of the Byzantine sources compiled in 1056-1204, which more or less agrees with the timeline of the Komnenian Dynasty (1081-1185), and the Angelos Dynasty (1185-1204). The three greatest historians of the Middle Byzantine Era, namely Mikhael Psellos, Anna Komnene, and Niketas Khoniates, are included in this chapter.
The fourth chapter is the chapter, where military manuals or taktika genres of the Middle Byzantine Era are analysed. This chapter will be shorter than the other chapters that contain text analysis, for when we compare taktika with histories and chronicles, taktika are fewer in number and also contains few data which falls under the scope of this thesis.
The fifth and the last chapter will be about conclusions, discussions, self-criticism and therefore about recommendations. The last chapter deliberates on whether Middle Byzantine historians, chroniclers or taktika authors contributed in some way to the history of science, and how they thought in these matters, e.g “logically” or religiously. In short, this is where the final “verdict” will be announced. Purpose of Thesis and Methodology
As was stated above, the history of geography or the history of earth sciences in Byzantium is a less-investigated field of study. The purpose of this study is to analyse
3
the knowledge of the history and taktika authors of the period under study, i.e. the Middle Byzantine Era 867-1204. By doing so we modestly aim to shed light on this subject.
The main reason for choosing this period for study is the revival of the classical education, which bring us to the Macedonian Renaissance. The year 867 AD witnessed a great blossom in fields of science, education, literature and culture in general. With the rule of the Basileios I (r. 867-886), the founder of the Macedonian Dynasty, the Byzantine Dark Ages (seventh and eighth centuries) came to an end. This tumultuous period, which was full of upheavals with constant invasions of Arabs and Slavs, of rebellions -which were like an everyday event in Byzantium, of struggles arise from iconoclasm and of paucity in literary sources1 gave its place to a great restoration period under the vigilance of Macedonian emperors. Turmoils in the empire gave their place to -relative- stability, iconoclasm to thriving art and architecture, and the paucity in literature to a flourishment in literature, education and science.
The period saw the restoration of the University of Konstantinoupolis in Magnaura (Πανδιδακτήριον) with Leon Mathematikos,2 one of the most brilliant minds the Empire had ever produced, as its headmaster.3 This was a secular institution with a classical education of trivium and quadrivium in its corpus. The first emperors of the Macedonian Dynasty promoted the readings on Greek history and the recovery of geographical and ethnographic data. Exempli gratia, the earliest preserved copies of Xenophon or Plutarkhos date back to the end of the ninth century and the beginning of the tenth century, whereas the discovery of the first preserved copies of Herodotos, Thoukydides or Strabon had to wait a few decades more. (Martín & Andreotti, 2020,
1 E.g. there are no records of the Seventh Century Crisis. According to Threadgold the reason for this is not because Byzantine readers were few or the crisis was far too unpleasant to be mentioned, but it is the grave doubt whether the empire is to survive or not. (Treadgold, 2013, p. 1)
2 In fact the word μαθηματικός derives from the verb μανθάνω (I learn) and means learned. So the epithet here indicates that Leon was a very learned person (partially similar to πολυμαθής) rather than his skills in mathematics.
3 Πανδιδακτήριον was refounded during the reign of Emperor Michael III (r. 842-867), by Caesar Bardas, Emperor Michael’s uncle, in the Hall of the Magnaura, part of the Great Palace complex. (Harris, 2017, p. 28)
4
p. 231) This imperial promotion is one of the reasons why this period was chosen for this study. Accessibility to classical texts and their increasing study created intellects such as Mikhael Psellos, well-versed both in classical and religious texts. Anna Komnene (1083-1154) the sole woman historian of Byzantium was also flourished in Middle Byzantine Period. Scholar-emperors such as Konstantinos VII Porphyrogennetos supported many scholarly pursuits. He himself was a scholar and the author of several books such as De Ceremoniis, De Administrando Imperio which are under the scope of this study. This period also saw the revival of imitating Attic Greek of the fifth and fourth centuries BC. Especially by the middle of the eleventh century imitating Attic Greek in Byzantine literature was a very common feature (Gregory, 2005, p. 13). Books were in high demand in Konstantinoupolis, especially the books on mathematics (Vogel, 1967, p. 271). The famous Archimedes palimpsest was also the product of this era (Wilson, 2004, p. 61). Therefore, unlike Byzantine Dark Ages, this period witnessed to growth in literal works and many well-educated authors with classical and religious education.
The authors of Middle-Byzantine Era were well-versed in classical and religious texts. Many references from Homeros to Herodotos can be found in their works, on the other hand, references to Bible and Church Fathers can also be found in their works. The literal style of this era was rich imitating the ancient writers with an approach such as this. This style was known as Atticising or classicising. Being well-versed in both classical and religious text gave also another thing to the Byzantine authors, a chance of comparison between the two. However, most of the Byzantine authors prefered the “divine explanations” as we will present here. That being said, in this thesis background of the authors are also in question.
The productivity of the Macedonian Renaissance lasted through Komnenian Restoration (1081-1185) until the infamous Sack of Konstantinoupolis (1204) during the Fourth Crusade, which damaged the empire beyond any hope of recovery. The restoration of the Empire in 1261 was a mere illusion which lasted till the Ottoman Conquest in 1453.
Throughout its chapters, this study aims and attempts to evaluate all information related to earth sciences in the primary sources. From geomorphology to seismic activities we have included everything related to earth sciences. For this, we have used the original Byzantine Greek texts of the Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae and
5
the Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae4 and analysed them with a philological approach and with the methods of the history of science, and history of geology in particular. The same approach was also followed in the classical texts. Therefore, proper nouns, terms in Greek will be presented here with their Greek transliteration. Transliterations were grounded on Classical-Attic Greek, instead of Byzantine-Modern Greek. Exempli gratia, the name Ίωάννης was transliterated as Ioannes, not Ioannis and certainly not “John.” We have kept the same approach in classical writers as well, therefore we used Homeros instead of Homer, for Homer is a Simpsons’ character. We have compared what we found in the primary sources with the classical texts and have attempted to trace whether it is genuine or just a mere reference. We have also focused on the given explanations and interpretations, and tried to estimate their accuracy in the light of modern science. The references to original texts were given according to classical pagination system however in some of the texts edited by Bekker we have also used the page numbers, e.g. Ion. Kin. I.1, ed. Bekker p. 4. Which is a common reference system in Byzantine studies.
All translations in this thesis are made by us. Expression in the round brackets or parentheses, (), was used to clarify the related word, sentence etc or to make a comment about it. Square brackets or simply brackets, [], in translations show that the expression was added by us for a better reading of the text. Squiggly brackets or braces, {}, were used to show authors original expressions, mostly relative clauses, which are otherwise hard to translate in a plain form or unintelligible.
In this quest, along with histories and chronicles, we have also included taktika as primary sources to our thesis, to understand what Byzantines thought on the relationship between warfare and geography, for from King Leonidas Sparta (540-480 BCE) at the Battle of Thermopylai to Baron Antoine Henri de Jomini (1779-1868) with his Jominian Principles every wise general knows the importance and decisiveness of geography in military matters.
During the research phase we have benefited -as much as possible due to conditions in Covid-19 Pandemy- from İTÜ Mustafa İnan Library, ANAMED Library, Boğaziçi
4 These two series does not include taktika, therefore for the Greek texts of taktika we have used the edited Greek texts which can be found in the English translations.
6
University Library, the library of Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, the library of Institut Français d'Études Anatoliennes and most importantly the Μουσεῖον of Prof. Celâl Şengör and the hospitality of Şengör Family and Household.
Classification in the chapters was done according to flourishment dates of the authors, and for the anonymous texts the date they were -roughly- composed in. It was done so, because other classifications, such as the ones according to natural phenomena or the ones according to literary genres seemed too disproportionate. Byzantines were not clear when it comes to classifying natural phenomena and Middle-Byzantine writers were inclined to mention both an earthquake and an atmospheric phenomenon in one line. Literary genres seemed very disproportionate given the number of military treatises compared to histories or chronicles. Again a classification made according to the explanations of the natural phenomena would be uneven, for the Byzantine explanation for such phenomena were dominated by religious explanations, as was expected from the Medieval minds. Primary Sources
Primary sources under analysis are arranged in a chronological fashion and will be analysed by classifying them into centuries through chapters, without being categorised as histories and chronicles. Yet the analysis on taktika will be presented in another chapter. We have tried to include every author whose work survived and is reachable via modern editions, given the conditions of Covid-19 Pandemy. The authors-works included are respectively as follows:
Theophanes Continuatus (ninth-tenth centuries anthology), Emperor Leon VI (r. 886-912) and his Taktika, anonymous author of Sylloge Tacticorum (ca. tenth century), Genesios (ca. 910-post ca. 969) and his history work Basileia; Konstantinos VII. Porphyrogennetos (r. 913-959) and his Tres Tractatus de Expeditionibus Militaribus Imperatoris, de Administrando Imperio;5 Ioannes Kaminiates (tenth century) De Expugnatione Thessalonicae, Symeon Logothetes (ca. 925-ca. 990) and his Khronikon, Leon Diakonos (950-987) and his Historia, De Velitatione Bellica (ca.
5 His other works except de Thematibus offers nothing relevant to our study. However, de Thematibus is not a history, chronicle or taktika therefore excluded from this study.
7
tenth century) sometimes attributed to Emperor Phokas II (r. 963-969) or some high-ranking officer under his command, Praecepta Militaria of Emperor Nikephoros II Phokas or again someone under his command, Taktika of Nikephoros Ouranos. Histories and chronicles of this period will be analysed in the second chapter. This classification accords with the timeline of the Macedonian Dynasty (867-1056). All military treatises will be analysed in the fourth chapter. Emperor Konstantinos VII, who wrote both Tres Tractatus de Expeditionibus Militaribus Imperatoris, which is essentially a taktika and de Administrando Imperio, which we have accepted as a history (although it is not exactly), will be analysed separately in the second and the fourth chapters.
Mikhael Psellos (ca. 1017/1018-1076-1081?) and his Historia Syntomos, Khronographia;6 Mikhael Attaleiates (ca. 1020-1084) and his Historia, Ioannes Skylitzes (1040-1101) and Skylitzes Continuatus, Georgios Kedrenos (ca. 1050-post. 1115) and his Compendium Historiarum, Nikephoros Bryennios (1062/1082-1137) and his Historiai, Ioannes Zonaras (ca. 1070-post 1159) with his Epitome Historiarum, Konstantinos Manasses (ca. 1125- ca. 1180) and his Synopsis Khronike, Anna Komnene (1083-ca. 1150) and her Aleksias, Mikhael Gylkas (1130-ca. 1200) and Biblos Khronike, Ioannes Kinnamos (ca. 1143-1185), Eustathios (ca. 1115-ca. 1196) De Capta Thessalonica, Niketas Khoniates (ca. 1150-1217) with his Historia will be analysed in the third chapter. This classification more or less accords with the timeline of the Komnenian Dynasty (1081-1185), which witnessed the Turkish invasion of the Empire’s eastern parts and Crusades, and the Angelos Dynasty (1185-1204). Thanks to the Turkish incursions towards Anatolia by eleventh-century histories like Attaleiates’ give us more vivid descriptions about the physical geography of Anatolia. As was stated, by the middle of the eleventh century imitating Attic Greek in literary works was a very common style. This can be especially seen in the works of Psellos, Anna Komnene and Khoniates, the great trio of Byzantine history writing. Therefore, we believe this classification which begins with Psellos and ends with Khoniates is very appropriate.
6 Although Psellos was one of the greatest figures in Byzantium and wrote on many subjects, only these two works were related to our thesis.
8
Theophanes Continuatus is a ninth-century anthology of three separate texts, intended to be the continuation of Theophanes Confessor’s chronicle. Hence the Latin title continuatus. Although the opening title claims to be a continuity,7 this work is different by means of style, formation and structure. (Neville, Guide to Byzantine Historical Writing, 2018, p. 101) The first text, which consists of four books, each dedicated to a certain emperor, I: Leon V the Armenian (r. 813- 820), II: Mikhael II (r. 820- 829), III: Theophilos (r. 829- 842) and IV: Mikhael III (r. 842- 867). The second text is called either Book V or Vita Basilii, i.e. the Life of Basileios. As the title suggests it covers the life and deeds of Emperor Basileios I (r. 867- 886), the founder of the Macedonian Dynasty. The authors’ attitude is visibly pro-Basileios, justifying his accession to the throne after the murder of Emperor Mikhael III. The third and the last text is called Book VI. It narrates the history from 886 until it abruptly ends while describing the Reconquest of Crete in 961. Although the book narrates the reigns of various emperors, it is not divided into one book for each emperor like the first text.
We don’t know the author or the authors of Continuatus. Greek title “oἱ μετὰ Θεοφάνην”8 suggests more than one author, however, it is not the original title. Text I bears similarities with Genesios, but the author is unknown. Theodoros Daphnopates (ca. 900-post ca. 962) is one of the candidates for both Text I and II according to Treadgold (2013, p. 181), therefore he dates the work to ca. 950-958. For a time text II was credited to Konstantinos VII. Porphyrogennetos, however, Ihor Ševčenko refuted these claims. (Ševčenko, 1992). However, Konstantinos was the patron of this work.
Text III bear similarities with the chronicle of Symeon Logothetes (Treadgold, 2013, p. 111), though it is highly possible that the author was none other than Theodoros Daphnopates. Since the authors are anonymous nothing exact can be said about their educational background, however, from the texts, it is understood that the author(s) are inclined to religious explanations. Exemplia gratia, according to the author of the first text, the explanation of the natural disasters that occurred during the reign of
7 Th. Cont. I. 5: ΑΡΧΟΜΕΝΗ ΟΠΟΥ ΕΛΗΞΕ ΘΕΟΦΑΝΗΣ.
8 Lit. those after Theophanes.
9
Emperor Leon V was God due to Leon’s iconoclastic attitude (Th. Cont. I. 20.47-53). This also suggests an iconophile member of the clergy as the author of the text.
Although Emperor Leon VI was a scholar-emperor and known as the Wise (ὁ Σοφός) with his writings nevertheless he was still interested in military matters. Maybe his Taktika was a kind of an answer one can get from a scholarly type person in the face of military setbacks. After all Empire’s survival depended on him for he was the sole head of the Byzantine state and its army. His work Taktika offers little that is original. The work mostly consists of adaptations, alterations, summaries and paraphrases of the previous military manual authors written in Greek, namely Onesandros (ca. first century A.D.), Ailianos Taktikos (second century AD.), and Emperor Maurikios (r. 582-602) (Kazhdan, 1991c, p. 2008). His style is plain, far from ostentation, which is a common style in military manuals even today. For they are intended for practical use and therefore they should be plain and straightforward.
Sylloge Tacticorum (συλλογὴ τακτικῶν) is a military manual compiled in the first half of the tenth century, possibly during the reign of Konstantinos VII Porphyrogennetos. The text consists of two major parts: the first part covers various earlier taktika authors (which were already mentioned above) and advises on generalship, battle formations, tactics and siege warfare in general. The second part covers stratagems employed by ancient generals, once again repeating the former authors. Nevertheless, the text also contains the parts on Mid-Byzantine warfare and their comparison with the aforementioned authors’ earlier models, which were used as a basis for the later Praecepta Militaria (Kazhdan, 1991c, p. 1980).
De Velitatione Bellica is another Byzantine military manual written in the second half of the tenth century. As the title suggests the manual covers light troop tactics and skirmishing and deals with the details of border warfare in the mountains of eastern Anatolia. Byzantines were well aware of their chances against numerous Muslim armies who fight with great zeal which comes from their faith. Taurus mountains constituted a natural border between Byzantium and its zealous war-mongering neighbours: the invading Muslim armies had to traverse deep defiles, passes and νalleys. This gave the perfect land space for ambushes, surprise attacks, hit-run tactics and skirmishes to Byzantines. The author of this military treatise was aware of this and tried his best to educate his brothers-in-arms in this style of warfare. The writer of the text is unknown. It was long attributed to Emperor Nikephoros since the title begins
10
as Περί Παραδρομῆς τοῦ κυροῦ Νικηφόρου τοῦ βασιλέως (On Skirmishing by the Lord Emperor Nikephoros). However, in the prologos, the author also mentions Caesar Bardas’ mastery in this kind of warfare and that he was trained by him.9 So the text was probably written by a high-ranking officer who fought in one of the kleisourai of Taurus Mountains under the rule of the Phokas Dynasty and experienced in the art of skirmishing.
Praecepta Militaria (henceforth PM) is the conventional title of a short military treatise compiled around 965. The original title Στρατηγική έκθεσις και σύνταξις Νικηφόρου δεσπότου ([The] Presentation and Treatise of Emperor Nikephoros’ Strategy) might suggest that the authenticity of the texts belongs to Emperor Nikephoros II Phokas. Yet like other contemporary taktika attributed to Emperor Nikephoros (e.g., De velitatione) this text too might belong to a certain official under Nikephoros’ rule (McGeer, 2008, p. 173), which is the more likely scenario. The text consists of six chapters and its target audience is the military commanders fighting against Arabs (Hamdanids in particular) in the eastern frontier. Although the text gives no references to toponyms etc. the few geographical features mentioned should be read according to the region’s topography.
The Taktika of Nikephoros Ouranos (henceforth TNO) is the last taktika which is the product of the revival of military science in tenth-century Byzantium (McGeer, 1991, p. 129). Therefore the last product of the tradition which lasted since the military writers of antiquity. Nikephoros Ouranos (ca. 950-1011) was himself a general, and a successful one during the reign of Emperor Basileos II (r. 976-1025). He was also a magistros however his military career was far more successful than his civilian one. (Kazhdan, 1991c, p. 1544) He was active in the wars against Bulgarians and also against Arabs on the eastern front. His victory against Bulgarians at River Sperkheios in 997 during his arkhonship of West was most likely the peak of his career. Later in December 999 he was appointed as governor of Antioch and stayed in this office until at least 1007 (McGeer, 2008, p. 80). Like most of the era’s writers, Ouranos too was well-educated and had a reputation as a man of letters (McGeer, 1991, p. 130). Apart
9 I. 31-36: Ταύrην Βάρδας ό μακαρίrης Καισαρ, οσα έμέ γινώσκειv, είς άκρον κατώρθωκε, (...) παρ' ού καί ήμεῖς ταύτην γυμvασθέντες τήν μέθοδον τήv ταύτης καv ποσως παρειλήφαμεv
11
from his military manual he also compiled hagiographical works and poems. His work Taktika mostly consists of the paraphrases of previous military writers, notably Onesandros, Emperor Leon and the author of Praecepta Militaria. (McGeer, 1991, p. 131) However, chapters 56-65 presents a revised and extended version of the Praecepta Militaria, due to Ouranos’ firsthand experiences and reports based on his military service in the eastern front (Kazhdan, 1991c, p. 1545). Except for these chapters, his work largely remains unedited in manuscript form. Therefore what we analysed in this study belongs to these chapters. However, since other chapters are simply the paraphrase of what earlier writers had written (which were already analysed in this thesis) and they offer little in regard to military science, and when it comes to the purpose of this thesis we can assume that it offers almost nothing.
Little is known about Ioseph Genesios’ identity and life, but in all probability, he was the grandson of Konstantinos Maniakes (Treadgold, 2013, p. 182). He probably was born around 910 and grew up in Konstantinoupolis with the advantages that went with having a wealthy and prominent family. Genesios received a secondary education that allowed him to decorate his writing with a few quotations from Homeros, Hesiodos, Aiskhylos and Euripides, and sometimes to use the archaic dualis declension (Treadgold, 2013, p. 184).
Conventionally he was the acknowledged author of the tenth-century history titled Basileiai, which was commissioned by Emperor Konstantinos VII Porphyrogennetos. The work covers the lives and deeds of the emperors who reigned between the years 813 and 886. The text consists of one book on each emperor: Leon V (r. 813-820), Mikhael II (r. 820- 829), Theophilos (r. 829-842), and Mikhael III (r. 843-867). Much like Theophanes Continuatus’ Text I (Books I-IV). The book on Mikhael III is significantly longer than the other books and includes a brief account of the reign of Basileios I (r. 867- 886). As was stated above there are similarities between Genesios’ Basileiai and Theophanes Continuatus’ Books I-IV. Yet their dissimilarities as well, which we will see.
Much is known about the life of Konstantinos VII. Porphyrogennetos, in comparison to contemporary historians of his age. This is because he was the emperor, in other words, the most famous figure in his realm. His imperial epiteph Porphyrogennetos (Πορφυρογέννητος) literally means the man who was born in Purple, that is either the parents' assumption of the Purple that is the purple regalia which signifies imperial
12
rank or the custom that had empresses giving birth in a purple-decorated structure of the palace, the Porphyra (An. Komn. II: 90. 3-19). However, in Konstantinos’ case, his mother was not the empress but the mistress of Emperor Leon VI the Wise. The title also used to entitle the son or daughter (Πορφυρογέννητη in that, e.g. Anna Komnene was a Porphyrogennete) born after the father had become the emperor.
As his imperial epiteph suggests Konstantinos was born in the Purple Chamber around the year 903. His father was the Scholar-Emperor Leon VI the Wise and his mother was Zoe Karbonapsina, (Καρβωνοψίνα, lit. coal-eyes) the mistress of Emperor Leon and later the regent of the imperial state between 913-919. In a way, Zoe's reason to give birth to Konstantinos in the Purple Chamber might be to legitimize him, for Konstantinos was the offspring of an illegitimate relationship unrecognised, condemned even, by the Church. Konstantinos was baptised in Hagia Sophia by Patriarch Nikolaos Mystikos and thus recognised as the legitimate heir of Leon VI (Ostrogorsky, 2015, p. 241).
Romanos I Lekapenos’ regency (919-944) following Leon VI’s death in 912, saw the Bulgarian threat countered in 927, the treaty with the Rhos in 944, three years after the significant victory against the Rhos who attacked Konstantinoupolis, and in the east reconquest of Melitene, Amida, Dara, Nisibis and Edessa, whose capture resulted in the surrender of the Mandylion, the Image of Edessa, which is one of the greatest relics in whole Christendom. In 944 Romanos I was deposed and exiled to Prote Island by his sons Stephanos and Konstantinos Lekapenos. However, Konstantinos Porphyrogennetos countered this and thus his rule which lasted till his death in 959 had begun.10
The phrase “the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.” proves to be true in the case of Konstantinos VII. Like his father he too was a bookish emperor interested in scholarly pursuits rather than politics or statecraft, despite the fact that he spent his years as co-emperor in the archives and libraries to learn about the history of the empire, administration, ceremonies, statecraft, (in short the topics which he later wrote about) in order to rule fair and just (Treadgold, 2013, p. 154). His work De Thematibus, which we analysed under the scope of this thesis, might be compiled in 934 when he still was
10 In 945 Easter he crowned his son Romanos II as co-emperor.
13
a co-emperor. De Thematibus covers the descriptions of the empire’s provinces, mostly based on classical geographical sources adapted from Stephanos Byzantios and Hierokles (both lived and flourished in the sixth century) with arrangments related the contemporary changes, such as borders. We categorise it as a text about historical geography rather than history. Despite the work contains valuable information related to this thesis it is not among the genres (i.e., histories, chronicles and taktika) examined in this thesis, therefore is excluded from this study. De administrando imperio is more like an advisory to Romanos II, Konstantinos’s son. The work includes Konstantinos’ own advices regarding the politics and statecraft, and others from documents in the state archives, from Theophanes the Confessor’ Khronographia and Stephanos Byzantios’ Ethnika. De administrando imperio will be examined in this study. Also we did not want to exclude the depictions on Crimea, his intelligence network as a source for geographical knowledge and the naphta wells given by the scholar-Emperor. For, -as will be seen in the following chapters- these depictions are confirmed by the Soviet archaeological excavations made in 1950. De Ceremoniis on the other hand has nothing related to this study like his other works. His Excerpta Historica is also excluded from the scope of this thesis by reason of the fact that the work is an anthology of Greek writers. Yet his military treatise -or the military treatise attributed to him- Tres Tractatus de Expeditionibus Militaribus Imperatoris will be examined in this thesis.
Ioannes Kaminiates is the author of the De Expugnatione Thessalonicae, which narrates the Arab Siege of the Thessalonike in 904 under the command of Byzantine turncoat Leon Tripolites. The only account about the life of Kaminiates is his own. He identifies himself as the native of Thessalonike11 and a kouboukleisios12 of the palace at Thessalonike. According to him, his father was the exarkhon of Hellas.13 In the light
11 Io. Kam. 3.1: “Ημείς, ώ φίλος, πατρίδος έσμεν Θεσσαλονίκης.”
12 Io. Kam. 79.4: Τέλος τῆς άξιομνημοvεvτοv Ίστοpίας κῦρ 'Ιωάννου τοῦ Καμινιὰτου καi κουβουκλεισίου τῆς άγιωτὰπης μητροπόλεως Θεσσαλονίκης, Kouboukleisios was a term used for ecclesiastic chamberlains.
13 Io. Kam. 54.5: “ἒξαρχον γαρ αvτόν ίσμεν τῆς Ελλάδος άιτάσης,”
14
of these, we can deduce that he was an educated member of the clergy, albeit of a minor rank, coming from a prominent local family.
The text is in a form of a long letter written by Ioannes Kaminiates himself to his friend Gregorios of Kappadokia, who asked for an eyewitness account of the conquest and the treatment of the captives, of which Kaminiates was among, followed after. The text contains a detailed description of Thessalonike’s physical geography which the author narrates in praise14 and also mentions a single storm with God as its cause, which puts this text to the scope of our study.
Symeon Logothetes or Magistros Symeon was the author of the tenth-century chronicle that encompasses the period from the Creation of the World, as was told in Genesis, to the death of Emperor Romanos I Lekapenos in AD 948. Not much is known about his life, but we can say that he was likely born around 925 and died around 990. He is generally confused with other Symeons (particularly with Symeon Metaphrastes, who also bore the titles of magistros and logothetes) for in the tenth century Byzantium the name Symeon was very common among government officials. (Kazhdan, 1991c, p. 1983) According to Threadgold (2013, p. 206), he wrote his chronicle during Emperor Nikephoros II Phokas’ reign, which puts the date between the years 963 and 969. The narrative is centred around the reigns of rulers, beginning with Adam, who according to Wahlgren has been “treated as a kind of proto-Byzantine emperor.” (Wahlgren, 2015, p. 37), continues with biblical patriarchs, Assyrian, Persian, Hellenistic rulers and so on. His chapters are larger than previous chronicles as if each ruler has his own chapter. Symeon’ chronicle along with Manasses’ and others falls under the scope of this study and gives an opportunity to compare them in the light of this thesis’ aim.
Leon Diakonos was born in the year 950 CE in Kaloe, a beautiful village in Asia Minor. He tells so in his own work and depicts the geography of his birthplace (Leo. Diak. I. 1.30-35: ὁ δὲ ταῦτα συντάξας Λέων εἰμὶ Βασιλείου υἱός· πατρὶς δέ μοι Καλόη,
14 According to Khazdan (1978, p. 304) this style is one of the reason to doubt this text’s authenticity for this kind of enkomion dedicated to a city was not known in Byzantine literature before the thirteenth century. Theodoros Laskaris' (r. 1205-1221) speech glorifying the city of Nikaia was the first example of this style.
15
χωρίον τῆς Ἀσίας τὸ κάλλιστον,…), which will be analysed in the second chapter. Again from his own work (IV.7.11-13), we learn that he was sent to Konstantinoupolis as a teen (μειράκιον) in pursuit of logic and education (ἐπὶ λόγων συλλογήν τε καὶ παίδευσιν), and during the event he records (that is the street fight between Armenians and Greeks, which ended with an assault to Emperor Nikephoros II Phokas himself) he states that was in his secondary education (έγκΰκλιος παίδευσις).15 His education explains his classical imitating writing style and the rich references to Homeros, Herodotos, Aristoteles and the other ancient authors. Yet Treadgold suggests (2013, p. 236) he must have also read authors outside the school curriculum. From what Leon gave to us in his work, we can deduce that Leon’s father Basileios was a rich man, landowner maybe, for he could send his son to Konstantinoupolis for education.
Although Leon received a classical education, and extensively studied the classical and Early Byzantine authors he pursued a career in the church, which made him a deacon in the imperial palace. Hence his epithet Διάκονος. As a man both educated in classical texts and religious texts Leon with his explanations and references is a great figure to analyse under the scope of this thesis. His work titled Historia covers the years 959-986, which compasses the reigns of Romanos II, Nikephoros II Phokas, Ioannes Tzimiskes, and the early years of Basileios II. He wrote in a classical style, as was expected from a man with a background such as his. Leon frequently mentions natural phenomena and at times marks the date with references to seasons, solstices or eclipses. His geographical depictions occasionally include Biblical references, which will be shown in the second chapter.
Mikhael Psellos was one of the most brilliant minds in Byzantium, if not the greatest one, and one of the greatest Byzantine commentator on Aristoteles. (Ierodiakonou, 2002, p. 158) He was born in Konstantinoupolis in 1018, during the reign of Basileios II to a middle-class family. His baptismal name was Konstantinos, but later during his monastic retreat in 1054, he took the name Mikhael. His mother taught him to read. According to his claim by the age of eight or ten, he could recite whole Ilias by
15 Which included the trivium of grammar, philosophy, rhetoric and the quadrivium of music, arithmetic, astronomy and geometry.
16
memory, (Psel. Eulog. 6b) which is an unlikely statement. (Kaldellis, 2006, p. 3) But it is true that he received an outstanding education.
Psellos studied philosophy, theology, astrology, medicine, in short almost every subject for which he could find instructors or books. According to his own account (Psel. Chron. VI.36-38-39) in Khronographia, where he briefly tells his education, after rhetorics, he studied “art of reasoning” both deductive and inductive (ἢ ἄνωθεν καὶ ἀμέσως, ἢ ἐκτῶν μετέπειτα). Later he turned to natural science (φυσικῶν λόγων) and aspired to a knowledge of the fundamental principles of philosophy through mathematics. He studied ancients and he regards Aristoteles and Platon as his teachers, for from them, Psellos learned the methodology. After that, he studied Neo-Platonists. Proklos led him to study metaphysics, with an introduction to what he calls “pure science” (καὶ τὴν καθαρὰν ἐπιστήμην μυεῖσθαι) and he began to examine abstract conceptions in mathematics, which -according to Psellos- holds a position midway between the science of corporeal nature, with the external apprehension of these bodies, and the ideas themselves, the object of pure thought. His hope for studying mathematics was to apprehend something that was beyond the reach of the human mind, something that was not subject to the limitations of substance.16
He began his career in a provincial judicial administration in Mesopotamia and Asia Minor. Around 1040 Psellos appears as an imperial secretary at the court of Emperor Mikhael IV, where he became an influential courtier with his charms, knowledge and mastery of language. During the reign of Konstantinos IX Monomakhos (r. 1042-1055) Psellos assumed the title ὕπατος τῶν φιλοσόφων (consul of philosophers), which might be created for him, and seems to have exercised some supervision over Πανδιδακτήριον. Attaleiates states that Psellos, whom he regards as the best mind of his age, was the head of the philosophy department, which was introduced by Konstantinos Monomakhos.17 Psellos was a luminary and leading figure during the
16 Psel. Khron. VI. 38.8-12: τὴν περὶ τῶν ἀσωμάτων θεωρίαν προὔλαβον ἐν τοῖς λεγομένοις μαθήμασιν ἃ δὴ μέσην τινὰ τάξιν τετάχαται, τῆς τε περὶ τὰ σώματα φύσεως καὶ τῆς ἀσχέτου πρὸς ταῦτα νοήσεως, καὶ αὐτῶν δὴ τῶν οὐσιῶν, αἷς ἡ καθαρὰ συμβαίνει νόησις, ἵν' ἐντεῦθεν εἴ τι καὶ ὑπὲρ ταῦτα ὑπέρνουν ἢ ὑπερούσιον καταλήψομαι.
17 Attal. 21. 15-21: πρόεδρον τῶν φιλοσόφων προχειρισάμενος ἄνδρα τῶν καθ' ἡμᾶς διαφέροντα γνώσει...
17
reforms made in this institution by Emperor Konstantinos Monomakhos. Due to his reforms, his court witnessed the reign of the philosophers (Kaldellis, 2006, p. 5).
Psellos’ monastic retreat to Mt. Olympos in 1054 was most likely due to a political motivation, an exile in other words. Later in 1056, he returned to the imperial capital where he served as a court philosopher and tutor. Even though he claims that he was an prepotent figure in court politics, he disappears from view during Emperor Mikhael’s reign (r. 1071-1078). The date of his death is a matter of discussion, but it seems most likely that he died in 1075-1076 (Neville, 2018, p. 137) or sometime after 1081 (Kazhdan, 1991c, p. 1754). Psellos was a brilliant mind, maybe the greatest Byzantine polymathes but also a horrible sycophant. One could only wonder how his narrative would be like if Emperor Romanos IV Diogenes came out as the victor and held the imperial throne.
Under the scope of this thesis, his two works Historia Syntomos and Khronographia will be examined. Historia Syntomos is a short world chronicle with a didactic purpose. The work covers from the rule of Romulus to the reigns of Nikephoros II and Basileios II. The authorship of this work is problematic. Psellos’ authorship has been challenged, but attributing it to someone else would create even more problems (Treadgold, 2013, p. 282). There are stylistic differences between the two works, however, given Historia Syntomos is a brief chronicle and Khronographia is a full-scale history, the differences are natural. The work was probably compiled for the education of Mikhael VII.
Psellos’ literary masterpiece Khronographia begins with the reign of Basileios II in 976 and ends with the reign of Emperor Mikhael VII in 1078. Psellos’s narrative starts from the point where the history of Leon Diakonos ends, but this is also the point where Historia Syntomos ends. The style in Khronographia is vivid and rich in terms of its literary value. His language is lively and artistic, but often unclear and sometimes difficult to interpret. The text consists of seven books following the ancient practice of “dividing the work into books” revived by some Byzantine historians. The text is full of factual errors however Psellos’ purpose aim was to tell what he had witnessed and to court Mikhael VII. He gives rich descriptions of his characters’ physical and emotional states and uses a wide variety of literary, philosophical and rhetorical techniques (Neville, 2018, p. 138). Psellos also gives graphic details when it comes to certain events or natural phenomena, yet essentially his work Khronohgraphia is the story of people. (Hussey, 1935, p. 86).
18
According to Treadgold (2013, p. 271), Psellos was one of the three greatest historians of the Middle Byzantine Period, and an important influence on the other two, Anna Komnene and Niketas Khoniates. However history was not his sole craft, he was a great polymathes well-educated in politics, philosophy, theology, geography, law, rhetoric, and medicine.
Mikhael Attaleiates was another prominent historian of the eleventh century. He was born around 1020 in or near Attaleia (modern Antalya) which explains his surname. He received his secondary education at the University of Konstantinoupolis and studied law in the newly formed law department (Διδασκαλεῖον τῶν Νόμων). From his days in Πανδιδακτήριον, he knew Psellos in person and for a time he became his tutor. Psellos’ influence in Attaleiates’ work can be seen. Attaleiates started his career as a low-ranking lawyer in Konstantinoupolis and later became a member of the senate. With Emperor Romanos IV Diogenes’s (r. 1068-1071) ascension to the imperial throne, Attaleiates entered his circle where he earned his favour. Due to this favour, Emperor Romanos IV asked Attaleiates to accompany him as a military judge during his eastern campaign against the Seljuk Turks, which resulted in the disaster at Mantzikert in 1071. Thanks to this, his depiction of Anatolian physical geography is very vivid and detailed. The precise date of Attaleiates’ death is unknown, however, no records of him exist after 1079, which indicates that he probably died then or thereafter.
In terms of scholarship Attaleiates and his mentor, Psellos were like the two sides of the same coin. Judge Attaleiates cast as a representative of the military aristocracy, their spokesman, while Platonist courtier Psellos cast as a representative of civil bureaucracy, archetypical courtier and a master manipulator in the game of politics. (Krallis, 2012, p. 72) In this context, these two should be read like a dialogue.
Attaleiates’ work Historia covers the years 1034-1079 and is dedicated to Emperor Nikephoros Botaneiates (r. 1078-1081). His work was largely devoted to the last two decades given Attaleiates’ role in the imperial court. Historia is written primarily on the basis of Attaleiates’ firsthand observations, however, the work is less biased and personal than his contemporary Psellos’ work. Less talented than Psellos in exposing the clash of human passions, Attaleiates sought the causes of events (Kazhdan, 1991a, p. 221). The text is written as a single, continuous text rather than being divided into books. The focus of the text shifts geographically from west to east as dictated by the
19
narrative. (Neville, 2018, p. 151). As an acute observer of nature, Attaleiates gives us detailed descriptions of the physical geography of the places he visited during Romanos IV’s expedition. He also describes natural phenomena and tries to interpret them. For these, his work is valuable for this study.
Ioannes Skylitzes was one of the most eminent historians of his era. Despite his fame, all we know about him is based on this own work and some legal documents. He was probably born in Thracesian Theme in Western Anatolia around 1040 and pursued a judicial career and held the high rank of proedros and the high judicial offices of governer (eparkhos) of Konstantinoupolis and commander (drungarios) of the Watch. (Treadgold, 2013, p. 330) He might be the same person as Ioannes Thrakesios who held kouropalates18 and protovestes19 (Neville, 2018, p. 156), his surname also indicates that his family came from his Thracesian Theme. Therefore his law career and the titles he held suggests that he received a good education. Also having a surname indicates that his family was important. Although since he was the only member known in his family we can conclude that he was the only family member who reached this high. The date of Skylitzes’s death is unknown, but he probably lived into the twelfth century and died around 1101.
Skylitzes' work Synopsis Historiarum was probably compiled between 1092 and 1094 after his retirement from drungarios. It covers the events between the years 811 and 1057. He used many of the histories before him and epitomised them. (Treadgold, 2013, p. 334) He also occasionally presents contradictory assumptions with his contemporaries such as Psellos, whom among one of the historians Skylitzes criticises. (Kazhdan, 1991c, p. 1914) Skylitzes Continuatus is the continuation of the Synopsis Historiarum. Its authorship is under debate with some attributing it to Skylitzes and others to another author (Neville, 2018, p. 157). The continuation encompasses the events between 1057 (where Synopsis ends) and 1079. Both Synopsis Historiarum and Skylitzes Continuatus fall under the scope of this master thesis.
18 A prestigious title bestowed to the person who was in the charge of the imperial palace.
19 A title granted to distinct palace officials during the reign of Alexios I Komnenos. For its ambiguous origins see. Kazhdan, 1991c, p. 2162.
20
Almost nothing is known about the life of Georgios Kedrenos. Treagold suggests (2013, pp. 340-341) that he was born around 1050 in Kedros, rose in the ladder of bureaucracy to the ranks of vestarkhes20 and proedros,21 wrote his history around 1115 (possibly in retirement like Skylitzes) and died after 1115. However, his argument is highly hypothetical. Kedrenos was little more than a copyist. Compendium Historiarum begins with Genesis and ends with 1057. His work is mostly based on Logothetes’ and Theophanes’ works and is almost identical with Skylitzes’ regarding the events between 811 and 1057. Chronicles tend to be short works and omit many details. However Kedrenos’ work omits more, even in the Genesis part Kedrenos omitted the details. His work offers little however still falls under the scope of this study.
Nikephoros Bryennios was the most high-ranking historian of his time. House Bryennios was a prominent aristocratic house based in Adrianople, with estates in Thrace and full of successful military commanders and administrators, such as Bryennios’ great-grandfather who defeated the Pechenegs and fought against the Seljuk Turks under Emperor Konstantinos IX and his grandfather, the doux of Bulgaria, who fought well in the disaster at Manzikert and also rebelled against Emperor Mikhael VII (r. (1071-1078). Nikephoros was married to Anna Komnene, daughter of Emperor Alexios Komnenos (r. 1081-1118). So we can say that history writing was a “family business” for them. To be born in an aristocratic family can bring many fortunes and receiving an excellent education is one of them. Nikephoros was born in 1062 or in 1082. (Treadgold, 2013, p. 345; Kazhdan, 1991a, p. 331) Nikephoros received an excellent education. By his marriage to Anna in 1096, he became an influential figure in the Komnenian palace and played important roles in the coming events related to the Crusaders and Seljuk Turks. In 1097 Emperor Alexios granted him the title of Caesar (Καίσαρας). After the death of Emperor Alexios in 1118 Nikephoros refused to play part in the palace conspiracy against Ioannes II Komnenos (r. 1118-1143), in other words, he refused to dethrone his brother-in-law and become
20 A prestigous title occupies a place between magistros and vestes in Byzantine hierarchy. See. Kazhdan, 1991c, p. 2162.
21 A term used both as a civilian title of rank and as an ecclesiastical title. See. ibid. 1727.
21
the emperor. On the contrary, he became friends with the new emperor. During the 1137 Syrian Expedition, he got ill and returned to the imperial capital, where he died.
Nikephoros Bryennios’ work Historiai or Ὕλη Ἱστορίας (Material of History) covers the events of 1057-1079 and is divided into four books. Despite the first date mentioned in the text being 1059, the narrative starts from 1070 with the origins of House Komnenos. Unlike other histories, Historiai does not focus on the reign of emperors but the power struggle between the great houses of the empire, e.g. Bryennoi, Doukoi, Komnenoi (Kazhdan, 1991a, p. 330). He begins his work at the request of his mother-in-law, Empress Irene. His style is brief and simple, abstained from an ostentatious style. His choice for the title also reflects his writing style. His education shows itself in his references to ancient writers. He prefers the ancient nomenclature regarding the place names over the Byzantine one, like his wife. Some chapters in his work bear similarities with Psellos and Skylitzes, who were among Nikephoros’ sources (Neville, 2018, p. 170). Nikephoros never finished his work. The task fell to his wife Anna (Neville, 2012, p. 182).
Anna Komnene was the sole woman historian in the whole Byzantine history and the second-best historian of her era, right after Psellos. Sources about her life are plentiful. She was born on Saturday, 2 December 1083 (Treadgold, 2013, p. 354) in the Purple Chamber of Magnaura as the firstborn of Emperor Alexios I Komnenos. Therefore she was a Πορφυρογέννητη. To be the firstborn of the emperor provided the best education the empire could offer. Anna was educated in almost every field, literature, medicine, philosophy, rhetoric, statecraft, geography, history, mathematics, geometry and astronomy even, which she confesses that she dabbled in it (ποτε ὀλίγον τι τῆς ἐπιστήμης22 ταύτης ἡψάμεθα) and finds it in vain and unchristian. (Ann. Kom. VI.7.1-4) Niketas Khoniates tells that “Kaisarissa Anna, who was passionately devoted to philosophy and who was educated in every field of learning.”23 At first, Anna was betrothed to Konstantinos Doukas but in 1097 she was married to Nikephoros Bryennios. They formed one of the most interesting couples in Byzantine history, an
22 Note that despite she claims astronomy is unchristian she still regards it as ἐπιστήμη, i.e. science.
23 Nik. Khon. I.10.14-16: τῇ καισαρίσσῃ Ἄννῃ συνέζευκτο, ἥτις δὴ τῆς τῶν ἐπιστημῶν πασῶν ἐπόχου φιλοσοφίας ἐδείκνυτο μέλημα καὶ πρὸς πᾶσαν ἐρρύθμιστο μάθησιν.
22
intellectual couple. It is believed that Anna wanted her husband Nikephoros to succeed his father Alexios rather than his brother Ioannes, and therefore to become the empress. However her scheme never succeeded and after her husband’s death in 1137 she retired to monastic life in Kekharitomene Monastery, which was founded by her mother Irene Doukaina.24 During this seclusion, she compiled her masterpiece Aleksias. The exact date of her death is unknown but she probably died around 1150 in seclusion. Anna Komnene was one of the greatest figures in Byzantine history and her work Aleksias was one of the greatest examples of Medieval Greek literature.
Her work Aleksias, covers the reign and the deeds of Emperor Aleksios, as the title suggest. It begins with the reigns of Mikhael VII and Nikephoros Botoneiates and how did Aleksios seize imperial power in this period. The work consists of fifteen books. Anna Komnene’s language and style are like ancient historians who used Attic Greek. She appears to have classicized history writing to make Aleksias more like a heroic epic (Neville, 2018, p. 174). Even the title Alexias recalls Homeros’ Ilias, and an analogy between Odysseus and Aleksios as the helmsman of the imperial state can be found in her work. Her style is rich and full of Homeric vocabulary with many references to ancient authors along with the Holy Bible. There is also a theory that suggests the work actually belongs to Nikephoros Bryennios and Anna Komnene was the mere editor. (Neville, 2012, p. 183) However, this is highly unlikely and does an injustice to Anna Komnene.
Little is known about the life of Ioannes Zonaras. From his works, we knew that he lived and flourished during the reigns of the first three Komnenian emperors (1081-1180), which puts his birthday around 1070.25 He was a protasekretis26 in the imperial chancellery under Emperor Aleksios I (Trapp, 1986, p. 9) and commander of the watch (δρουγγάριος τῆς βίγλης). His surname Zonaras indicates that one of his ancestors might be a belt-maker. However his career and education in Konstantinoupolis suggests otherwise. They were not of aristocratic origins that is for certain. They may
24 The monastery was founded in the early twelveth century and can be located near the sea walls of the quarter of Mangana.
25 Around 1074 according to Treadgold. (The Middle Byzantine Historians, 2013, p. 390)
26 Title granted to the head of asekretis, i.e. imperial secretaries,
23
have been successful Constantinopolitan merchants who managed to enter the imperial bureaucracy. There is a certain Zonaras, assistant to apparently corrupt eparkhos of Konstantinoupolis in 945 (Treadgold, 2013, p. 390). Apart from his chronicle, which we examined in this thesis he also compiled many poems, hagiographies, speeches, commentaries on law. In the light these we can claim that he received a good education. It appears that his literary career started after he retired to Hagia Glykeria Monastery in Koç Adasi in the Sea of Marmara around 1130. His exact date of death is unknown but he probably died after 1159.
Zonaras’ work Epitome Historiarum is an extensive history work from Genesis to the death of Emperor Aleksios in 1118. Although it starts with Genesis, it does not have most of the features associated with the Byzantine chronicle tradition. It uses classical Greek and is relatively secular in outlook (Neville, 2018, p. 191). Most of his narratives are from classical texts, which also shows his skill in Attic Greek. However he is not a mere copyist, instead, he paraphrases his sources. Still which source he used can be understood from his narrative, and thanks to this his history has been used to reconstruct lost books of Cassius Dio’s history, 80 volume work on the history of Ancient Rome.27 Although his literary style, in general plain and not ostentatious, is formal and Atticizing, as should be expected from a well educated imperial bureaucrat who wanted to write elegantly (Treadgold, 2013, p. 392).
Konstantinos Manasses was another eminent Byzantine chronicler of his era. However, he was more a poet than a chronicler (Treadgold, 2013, p. 399). Born around 1125 and died around 1180 Konstantinos was one of the many well-educated Byzantines who were prominent in the cultural life of Komnenian era Konstantinoupolis, enjoying the patronage at the Komnenian court (Yuretich, 2018, p. 1).
His work Synopsis Khronike commissioned by Sebastokratorissa28 Eirene, the sister-in-law of Emperor Manuel I (1140- 1183), is a basic introduction to history from Genesis to end of the reign of Emperor Nikephoros Botoneiates in 1081 (Neville, 2018, p. 200). The text is written in fairly simple fifteen-syllable politikos stikhos form. His
27 ibid.
28 Title granted to the wife of Sebastokrator, title given to emperors’ second-in-command.
24
narrative is very brief, as was expected, and it is clear that he was not interested in geography. However, from his references (from Moirai to Hades, i.e. the Christian Hell) and style mixing Homeric and Attic Greek, we understand that he was well-educated in Classical Greek literature. He mentions some natural phenomena (e.g. earthquakes, hailstorms), but he gives no details neither any explanations (be it divine or logical). Most of his sources were gathered from Kedrenos and Zonaras, as well as Dionysios Halikarnassios and Theophanes. His chronicle will be examined in the third chapter of this thesis.
Mikhael Gylkas was a theologian first and a historian second. He was born around 1130 into a family of no great importance or wealth (Treadgold, 2013, p. 403). He probably came to Konstantinoupolis early enough to receive some of his education there. His education can be seen as unconventional for it included astrology. In any case, his education was well enough to allow him to become an imperial grammatikos (Khazdan, 1991b, p. 855). He fell from favour when was involved in a plot against Emperor Manuel I. He was imprisoned and blinded, however not completely since he could continue his literary activities. He was a deeply religious man and a strong critic of the antiquity and ancient Greek philosophers. He rejected all except Aristoteles. The exact date of his death is unknown but he probably died around 1200.
Glykas’ chronicle, entitled Biblos Khronike, covers the period from Genesis to the death of Emperor Alexios Komnenos in 1118. It presents a highly theological view of human history (Neville, 2018, p. 205). It consists of four books covering history from, 1) Genesis to Adam, 2) Cain and Abel to Iulius Caesar, 3) Caesar to Konstantinos, and 4) Konstantinos to the death of Alexios Komnenos in 1118. His work also has a didactic side for it is dedicated to his son and in some lines, it is like a dialogue between the two. Like other chronicles, his work draws from other sources and is far from being original. His work will be examined throughout this thesis.
Ioannes Kinnamos was a historian who records contemporary events like Anna Komnene and her husband Nikephoros Bryennios (Treadgold, 2013, p. 407). In the prologos of his work, he states that he was born after the death of Emperor Ioannes II Komnenos. (I.1, ed. Bekker p. 4: ὧν ὁ μὲν ἔφθη πρὸ τῆς εἰς τὸν βίον ἡμῶν προόδου τὸ ζῆν ἀπολιπών), which places his birthday short after April 1143. The place of his birth is unknown but it was probably Konstantinoupolis. He received the standard education befitting to imperial bureaucrats, which was the family tradition. Later he
25
served as imperial grammatikos and accompanied Emperor Manuel I Komnenos in his military expeditions. This gave him the chance to be an eyewitness to certain events which he depicts in his work along with the geographical details that fall under our scope. His literary skills are not as bright as Anna Komnene or Niketas Khoniates, for he was just a middle-ranking bureaucrat. Kinnamos’ ultimate fate is unknown. He probably outlived Emperor Andronikos’ downfall and horrible death in 1185 and died shortly after (Brand, 1976, p. 5).
His work Epitome covers the reigns of Emperor Ioannes II Komnenos and Emperor Manuel I Komnenos, i.e. 1118-1176. Kinnamos follows a chronological order instead of providing the precise date of events. His writing is less elegant than some elite Byzantine historians of his era. The sources Kinnamos used are unclear. It is certain most of them have drawn from his own experiences in the court and in campaigns. He probably used oral accounts, enkomia, and a variety of documents. However, he never mentions these (Magdalino, 1993, p. 21). His literary style echoes that of Xenophon, plain and simple. He was well educated in classical texts but he cannot be compared to Anna Komnene or Niketas Khioniates. In common with other Byzantine historians, he disguises his material in an antique garb, especially in the case of nomenclature (Brand, 1976, p. 7). His work will be studied in this thesis and given his position as a companion to Emperor Manuel in military expeditions, his work is valuable.
Eustathios was the Archbishop of Thessalonike, an eyewitness to Norman siege of the city in 1185 and its aftermath. He was primarily a classical scholar, secondarily a religious writer (Treadgold, 2013, p. 417). He was probably born around 1115 in Konstantinoupolis. His family origins are unknown but it is possible that they too had a clerical background. Eustathios received his primary education in Konstantinoupolis and pursued a church career (Neville, 2018, p. 211). He began as a minister in the Hagia Euphemia Church in Konstantinoupolis and later around 1160 served as a deacon for the patriarch. During this time he was a teacher and wrote his famous commentaries on ancient writers. Among them, his commentaries on Ilias, Odysseia and Dionysios Periegetes were the most famous ones. In 1166 he become μαΐστωρ ῥητόρων, i.e. master of rhetoric, an office on teaching rhetoric in the Patriarchal Academy in Konstantinoupolis (Dendrinos & Giarenis, 2021, p. 359). In late 1174 he became the Archbishop of Myra however before his arrival to his new duty, Archbishopric of Thessalonike fell vacant and with the support of both the emperor
26
and patriarch he became the new metropolites of the city, where he witnessed the siege of 1185. During the siege, Eustathios was also captured but later released at the request of a certain Norman count called Alduin29 (Eust. Thess. 135). After his release, his continued to live in Thessalonike until his death in 1196 or 1197.
Eustathios’ work De Capta Thessalonica is an eyewitness account of Norman siege in 1185 and its aftermath, was compiled in 1186 after the siege. His language is Atticizing Greek, with an elegant style but far from being unintelligible. Throughout his lines, one can hear the echoes of classical authors such as Homeros, Hesiodos Aristophanes, Xenophon (Treadgold, 2013, p. 420). He likes to use geographical metaphors in his narrative, which makes it harder to analyse his knowledge of geography. Eustathios and his work also fall under the scope of this thesis, despite his work offers little to this study.
Niketas Khoniates was the third greatest historian and the last representative of his era. Not only he was well-versed in classics, but he also absorbed them so well that he made their literary style his own (Brand, 1976, p. 7). He was born around 1150 in Khoniai (mod. Honaz, Denizli), where he got his surname. He depicts his hometown in his work. Under his brother’s guidance, who was the secretary to the Patriarch Mikhael III (r. 1170-1178), Niketas received a fine literary and legal education in Konstantinoupolis (Treadgold, 2013, p. 424). He was a clever student with a good knowledge of grammar and rhetoric, well-versed in the Bible and Homeros. His first government position was in his twenties as a subordinate of the tax collector for Paphlagonia, an ancient region o of north central Anatolia adjoining the Black Sea.30 He quickly climbed career steps first as an imperial undersecretary, and later as an imperial secretary After that, he was appointed λογοθέτης τοῦ γενικοῦ,31 and held a series of administrative and judicial offices, including the governorship of Philippopolis (mod. Filibe, Bulgaria). Twice he accompanied the army on campaign and reached the peak of his career when he was promoted to λογοθέτης τῶν σεκρέτων32
29 Baudoin in fact, however both Eusthatios and Niketas uses Aldouin.
30 ibid.
31 Treasury secretary.
32 A Komnenian title for an imperial official who oversees all departments related to treasury.
27
around 1190 (Neville, 2018, p. 221). He held this post until he was dismissed by Emperor Aleksios V “Mourtzouphlos” Doukas in 1204. He even made diplomatic contacts with Holy Roman Emperor Friedrich I Barbarossa (r. 1152-1190).33 He was present in Konstantinoupolis when the armies of the Fourth Crusade captured the city, which he vividly describes. With his family first he fled to Selymbria (modern Silivri) and later to the court in Nikaia (mod. İznik), which was formed by the remnants of the Byzantine Empire. He continued to participate in diplomatic duties, albeit not like before. The exact date of his death is unknown but he probably died in 1217 (Kazhdan, 1991a, p. 428). Niketas was one of the greatest figures in Byzantine literature. Even after hundreds of years, we see Niketas in Umberto Eco’s acclaimed novel Baudolino.
Niketas Khoniates’ work Historia begins with the reign of Emperor Ioannes II Komnenos in 1118 and ends shortly after the Sack of Konstantinoupolis in 1204. The work is the most important source about the events of 1118-1206. Although Niketas’ writings are biased (which was typical for an era such as his) nevertheless his work preserves its significance. Like Anna Komnene, Niketas Khoniates’ style is Atticizing Greek with an elegant style. Modern Literature Review
In general, there are no studies that approach the Middle Byzantine history genre from the perspective of the history of science or history of geology, by including whole fields of earth sciences. However, from historical geography to earthquakes many discrete studies can be found. Nevertheless, this lack of study adds importance to this master thesis. We can simply divide modern literature into two groups, with first being the works on geography, historical geography, and the other on natural phenomena, earthquakes, floods, atmospheric phenomena etc.
In historical geography and on the geographical depictions and positionings made by the Byzantine authors, we have benefitted largely from all twelve volumes of “Tabula Imperii Byzantini” (TIB) prepared by die Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. However, the volumes on Balkans along with Macedonia, Crimea, Pontos, Western Asia Minor, Nea Epeiros and Caria are either in preparation or not
33 ibid.
28
even started. Scottish archaeologist Sir William Mitchell Ramsay’s old but gold “The Historical Geography of Asia Minor” (1890) also gives references to many of the sources under the scope of this thesis. French Byzantinist Raymond Janin’s “La Thrace: Études historique et géographique” (1920), “Konstantinoupolis Byzantine, Développement urbain et répertoire topographique” (1964) and “La Géographie ecclésiastique de l'empire byzantine” (1953) also has references to primary sources which we have included to our study and has remarks about the topography. John Haldon’s “The Palgrave Atlas of Byzantine History” (2005) also has a few remarks related to our study.
“Imperial Geographies in Byzantine and Ottoman Space” (2013) under the chief-editorship of Sahar Bazzaz has two essays focusing on the relation between the concept of empire and geography. The first chapter “Constantine VII and the Historical Geography of Empire” written by Paul Magdalino is particularly important to this thesis, as the title suggests it deals with Konstantinos VII, who is under the scope of this thesis. The second chapter Dimiter Angelov's “Asia and Europe Commonly Called East and West” focuses on Byzantine imagination of geography with touch to Byzantine geostrategy. The rest of the book is either irrelevant to our study or related to Ottoman Empire, the successor to Byzantine Empire.
George Leonard Huxley's “Topics in Byzantine Historical Geography” (1982) is a very brief account of Byzantine historical geography. Huxley simply focuses on a few topics and gives some advice for the good of Byzantine historical geography. However, his account on Konstantinos VII de Administrando Imperio is stimulating.
Brill’s “A Companion to Byzantine Science” (2020) has chapters related to our study, Ioannis Telelis’ “Meteorology and Physics in Byzantium”, Anne-Laurence Caudano’s “Astronomy and Astrology” and Inmaculada Pérez Martín’s and Gonzalo Cruz Andreotti’s “Geography” respectively. Although our thesis examines these sciences, the aforementioned chapters are very brief and offer almost nothing relating to our study. It rather gives the general view of that particular science in Byzantium.
The studies on earthquakes are more frequent than the studies on the historical geography of Byzantium. However, almost all of these works focus on the phenomenon itself rather than examining it in the light of the history of science or evaluating the author’s knowledge. “Türkiye ve Civarının Deprem Kataloğu, Milattan
29
Sonra 11 Yılından 1964 Sonuna Kadar” (1967) prepared by Kazım Ergin, Uğur Güçlü and Zeki Uz is such a work. It dates and identifies the earthquakes on a solely geological basis without any reference to sources. J. Antonopoulos’ “Data From Investigation On Seismic Sea Waves Events In The Eastern Mediterranean From 500 to 1000 A.D.” (1980) and “Data From Investigation On Seismic Sea Waves Events In The Eastern Mediterranean From 1000 to 1500 A.D.” (1980) quotes the primary sources when discussing the particular earthquake. Guidoboni’s “Catalogue of Ancient Earthquakes in the Mediterranean Area up to the 10th Century” (1994) and “Catalogue of Earthquakes and Tsunamis in the Mediterranean Area from the 11th to the 15th Century” (2005) is another catalogue with a similar approach. Catalogues quotes the original text, along with the text Guidoboni’s comment and the date detected. Glanville Downey’s “Earthquakes at Konstantinoupolis and Vicinity, Ad 342-1454” dates the earthquakes occurred in a very long span. However, it only focuses on the ones that occurred in and around Konstantinoupolis, and it is like a catalogue. Fr. Venance Grumel’s “La Chronologie” (1958) and Johannes Dück’s “Die Erdbeben von Konstantinopel” (1904) also have similar approaches. Similarly Işın Demirkent’s “Bizans Kaynaklarına Göre IV.-XI. Yüzyıllarda İstanbul’da ve Çevresinde Depremler” (2000) too focuses on earthquakes occurred in Konstantinoupolis and her vicinity. However, her study’s span is shorter. Demirkent’s student Muharrem Kesik also has a similar work titled “İstanbul’da Doğal Afetler (1100-1250)” (2010). Kesik includes other natural disasters as well. However, he does not give references to sources however does not discuss them or their interpretations. Besides, he narrows his research to Konstantinoupolis only, and for a smaller period of time. Ömer Subaşı is another Turkish historian who focuses on natural disasters that occurred in Medieval Anatolia. His work “XI. Yüzyılda Anadolu'da Meydana Gelen Doğal Afetler” (2015) focuses on the descriptions of natural disasters occurred in eleventh century Anatolia. He quotes the sources regarding the natural disaster, yet does not further discuss their interpretations. Only in the beginning Subaşı briefly refers to the general view of Byzantine writers.
Brian Croke’s “Two Early Byzantine Earthquakes and Their Liturgical Commemoration” (1981) concentrates on 14 December 557 and 26 January 447 earthquakes. However, Croke also portrays the general view, which started to change with the Christianization of the Empire, on Byzantine perception of natural
30
phenomena, especially about earthquakes in that regard. His statement, Christian God replacing Poseidon as the earthshaker (Ἐννοσίγαιος) is remarkable (Croke, 1981, p. 123).
Other phenomena such as floods, droughts, storms, hails and other atmospheric phenomena are either examined in climate studies or in environmental studies. Modern studies tend to focus on that particular phenomenon or event and its consequences, besides like the studies on earthquakes they collect data for today’s scientific researchs. However, environmental history focuses on its history as well. Michael McCormick and John Haldon, who is also a leading scholar in Byzantine studies, are the two pioneers in this field. Haldon’s “The Climate and Environment of Byzantine Anatolia: Integrating Science, History, and Archaeology” (2014) is a very important study in this field. The article is a part of a larger interdisciplinary project funded by Princeton University Climate Change and History Research Initiative (CCHRI).
Özlem Kinaş’ master of arts thesis “The Depiction Of Natural Disasters In Middle Byzantine Histories (867-1204)” (2019) has a similar purpose to this study. The thesis also focuses on Middle Byzantine histories and chronicles. However, due to Kinaş’ lack of Greek certain sources were excluded. In addition to that some sources seem unnoticed, exempli gratia Kinaş claims that Symeon Logothetes does not include natural disasters (or other natural phenomena that suits to her thesis’ aim) and therefore is excluded from the thesis (Kinaş, 2019, p. 5). However, Symeon mentions certain thick dust fell from the sky sometime between the years 867-886. (Sym. Mag. 131.23). More importantly, Symeon mentions that the Black Sea and Bosporos froze during the reign of Konstantinos V ‘Kopronymos’ (r. 718-755), and in certain February by the Providence of God (προνοία θεού) this frozen surface splits open, and one of the mountain-like pieces (όροφανή τμήματα) damages the City walls (Sym. Mag. 122.11). There are similar errors as well.
Then again we believe that there is a certain methodological error, for if one’s aim is to analyse Byzantine authors’ perception or knowledge then one should focus on authors rather than the events themselves. Yet Kinaş’s thesis focuses on the events that occurred between 867-1204 and excludes those that happened outside this period of time, even though the author lived in that timeline (Kinaş, 2019, p. 1). Other than these Kinaş’ thesis focuses on plagues, pandemics etc whereas ours excludes these and
31
focuses on all fields of earth sciences in a perspective that fits to the history of science and geology. In addition to histories and chronicles this thesis also includes taktika, therefore in a way focusing on the relation between the art of war and geography. Most importantly all analyses are based on original Greek texts with a philological approach and other methods of the history of science, and geology.
32
33
THE ANALYSIS OF THE TEXTS BETWEEN 867-1056 Theophanes Continuatus
The texts we used for the analysis of Theophanes Continuatus are Bekker’s edition in Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae, vol. 45 (1838) and the two editions prepared by Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae (Series Berolinensis), the one which contains Libri I-IV (2015), and the other which contains Liber V (2012). We have also compared our translation with the translations in CFHB editions. In references to Theophanes Continuatus, classical paginations (e.g., II. 18) refers to the chapters in the Greek text, and the references with pages (e.g., p. 36) refer to Bekker’s editions. This is the same with other texts analysed in this study.
The analysis of the texts is presented here categorically rather than chronologically. Exempli gratia, despite the author’s first depiction being about natural disasters this study will present them in groups, first geographical depictions and then the problem of nomenclatures and terms, interpretation of disasters, natural phenomena etc.
The anonymous authors of Theophanes Continuatus are one of the first authors who mention Diabasis and “locate” it.
Th. Cont. II.18.14-17 (p. 66): …αὖθις ἐπισυναχθεὶς κατά τι πεδίον, Διάβασιν οὕτω καλούμενον, σταδίους ἀπέχον τῆς πόλεως ἱκανοὺς καὶ πρὸς στρατοπεδείαν εὐφυὲς ἔκ τε τῶν φυομένων καὶ ὑδάτων ἐπιρρύτων ὄν, συναθροίζεται.
…once more his forces were rallied in a plain (πεδίον) called Diabasis (Διάβασις) which was at a considerable number of stadion far from the [Imperial] City and which was suitable for an encampment because of its rich natural sources (φυομένων) and water.34
34 The last part can also be read as “because of its natural sources and ‘running’ water source.”
34
The toponym Diabasis literally means passage Διά+βάσις, as in ἀνάβασις (which means going up, both in sense of climbing and going towards the North). The exact location of Diabasis is unknown. According to TIB (Kulzer, 2008, p. 331), the place was a plain in the hinterland of Konstantinoupolis,35 possibly close to Khoirobakkhoi (lit. Pig-Bacchides), a fortress in the hinterland of Konstantinoupolis between the rivers Athyra36 and Melas,37 flowing into the Bay of Büyükçekmece (Athyra Kolpos). Diabasis was probably the vicinity of Bahşayiş, Çatalca and might be identical with Dimylia (Διμυλία, lit. two mills, the name itself indicates two millstones that serve like a terminus, and also a passage). Dimylia was the name of the plain between Fort Khoirobakkhoi and Konstantinoupolis (ibid, p. 334), hence the two millstones. John Haldon considers Diabasis as ἄπληκτον, a rallying point for the imperial army (1999, p. 151). This place is also close to Episkopeia,38 a military fort that was built during the reign of Emperor Iustinianus I and was in active service between the fifth and the seventh centuries. Later Khoirobakkhoi could have replaced this fort. The change of the location may be due to the fact that the river will help the defence of this “passage point.” Therefore, we can argue that this so-called Diabasis also served as a “passage” for the imperial expeditions towards the West. In the light of these, we locate Diabasis in today Bahşayis, Çatalca. Theophanes Continatus’ description above is highly accurate as the author claims this area is full of waters sources and pastures (See fig. 2.1).
35 The reference point we’ve used for Konstantinoupolis is the Million Stone (Μίλλιον, tr. Milyon Taşı) in Sultanahmet.
36 Sazlı Dere.
37 Karasu
38 Ahmediye, Büyükçekmece.
35
Figure 2.1 Diabasis.
Middle-Byzantine authors tended to explain the Conquest of Krete by the Arabs (ca. 824 or 827) with the geography of Iberia. Theophanes Continuatus was among the first to explain so. The narrative is as follows:
Th. Cont. II.21.2-11 (p. 73): ὅθεν ἄρτι δὴ τοῦ κατὰ τὸν Θωμᾶν ἄρξαντος νεωτερισμοῦ, ἐπεὶ ταῦτα ἠκούετο πανταχοῦ, οἱ τὸν ἑσπέριον κόλπον τῆς Ἰβηρίας τῷ Ὠκεανῷ γειτονοῦντες Ἀγαρηνοὶ κατ- οικοῦντες (…), εἰς πλῆθος σωμάτων καὶ εὐθηνίαν τοῦ γένους ἐξηλακότες, τὴν κατ' αὐτοὺς ἑσπέριον πλευρὰν λυπρὰν οὖσαν καὶ μετρίως εὐδαίμονα ὁρῶντες, καὶ λειπομένην μὲν τῆς πρὸς γῆν ἀρετῆς καὶ ἀφθονίας κατὰ πολύ, ἐνδέουσαν δὲ καὶ πρὸς αὐτὸ τοῦτο ἑῷον τῆς Ἰβηρίας καὶ νότιον (οὐ γὰρ ἅπασα πρὸς πᾶσαν γῆς ἀρετὴν ἐπιτηδεία καὶ εὔφορος, ἀλλὰ τὸ τῆς ἑσπερίου πλευρᾶς, ὡς εἴρηται, αὐχμηρόν τε καὶ λυπρότερον τῆς λοιπῆς) καὶ διὰ τοῦτο οὔτε τρέ- φειν δυναμένης αὐτοὺς καὶ διοικεῖν
…the Hagarenes (i.e. the early Arab conquerors) who dwell in the western gulf (κόλπον) of Iberia bordering the Ocean, (…) saw that their western side of the land was poor and moderately prosperous, greatly lacks good and rich land and in this respect, falls short to the east and south of Iberia. For nowhere in Iberia is suitable and fertile for the use of land. However, it is told that the western side is dry and very poor than the rest. Because of this, it can’t feed and sustain them (Hagarenes)…
36
The description of Iberia is similar to Strabon’s (Str. III.1) but a very brief one, which emphasises the land’s poorness to explain why some Hagarenes invaded Krete. We have located the aforementioned gulfs as Lisbon and Vigo. (Şengör, 2021, personal communication). Yet despite Vigo geographically fitting to this description nevertheless it does not fit politically, because in the ninth century Vigo was under Christian control. However, Theophanes Continuatus could be unaware of that fact, ergo we will also take Vigo into consideration.
Strabon indeed portrays Iberia as a poor land in general and the northern part (ἡ δὲ πρόσβορρος) poorest, coldest. (Str. III.1.2) The gulfs mentioned by Strabon lies in the north (today the Gulfs of Lion and Gascony) and in the east (Str. III.1.3). At first in the general overview of Iberia, Strabon mentions no gulfs on the west coast. Yet he indirectly refers to the gulf at Lisbon as the outlet of River Tajo/Tagus (τῆς ἐκβολῆς τοῦ Τάγου ποταμοῦ). However, in Book 3, Chapter 3 he refers to a place as “the gulf near Tagos” (Str. III.3.31 τὸ πρὸς τὸν Τάγον κόλπος ἐστίν). However, it seems Strabon’s gulf of Tagos is in further south (Figure 2.2), for Strabon begins his voyage from Cabo de São Vicente and then he reaches this gulf of Tagos and afterwards he reaches Cape Barbarium (Capo Espichel) and then the outlets of the River Tagos. (αἱ τοῦ Τάγου ἐκβολαὶ). Ergo, these two are different. If the gulf aforementioned in Theophanes Continuatus are the gulfs in the Northwest Iberia (which Strabon also identifies as gulf, esp. the vicinity of Cabo Fisterra see. Str. III. 3.5) then according to Strabon they can’t be poor for he describes that land (the north of Tagus, and the western and the northern coasts) as fertile (Str. III.3.4 η δ᾽ οὖν χώρα περὶ ἧς λέγομεν εὐδαίμων τέ ἐστι). In fact none of the Strabon’s gulfs fits Theophanes Continuatus’ description. Yet Strabon also adds that due to Artabri’s (a Celtic tribe dwells in the vicinity of Capo Fisterra) negligent approach towards the land, the land becomes barren. If our author’s source was Strabon (which seems unlikely) then there was a misreading. Again if it is Polybios (c. 200 – c. 118 BCE) whose work Historiai was known by many Byzantines, his descriptions should be otherwise, for Polybios depicts Iberia as a fertile land especially Lusitania, where Lisbon lies. (Plb. 34.8) In short, our author wrongly depicted the western gulfs of Iberia, for they are fertile contrary to his statement.
On the other hand, there is another possibility. An entire description was made to explain why the Hagarenes under the command of Apokhaps (i.e. Abu Hafs Omar al-
37
Iqritishi) left Iberia to invade Krete. The real reason for Abu Hafs’ invasion was the banishment of citizens of Rabad, who revolted against the al-Hakam I ibn Hisham, Emir of Cordoba (al-Rabad Riot) (Tukin, 1996, p. 86). Most of these exiles became pirates or invaded Krete after their second banishment, this time from Alexandria, Egypt. However, it seems Byzantine authors did not know this, instead they based the reason for the Invasion of Krete on environmental issues.
Figure 2.2 Strabon’s voyage.
Theophanes Continuatus’ narrative on Byzantine-Khazar relations is not only important for political history but also this study. According to him during the reign of Emperor Theophilos I (r. 829-842) Khagan and Pekh of Khazaria sent envoys to the Emperor and demanded the fortress called Sarkel, which they translated as “white dwelling” should be built on the River Tanais (Don River), which separates Pechenegs and Khazarians (Th. Cont. III.28.3-8, p. 122: κατὰ δὲ τὸν αὐτὸν καιρὸν ὅ τε χαγάνος Χαζαρίας καὶ ὁ Πὲχ πρὸς τὸν αὐτοκράτορα Θεόφιλον ἔπεμπον πρεσβευτάς, τὸ κάστρον ὅπερ οὕτω Σάρκελ κατονομάζεται αὐτοῖς κτισθῆναι ἐξαιτούμενοι, ὅπερ ἑρμηνεύεται μὲν Λευκὸν οἴκημα, ἔστι δὲ καὶ κατὰ τὸν Τάναϊν ποταμόν, ὃς τούς τε Πατζινακίτας ἐντεῦθεν καὶ αὐτοὺς διείργει τοὺς Χαζάρους ἐκεῖθεν). In return, Khazars were to cede Khersonesos (presently on the outskirts of Sevastopol on the Crimean Peninsula) and some other Crimean cities to Byzantines. Upon this request, Emperor Theophilos sent Petronas Kamateros to supervise the construction. Petronas arrives at
38
Khersona (a city in the south of present-day Ukranie) and switches ships39 to cross Tanais, where he was to build this fortress. According to Theophanes Continuatus, the terrain lacked stones (ἐπεὶ δὲ λίθων ὁ τόπος ἠπόρει), therefore Petronas in furnaces baked lime (ἄσβεστον)40 from the little pebbles (καχληκων) of the river and clay (πηλόν) from the layers under the earth and he produced bricks (βισαλον) in furnaces. Later Emperor Konstantinos VII Porphyrogennetos repeated this as well, with a slight difference. According to him, (de Adm Imp: 42.29-39) shells (κοχλιδίων) were used for bricks. In the light of modern science, we can argue that both are possible. Pebbles mentioned in Theophanes Continuatus might refer to psammites that have calcium carbonate (CaCO3) like limestone. On the other hand, κοχλίδιον, which is the diminutive form of κόχλος, can also refer to shells of shell-fish, snail etc., which also have CaCO3, and baking them would provide lime. In that case, both accounts can be possible.
Sarkel was situated on the left bank of the lower Tanais River, i.e. Don River, (Figure 2.3). Haldon’s Palgrave Atlas incorrectly places it on the right bank. (Haldon, 2005, p. 65) Theophanes’ description of the terrain is accurate, and it is also true that River Don separated Khazars from Pechenegs. Soviet excavations in Sarkel between 1929-1952 also prove Theophanes and later Byzantine accounts based on Theophanes’ (Artamonov, 1958, pp. 7-84). This is also one of the earliest examples of applied geology (Şengör, 2021, personal communication).
39 According to Theophanes Continuatus, Petronas’ ships were long-ships (μακρὰς νῆας). When he disembarked in Kherson he continued to Tanais on round-built ships (ἐν στρογγύλαις εἰσαγαγὼν ναυσὶ). Theophanes gives no details about this, however the reason might be related to geography.
40 LSJ: ἄσβεστος means unquenchable, inextinguishable from ἄ+σβεστός (quenched, extinguished), and unslaked lime, due to its nature.
39
Figure 2.3 Sarkel.
Locating Anzes/Anzen and Dazemon/Dazemon was a long quest in the field of historical geography. Book 3, Chapter 30 is where Theophanes Continuatus first mentions Anzes and Dazemon. According to Theophanes Continuatus’ narrative, after his defeat in Amorion Caliph Al-Mutasim (r. 833-842) mustered new forces from Babylon, Phoenikia, Koile Syria, Palestine and Lower Libya (ἔκ τε Βαβυλωνίας καὶ Φοινίκης καὶ Κοίλης Συρίας Παλαιστίνης τε καὶ τῆς κάτω Λιβύης) and emerged in Tarsos (κατὰ τὴν Ταρσὸν). The Caliph pushed forward and arrived at Dazemon (Δαζημόνα). In return, Emperor Theophilos mustered his forces and arrived at Anzes (Ἀνζῆς), in the following battle occurred in 838, Imperial Army had lost and the Emperor along with the army fled through Khiliokomon41 (Χιλιοκόκωμον). In this chapter, the author gives no details related to topography. However, his word usage (Babylon, Phoenikia etc.) shows us the ancient nomenclature was still in-use in this period. However, this was not always the case. Exemplia gratia, in III. 39 Theophanes Continuatus refers to Latmos Oros as Latros (Λάτρος). Byzantines widely used Latros instead of its ancient equivalent Latmos.42 The authors also uses the cataracts of River Nile metaphorically when refering to civil wars (II.11.25-27: ἐντεῦθεν οὖν οἱ ἐμφύλιοι
41 Suluova, Amasya. (Talbert, 2000, p. 1231)
42 Beşparmak Mountains in Aydın and Muğla.
40
ἀναρρηγνύμενοι πόλεμοι, καὶ οἷόν τινες Νειλῷοι καταρράκται ἀνοιγόμενοι, οὐχ ὕδατι ἀλλ' αἵματι τὴν γῆν κατεπότιζον.)
Later, in the Book 4, Theophanes Continuatus once again mentions Anzes, with a new foe called Amer (i.e. Emir Omar of Melitene) this time he gives us the description of the terrain.
Th. Cont. IV.24.10-13 (p. 178): καὶ δὴ σταθερᾶς τε μεσημβρίας ἐνούσης καὶ καύματος οὐκ ὀλίγου θάλποντος ἐκ τῆς τοῦ ἡλίου φλογώσεως, κατά τινα ὀρεινὸν ἀναβαίνειν τόπον βιάζονται, Ἀνζῆν οὕτω λεγόμενον, δυσπρόσοδόν τε καὶ τραχέσι λίθοις οὐκ εὔοδον.
When it was high noon and the burning heat from the scorching Sun was high, they were forced to climb a certain mountainous (or hilly, ὀρεινόν)43 place called Anzes (Ἀνζῆς), which was difficult to access and due to jagged stones (τραχέσι λίθοις)44 was not easy to pass.
Later in IV.24.15-16, Theophanes Continuatus adds this to his description “an elevated (ἀνεστηκός) and a high (ὑπέρεχον) place/position (τόπος) preserved them.” (καὶ τὸ τοῦ τόπου ἀνεστηκός τε καὶ ὑπερέχον μικρόν τι τούτους διέσωσεν).45
The exact location of Anzes is unknown. However, by locating Dazemon we can also locate Anzes, at least more or less. According to Ramsay (1890, pp. 329-330), Dazemon/Dazemon was in Tokat and Dazemonis/Dazemonis was Kazova. Belke in
43 ὀρεινός is also used to describe mountainous, hilly regions with “χώρη” Hdt.1.110, cf. 2.34 ; opp. πεδινός, X.Cyr.1.6.43 ; opp. πεδιάς, J.BJ3.3.4 ; “ὀρεινὴν οὖσαν [τὴν Ἀρκαδίαν]” Arist.Mete.351a3 ; “ἡ ὀρεινή” hill-country, Id.HA556a4, al
44 Its like the expression used in a Homeric sense, “λίθος” Hom.Il. 5.308: “…ὦσε δ᾽ ἀπὸ ῥινὸν τρηχὺς λίθος:”
45 According to Featherstone and Signes-Codoñer translation μικρόν used as adverbium (“barely saved them” (2015, p. 255). It is true that in neutrum accusativus of adjectives can be often used adverbially. However adverbial usage of μικρόν might accord with ὑπέρεχον as an adiectivum (Notice that both are neutrum nom. sg.). In that scenario, μικρόν would be related to the description of the “topos” called Anzes (Ἀνζῆς). Also note that ἀπομάχομαι in the first sentence means to fight from a wall (in this aspect from a high ground).
41
TIB 446 locates Dazemon as Dazmana near Turhal, southeast of Amasya (Belke, 1984, pp. 65-66). It was a military assembly point, an aplekta, in Kazovası (Bryer & Winfield, 1985, p. 21; Huxley G. , 1975, p. 87). As ἄπληκτον Kazovası was very suitable for mustering armies, it was also a very advantageous point in terms of defense. For this plain is surrounded by hills and mountains. Genesios describes Anzes as a mountain close to Dazemon as well (Io. Gen. IV. 14.11-13) The description above fits to the geography of that region. Furthermore, what Theophanes Continuatus described as τραχέσι λίθοις could be limestones, which is very common in that region. (Şengör, 2021, personal communication). In the light of these we have located Dazemon and Anzes as follows:
Figure 2.4 Dazemon and Anzes.
In Book IV, Chapter 25 Theophanes Continuatus depicts the Battle of Lalakaon, which fought between the Imperial Army under Petronas and the Arab army of Emir Omar of Melitene (present-day Malatya) in 863, and ended with Byzantine victory. Such depictions are very important for this study, for they give valuable pieces of information about the topography of the battlefield. This is one of these valuable examples:
46 Tabula Imperii Byzantini is not clear in this matter. Because Dazemon and Anzes were in Pontos region and TIB’s volume on Pontos is still in progress.
42
Th. Cont. IV.25.34-36 (p. 181): τούτου ταῖς εὐχαῖς καθοπλισθεὶς κατά τινα τόπον οὕτω λεγόμενον Πόσοντα, φυσικήν τινα ἀσφάλειαν διὰ πετρῶν ἔχοντα καὶ κρημνῶν, τὸν Ἄμερ καταλαμβάνει πανστρατιᾷ. τούτῳ καὶ ποταμὸς παραρρεῖ ἀπὸ τὸ ἀρκτῷον πρὸς τὸ μεσημβρινὸν ἐλαυνόμενος, Λαλακάων ὀνομαζόμενος, καὶ λιβάδιον παράκειται Γῦριν ἀγροικικῇ φωνῇ καλούμενον.
…armed with his prayers and his army he (i.e. General Petronas) came up with Amer at a place called Posonta (Πόσοντα or Πόσων/Πόρσων) which had natural protection through rocks (πετρῶν) and crags (κρημνῶν). Through it flows a river (ποταμός) called Lalakaon (Λαλακάον), which runs from North (ἀρκτῷον) to South (μεσημβρινόν) and beside it lies a spring/meadow (λιβάδιον), called Gyris (Γῦρις/Γύρης) in the rural tongue.
Belke places Poson on a mountain covered with rocks and slopes, about 160 km from Amisos (mod. Samsun), in the border between Paphlagonia and Armeniakon themes (Belke, 1996, p. 262). He also suggests that it was probably on the left bank of Halys (Kızılırmak). However, gives no exact location. Haldon on the other hand suggests the slopes of Deveci Dağı, but he too gives no exact location. (Haldon, 2009, p. 86) Lalakaon’s exact location is debated as well, but the general consensus is that it was probably Şehirmeydanı Çayı near İskipli, Çorum, about 130 kilometres southeast of Samsun (Belke, 1996, p. 247; Haldon, 2009, p. 88). Şehirmeydanı Çayı runs from north to south, in addition, it flows through modern İskilip, which is surrounded by Deveci Dağları by the north and northeast. Theophanes Continuatus’ description perfectly fits to İskilip and Şehirmeydanı Çayı, therefore we can assert that İskilip47 was Poson and Şehirmeydanı Çayı is Lalakaon. Moreover, from the narration, we also understand that the difficult region (bad region according to our author) was at Omar’s north and therefore he turned to the south, where his retreat was about to be cut by the imperial army. (IV.25.60-63: δεῖν ἔκρινε πρὸς μὲν τὸ ἀρκτῷον φυλάττοντας τὴν ἔξοδον αὐτῷ ἐκζητεῖν, ὡς δ' ἥ τε τοῦ τόπου κακία καὶ τῶν ἐκεῖσε ταχθέντων στρατηγῶν εὐανδρία ἀπήντα τοῦτον καὶ διεκώλυεν, ἐπὶ τὸ μεσημβρινὸν ὁρμᾶσθαι
47 Derekarkın at little north could be also a candidate. However, İskilip’s the better choice also due to its position.
43
ἐξεβιάζετο.) This statement also corroborates our assertion. Yet the remaining piece of this puzzle still stands there: Gyris.
Identifying Gyris is harder because the Greek word λιβάδιον used to describe it means both springs, little stream (see. LSJ) and meadow48 (Ger. wiese, see. LBG). TIB identifies Gyris as a meadow. Featherstone and Signes-Codoñer (2015, pp. 257-259) translate it as spring. We believe it is a meadow and the author used it to describe meadows in the south, close to River Halys.
Also in IV.24. 53-57 there is a delicate wordplay on Ποσοντα-Πτώσοντα (means fallen or dead) and Γῦρις (turn). Hence Omar, a typical medieval man, interprets this as a sign, but nevertheless he pursues his agenda to his own demise. This suggests Gyris actually refers to the encirclement of Omar’s army, rather than being an actual toponym. In Skyl. 100 and lo. Zon. III. 397 Gyris and Lalakaon are intertangled, sometimes refers to topos and sometimes to the river. Arabic sources claim another battle ensued in a place called Mardj-al-Uskuf (Bishop’s Meadow) between the Imperial Army and Omar’s Army. However this battle was in Kappadokia region and the imperial army was commanded by Emperor Mikhael, whom the Byzantine sources omit. This was probably a previous battle that resulted with Byzantine Pyrrhic victory. Therefore, Mardj-al-Uskuf and Gyris is entirely different topoi. The reason why Emperor Mikhael III was not mentioned in Byzantine sources was due to damnatio memoriae perpetrated on behalf of Emperor Konstantinos VII Porphyrogennetos. (Huxley G. , 1975, p. 450)
48 Meadow meaning is in Byzantine Greek. In Classical Greek the word means little spring or stream.
44
Figure 2.5 Poson, Lalakaon and Gyris.
Book V of Theophanes Continuatus is full depictions of the geography of eastern Anatolia. The first depiction is about Zapetra or Sozopetra, today Doğanşehir (formerly Viranşehir), 56 km southwest of Melitene (mod. Malatya) in the headwaters of the Sultansuyu (Th. Cont. IV.35). The author describes a raiding party sent by Emperor Basileos to Zapetra during his eastern expedition. According to our author, this raiding party swiftly passed the narrow passages (τα στενὰ τῆς ὁδοῦ) and through these passages, they fell upon the city itself (IV.39.3-6). The Emperor continues towards Melitene, where the author describes there is “plain” (πεδίον) before the city. When Basileios I arrived at the banks (ὄχθαις) of Euphrates, he saw it flooded (πλημμυροῦντα) and overflowed (πελαγίζοντα) in summer season, i.e. ὥρᾳ θέρους, (V.40.1-4: Ἐντεῦθεν ἄρας ὁ βασιλεὺς μετὰ παντὸς στρατοῦ τὴν ὡς ἐπὶ Μελιτηνὴν ἀπάγουσαν διῄει ὁδόν. πρὸς δὲ ταῖς ὄχθαις τοῦ Εὐφράτου γενόμενος, ὡς εἶδεν αὐτὸν ὥρᾳ θέρους πλημμυροῦντα καὶ πελαγίζοντα,...). The author mentions this as if it is an ordinary thing and doesn’t explain or give further details. Note that πελαγίζοντα is used in a classical sense (Hdt.1.184, Str.5.3.12). During this expedition, Theophanes Continuatus gives a valuable description of River Zarnoukh.
Th. Cont. V.39.12-13: “...,ὑπέστρεψαν πρὸς τὸν αὐτοκράτορα ἔτι πρὸς τῷ Ζαρνοὺχ ποταμῷ, ἔνθα τὸ Κεραμίσιον ἐστί,...”
they turned back to the Emperor at the Zarnoukh (Ζαρνούχ) River, where Keramision (Κεραμίσιον) lies…
45
This river name doesn’t seem Greek, for its articulus is declined as dativus while the name itself remains nominativus. A typical feature for non-Greek names. The only mention of Ζαρνούχ in Ancient Greek-Byzantine sources is this very line. Note that the writer mentions crossing Euphrates (τὸν Εὐφράτην περάσαντες) after pillaging Samosata (το Σαμωσάτων εκπορθησαντες) and then returning (ὑπέστρεψαν) to the Emperor near Zarnoukh. Zarnoukh is Beyler Deresi, which rises at Beydağı (at the south of Malatya) and flows into Tohma Çayı (16 km northwest of Malatya). (Hild, 1981, p. 306). The Greek name probably derives from İbn Serâbiyûn Sührâb’ (tenth century) “Kitâbü ʿAcâʾibi’l-eḳālîmi’s-sebʿa” az-Zarnûq.49 The above-mentioned Keramision is modern Altınlı, which lies at 8 km south of Akçadağ (Byzantine Arka), which is at about 35 kilometres SWS of Melitene (Figure 2.6). Also note that Ὰρκα derives from Arabic as well, from Arqa. (ibid, p. 152). Ioannes Skylitzes refers to same river as Ἀτζαρνοὺκ (Bas1. 18. 35: πρὸς τῷ Ἀτζαρνοὺκ ποταμῷ τὴν παρεμβολὴν ἔχοντα). Note the same grammatical feature, articulus is declined as dativus while the name itself remains nominativus. We believe these two “Greek” names are different receptions of İbn Serâbiyûn’s az-Zarnûq. Also, note that in Skylitzes’ narrative Emperor Basil I broke his camp at Atzarnouk and continues towards Melitene. (ἐντεῦθεν ἄρας ὁ βασιλεὺς μετὰ παντὸς τοῦ στρατοῦ τὴν ἐπὶ Μελιτηνὴν ἄγουσαν ὥδευε.) This is very important in terms of the toponym, for two eminent Byzantine historians used Arabic names to identify a river in their geography. This also brings us to this question: Where did they learn Ibn Serâbiyûn’s az-Zarnûq? The question is debatable, and currently it is without an answer.
49 See İbn Serâbiyûn (1926). Kitâbü 'Acâ'ibi'l-ekalîmi's-seb'a, ed. Hans von Mzik, Leipzig.
46
Figure 2.6 River Zarnoukh and its vicinity
Like Diabasis in Konstantinoupolis’ hinterland and Anzes in Dazemon Bathys Ryax, Bathyrryaxe or Bathurruaka is another often-mentioned topos in military campaigns and one with aplekton (a fortified military rally point) features as well.
Th. Cont. V.42.1-5: ἤδη οὖν τοῦ βαρβαρικοῦ στρατεύματος γεγονότος ἐν ἑσπέρας καιρῷ κατὰ τὸν καλούμενον “Βαθυρρύακα καὶ αὐλισμένου κάτω πρὸς τὴν τοῦ ὄρους ὑπώρειαν, τῶν δὲ Ῥωμαϊκῶν στρατηγῶν καταλαβόντων τὰ τούτου μετεωρότερα καὶ τὸ μέλλον ἀποσκοπούντων, ἐμπίπτει τις ἔρις περὶ τῶν πρωτείων καὶ ἅμιλλα τοῖς τῶν δύο θεμάτων στρατιώταις καὶ ταξιάρχαις καὶ λοχαγωγοῖς,...”
Now since the barbarian expedition had already reached to the place called Bathurruaka (Βαθυρρύακα) at evening and set a camp below, at the foot of the mountain (κάτω πρὸς τὴν τοῦ ὄρους ὑπώρειαν) and when the Roman generals governors the mountain’s higher [slopes] (τὰ τούτου μετεωρότερα) and spied above what will happen, ...
The toponym derives from βαρύς+ῥύᾶξ (deep+stream). a common encampment place, an aplekton to be more precise, especially for the Armeniakon Theme before the expeditions towards Tephrike, mod. Divriği, Sivas, (Porph. Mil. 445.10: ὅτε τὰ Ἀρμενιακὰ θέματα ὀφείλουσιν ἀποσωρεύεσθαι εἰς Τεφρικὴν εἰς τὸν βαθὺν Ῥύακα). Ramsay locates it in Sivas, Yenihan due to its proximity to military roads (Ramsay, 1890, p. 266). Note that from Büyükdere to Bithynia there are many places called as
47
Bathyrryaxe. TIB 2 suggests (Hild, 1981, p. 157) it is at the gorge of Kalınırmak, 12 km S of Sivas, Yıldızeli and 28 km WNW of Sebasteia, i.e. Old Sivas (Fig. 2.7). The author continues to describe topos’ military advantage and adds that the Romans (i.e. Byzantines) were well aware of the benefit of the terrain (τόπου), for they would attack from above to the enemy who set a camp on a flat terrain/ground-level (ἐπιπέδῳ) (V.42.18-20: …συννοήσαντες δὲ καὶ τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ τόπου βοήθειαν, ὅτι ἐξ ὑπερδεξίων τοῖς ἐν ἐπιπέδῳ κατηυλισμένοις μέλλουσιν ἐπιτίθεσθαι). Moreover, in V.42.23-25, we see that Byzantines deploy their remaining small number of troops on the higher slopes of the mountain to make the enemy believe that they have a larger force (…τὸ δὲ λοιπὸν τῆς εὐαριθμήτου Ῥωμαϊκῆς στρατιᾶς ἐς δόκησιν πλήθους αὐτοῦ που πρὸς τὰ μετέωρα συσκευ- άσαντες,…). This account is important both in terms of describing the geography of Bathys Ryax and emphasizing the geography-warfare relationship of the Byzantines.
Figure 2.7 Bathys Ryax.
The narrative above continues with the eastern campaign of Emperor Basileios I. In V.48.1-5 it is told that the Emperor crossed the river called Onopniktes and then the River Saros, then reached the Koukousos, where he burned the thickets and by cutting down the trees he made the impassable passable and seized these places for
48
ambushes.50 Koukousos is modern Göksun, in a small plain enclosed on all sides by the AntiTaurus in the headwaters of the Göksun River (Hild, 1981, p. 217). Onopniktes is Zamantı River. The author prefers its Byzantine name Onopniktes over its classical name Karmalas. Theophanes Continuatus’ description is accurate. Morever, he points to certain features of that location, that is its usage for ambushes against the invaders, Arabs mostly.
We see the same topographic features when the imperial army reached Kallipolis and Padasia. Again the authors tell us that the terrain has impassable passages (εἶτα διὰ δυσβάτων ὁδεύων ὁδῶν) the narrow passages (τὰ στενὰ τῆς ὁδοῦ), which the Emperor went through these on foot in order to raise the spirit of his fellow soldiers (V.48.1-6). The route of the imperial army was Koukousos>Kallipolis and Pasadia>Germanikeia>Adata. Locations of Kallipolis and Pasadia is unknown but they must be somewhere between Göksun and Maraş, near Tekir Çayı (Fig. 2.8). The author describes Germanikeia’s (mod. Kahramanmaraş) surroundings as beautiful countryside and the field(s) (πεδίον), which were set ablaze by the Emperor. (V.48.10-12) After recording the assault on Adata, the author quotes Homeros (Hom. Od. III. 196: ὡς ἀγαθὸν καὶ παῖδα καταφθιμένοιο λιπέσθαι). This shows his education of classical texts. However, the quote itself has nothing to do with geography.
50 Th. Cont. V.48.1-5: Μετὰ ταῦτα τοίνυν τὸν Ὀνοπνίκτην λεγόμενον ποταμὸν καὶ τὸν Σαρὸν διαπεράσας ὁ βασιλεὺς μετὰ τοῦ στρατεύματος ἦλθε πρὸς Κουκουσόν, καὶ τὰς ἐκεῖσε λόχμας ἐμπρήσας καὶ τὴν ἄβατον τῇ τῶν δένδρων ἐκτομῇ βατὴν πεποιηκὼς τῶν ἐν ταύταις λόχων ἐκράτησε.
49
Figure 2.8 Koukousos, Kallipolis, Pasadia, Germanikeia, Adata.
In V.70.4-5 the writer mentions Helos city in Lakonia (Ἕλος προσαγορευόμενος, ἀπὸ τῆς περὶ αὐτὸν δασείας καὶ συνηρεφοῦς ὕλης τὸ ὄνομα κληρωσάμενος). He suggests that Helos received its name from its densely wooded and tightly shaded surroundings. However, Helos lit. means meadow or marshland. According to Stephanos Byzantios Helos is named so because it is in a meadow (παρὰ τὸ ἐν ἕλει εἶναι). That being said, we can assert that the writer of the fifth book didn’t know Stephanos.
Theophanes Continuatus is the source of a strange geographical description of the Marmara Sea, which is also repeated by certain Byzantine historians.
Th. Cont. II.20bis. (p. 73): Οὐκ ἔμελλε δὲ ἄχρι τούτων ἡ φορὰ στήσεσθαι τῶν κακῶν, ἀλλὰ τῶν δύο ἠπείρων, Ἀσίας φαμὲν καὶ Εὐρώπης, ἐν θυμῷ κυρίου οἷόν τινος κεφαλῆς καὶ οὐρᾶς, εἰ καὶ μὴ συνίεσαν, παιδευθέντων φόνοις, ἐμπρησμοῖς, σεισμοῖς, ἁρπαγαῖς, ἐμφυλίοις καταδρομαῖς, πόλεων ἀνελπίστοις μεταβολαῖς, σημείοις ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, σημείοις ἐξ ἀέρος, τέλος καὶ ταῖς ταλαιπώροις νήσοις οἷόν τινα μέσην, ἵν' ὁλόσωμος εἴη ἡ πληγή, ἐπέδραμε τὰ δεινά. ἀλλ' οὐκ ἦν παιδεῦσαι τοὺς τὴν θεάνθρωπον ἐξηρνημένους μορφὴν προσκυνεῖν.
However, the movements of enemies were not to cease that way. The two continents are known as Asia and Europe which looks like a head and a tail, even though they did not understand, they were warned by massacres, fires (ἐμπρησμός), earthquakes, raids, civil wars, desperate and unsteady conditions
50
of cities, signs from the Heaven. Finally, the disasters overran the miserable islands, which were like a road between two continents, so the plague affected the whole body. However, it was impossible to warn those who refuse to worship the God-man.51
The earliest reference we could find about this “Asia-Europe head-tail” depiction is the one above. As far as we know this was Theophanes Continuatus’ own geographical identification. This depiction was later copied by some Byzantine historians. See Skylitzes, Mich2.16 and Kedrenos vol 2. p. 91. Skylitzes’ narrative is almost identical with Theophanes’, along with the sequence of events. Kedrenos copied Skylitzes (like most of his chronicle, beginning from the events of the ninth century) and his work is almost identical. The “miserable” islands mentioned above should be the Marmara Islands. However, no records exist of a plague during the reign of Emperor Mikhael II (r. 820-829). This island above-mentioned could be Krete, because the following chapter begins with Thomas the Slav’s Revolt and the Arabian invasion of Krete, which we have quoted above (II. 21.1-3)
Whether the mentioned disasters above were real or just a mere herald of what is about to come (the following chapter is about Hagarane invasion of Krete and the Revolt of Thomas the Slav) remains in shadows. Yet one thing is certain, whether these phenomena really happened or not, for our author they were God-sent to warn disbelievers. In this context, the description and the interpretation are divine, Biblical even. From this point, we can start to evaluate his descriptions and interpretations of natural phenomena.
The author shows a similar approach when describing the disasters that occurred during the reign of Emperor Leon IV Armenias (r. 813-820). He started the second stage of Byzantine Iconoclasm, which the narration below is related to.
I.20.47-53, p. 33: Θεὸς δέ, οἷος τρόπος ἐκείνου οὐ σύντονός τις ἀλλὰ μακρόθυμος, τὴν ῥομφαίαν ἐστίλβου μέν, οὐκ ἠφίει δέ. νῦν μὲν γὰρ αὐτοῖς λοιμοὶ καὶ αὐχμοὶ καὶ διάπυροι ἥλιοι, νῦν δὲ σεισμοὶ καὶ ἀναβρασμοί, καὶ
51 θεανθρωπον= θεός+ἄνθρωπος.
51
ἄλλοτε φλογὸς οἷα κατὰ τοῦ ἀέρος ἀκοντίσεις καὶ ἑτέρωθεν ἐμφύλιοι στάσεις τῶν δεινῶν τὰ ἀκμαιότατα ἐπεσείοντο.
But God, whose way is not a rash but a patient one, gleamed his sword but did not strike it. For now, there are plagues, droughts, blazing hot sunny days and now also earthquakes (σεισμοί) and eruptions (ἀναβρασμοί), and also sometimes fiery darts [that seem like they come] from the air, and on the other hand civil disorder threatened the most extreme dangers.
Again we have an almost Biblical narration, like the ten plagues of Egypt. Theophanes Continuatus gives no details yet he interprets these phenomena as God’s work. According to him, these disasters were God-sent against the Iconoclastic attitude of Emperor Leon V.
Almost all disasters told in Khronographia had divine origins and explained thus. Yet the account of the February 824 Earthquake is one of the two exceptions. According to Theophanes Continuatus’ narrative when Emperor Mikhael II approached to rebel cities of Herakleia (today Marmara Ereğlisi) and Thrace Panion (mod. Barbaros, Tekirdağ) an earthquake occurs, which destroys the Panion’ walls and opens a way for the Imperial Army. (II.20.5-7: πλὴν ταύταις πλησιάσας, τοῦ μὲν σεισμοῦ ἐπιγινομένου καὶ τοῦ τείχους τοῦ Πανίου καταβληθέντος ἡ εἰς αὐτὸ πάροδος ἀκμητὶ γέγονε τῷ Μιχαήλ·) Herakleia resists to the bitter end. Theophanes Continuatus has no explanation or interpretation for this earthquake. He simply records its effects, or at least one of it.
The second exception is about the disasters that occurred during the final years of Emperor Theophilos. Theophanes Continuatus doesn’t give the exact date however he says the month was October, and from the following, we understand that shortly after this record the emperor dies. Therefore the date should be October 841, for the emperor died in January 842.
III.39.19-22, p. 137: ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐχμοὶ καὶ πάλιν χειμῶνες ἐξαίσιοι καὶ ὅλως ἀνωμαλίαι καὶ δυσκρασίαι κατὰ τὸν ἀέρα γινόμεναι ἐκάκουν τὴν γῆν καὶ τοὺς ἐν αὐτῇ, ἐξ ὧν σιτοδεῖαι καὶ λιμοὶ καὶ γῆς ἐκ σεισμῶν ἀνατιναγμοὶ οὐκ ἦν ὅτε μὴ ἐγίνοντο κατὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ ἅπασαν τῆς βασιλείας ἡμέραν.
Also once again droughts, severe winters (χειμῶνες), anomalies and disturbances that occurred everywhere in the air, afflicted the earth and those
52
who [dwell] on it. In this regard, under his reign not a day had passed without famine, hunger and trembling (ἀνατιναγμός) of the earth because of the earthquakes.
Again Theophanes Continuatus once again doesn’t give any explanation or interpretation. “Under his reign, not a day had passed without famine,…” might suggest the authors connects these disasters to Theophilos reign. However, at this point, the text is not strong enough to support this.
Book V, Chapter 48 verses 24-27 witnesses to an odd comparison. The writer tells us about a certain person who made a prophecy about Adata’s conqueror. The author can’t decide whether this person based his knowledge on divine knowledge (θειοτέρας γνώσεως) or scientific method (ἐπιστημονικῆς μεθόδου γινώσκοντος lit. [the knowledge] obtained from a scientific method). In a way, the author acknowledges that there is a possibility outside the divine knowledge. When we compare this with the interpretations above (the ones that belong to the author of the first four books), we can argue that the writers of books I-IV and book V are different persons. Because the Theophanes Continuatus of books I-IV always inclined to explain natural phenomena etc with divinity. On the other Theophanes Continuatus of book V is clearly in doubt here. Moreover, the author of book V has a statement such as “Before the Sun didn’t completely arise from the hemisphere below the Earth” (V.42.30-31: πρὸ τῆς ἕω δέ, οὔπω τοῦ ἡλίου τὸ ὑπὸ γῆν τελείως παραλλάξαντος ἡμισφαίριον,…) This too suggest that the authors are different and might have different backgrounds.52
In Book IV, Chapter 29 Theophanes Continuatus tells about a drought that turned the earth barren when Leon Mathematikos arrives at Thessalonike. According to the author, Leon plants seeds according to certain astrological charts (rising and phases of certain stars) and once again earth becomes fertile. However, he rejects Leon’s role in this and claims that this was accomplished with “God’s help” thanks to the prayers and all. This account is very important for we can see that in Theophanes Continuatus’ eyes there is no room for non-divine explanations. Whether what Leon did is
52 About the authorship of the books see the discussion above in chapter 1.3 primary sources.
53
astronomy or astrology we don’t know. However, in the quote below we can see that Leon was not too far from the occult.
IV.34.6-15, p. 197: τὰ δὲ οἱ συνεχεῖς τῶν σεισμῶν ἐλυμαίνοντό τε καὶ πρὸς τοὔδαφος ἔβαλλον, νῦν μὲν καθ' ἣν ἡ τοῦ κυρίου καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ἀνάληψις ἑορτάζεται, τὸ πρὸς νότον τρίτον τοῦ Ἑξακιονίου πρὸς γῆν ἐδαφίζοντες, ναούς τε εὐπρεπεῖς καὶ οἴκους λαμπρούς, νῦν δὲ στήλας τήν τε κατὰ Χρυσῆν πύλην τῆς πόλεως Νίκην ἐγκαθιδρυμένην τάς τε ἐν τῷ Δευτέρῳ κατὰ τὴν ἁγίαν Ἄνναν στερρῶς ἱσταμένας ἐγκατασείσαντες· ἣν ὁ μαθηματικὸς Λέων καταπεπτωκυῖαν ἰδὼν τὴν τοῦ δευτέρου ἐκ βασιλέως πτῶσιν ἔλεγεν ἐπαπειλεῖν καθαρῶς. μακρὸν εἴη λέγειν ποταμῶν ἀφάνειαν καὶ πηγῶν καὶ ἄλλ' ἄττα παθήματα κατά τε Ἰσαυρίαν καὶ καθ' ἑκάστην χώραν ἐπιγινόμενα.
Continuous earthquakes destroyed and razed to the ground: first, on the day of our Lord and Saviour’s ascension is celebrated, the third column of Hexakionion,53 both beautiful and magnificent temples and houses fell to the ground, and then tore down both the statue of Nike erected at the city’s Golden Gate and the statues at Saint Anna that firmly stand in Deuteron. (Edirnekapı) When Leon Mathematikos saw it fell, he said that it is clearly a threat to the fall of the emperor’s second. It would belong to say the disappearance of rivers and springs (πηγῶν) and all the incidents that occurred both in Isauria and all regions.
The mentioned Emperor’s second is Caesar Bardas, and the ruling Emperor is his nephew Mikhael III (r. 842-887). This phenomenon is interpreted as his downfall which occurred in 866. Then the earthquake must have happened before 866. The earlier chapter mentions Phoitos ascension to the seat of the ecumenical patriarch in 858. Therefore, the date must be between the years 858-866. The ascension of the Lord suggests that the date was 28 May. Guidoboni dates it 28 May 862 (Guidoboni, Comastri, & Traina, 1994, p. 385). Theophanes Continuatus doesn’t give his interpretation, however, he gives Leon’s, which is quite occultish.
53 Hexakionion is today Altı Mermer in Fatih, İstanbul (Millingen, 1899, pp. 20-22).
54
The last phenomena our author accounts for are two solar eclipses. According to his account “after two solar eclipses (ἡλιακῶν ἐκλείψεων) occurred, he (Theoktistos) was chosen as a general against Abasgoi (i.e. Abbasids) and unfortunately he experienced God’s wrath. (IV.39.28-30: γὰρ ἡλιακῶν ποτὲ ἐκλείψεων δύο γεγενημένων, κατὰ τῶν Ἀβασγῶν οὗτος προκριθεὶς στρατηγὸς θεομηνίας ἀπήλαυσε δυστυχῶς·) Despite Theophanes Continuatus’ inclination towards interpreting natural phenomena as divine signs, his account on solar eclipses and its relation to God’s wrath on Theoktistos is ambiguous. Its sole purpose might be pointing at the time of the event. However, on XL.1-3, he relates comets and signs with Bardas’ nightmares which -according to our author- revealed to him the terrible things about to come (assassination attempts against Emperor Mikhael III). Later in 45, he relates the deaths of Theoktistos and Bardas, so we can justly argue that solar eclipses were divine signals, just like the comets.
From what we have presented above we can argue that when it comes to geographical depictions Theophanes was mostly accurate and we can still see the ancient toponyms in his lines. However when it comes to natural phenomena and their explanations. Theophanes Continuatus was a religious man, an iconodule to be sure, who tries to explain nature with Christian God. However, Theophanes Continuatus was not a single author, it is the name for the anonymous authors of these books we have analysed. What we have stated about their knowledge of geography remains, however when it comes to explaining and interpreting natural phenomena. It seems the two authors differ from each other. As we have said the author of books I-IV clearly tries to explain every phenomenon with God. Yet the other author seems in doubt, but there are not enough records about natural phenomena to allow us to make a more accurate analysis of him.54
54 Since we live in an earthquake-prone country as Byzantines did, many earthquakes occurred during the preparation phase of this thesis. One of them occurred when the writing of the referenced chapter had ended in November 17, 2021 at 3.40 pm with 5.2 Mw based on Düzce.
55
Genesios
The Greek text we used for Genesios is “Iosephi Genesii regum libri quattuor” of Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 14, Series Berolinensis (1978). We have also benefited from Kaldellis’ translation entitled “On the Reigns of the Emperors” (1998) and Karl Lachmann’s edition (1834), which has the original Greek text along with Latin translation and apparatus criticus.
Similar to Theophanes Continuatus’ Khronographia the first geographical depiction we have encountered in Genesios’ work is Diabasis.
Io. Gen. II. 8. 2-7: …ὁ τύραννος, ἀλλὰ τοὺς σκεδασθέντας συλλέξας καὶ πρὸς τὴν καλουμένην Διάβασιν <συναθροίσας>, ἅτε δὴ πρὸς τὸ στρατοπεδεῦσαι πάντα οὖσαν ἐπιτηδείαν, διά τε τὴν τῶν ἵππων νομὴν καὶ πρὸς τὴν ἄλλην χρείαν τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἀφθονωτέραν τυγχάνουσαν, ἐκεῖσε σκηνοῦται τῷ τέλματι τοῦ χωρίου θαρρήσας, ἐκεῖθέν τε ὥσπερ ἐξ ἀκροπόλεως, ὄντως τύραννος ὤν, συχνὰς ποιεῖται καταδρομὰς καὶ τὰς πλησιαζούσας πυρπολεῖ κώμας.
The tyrant (i.e. Thomas the Slav) gathered his scattered forces in [a place] called Diabasis, for everything was suitable to encamp there, with both pastures for horses (τὴν τῶν ἵππων νομὴν) and being bounteous (ἀφθονωτέραν) for the other needs of men. The tyrant was confident to set a camp there in the marshes (τῷ τέλματι) of the countryside, as if it is a citadel, really acting like a tyrant he made many raids and put the nearby villages to torch.
Genesios’ description is more detailed compared to Theophanes Continuatus’ (cf. Th. Cont. II.18.14-17). He mentions marshes, which is accurate according to our location for Diabasis. In addition, this depiction reveals how suitable this Diabasis was for an aplekton. Yet the expression ἐκεῖθέν τε ὥσπερ ἐξ ἀκροπόλεως, (as if it is a citadel, an akropolis) suggest that this terrain might lack fortification. On the other hand, this might be a reference to the fortifications Thomas had built.
After this narrative, again as Theophanes Continuatus did, Genesios too continues with the description of Iberia and the account on why the Hagarenes invaded Krete (Io. Gen. II. 10. 1-5). The author, very briefly describes Spain (Ἱσπανία) as not a very prosperous and a fertile land (τὸ μὴ πιοτάτην ὑπάρχειν καὶ εὔφορον) and the Arabs who dwell there go to Apokhaps (Abu Hafs) and tell him to send them to a fertile land (εἰς εὔγειον
56
τόπον). So fertile in fact according to Genesios, Apokhaps describes Krete as a place where milk and honey flow (20-21: ἐν ᾧ γάλακτος καὶ μέλιτός ἐστιν ἀπορρώξ.), clearly a Biblical reference (Exodus 3:8). Then they set sail to Krete, which is a more fertile land than Spain. Genesios doesn’t give us a brief geographical description of Spain like Theophanes Cont. does (II.21.2-11). Again this account shows us how the Byzantines perceive the reasons for the invasion. They were unaware of the true reasons and it seems also unaware of the fact that Arabs first went to Alexandria in Egypt then after their second banishment invaded Krete. Therefore, the depiction is more related to historiography rather than geography. It is true that the island had and still has fertile plateaus, but the depiction of Krete here is an exaggeration.
In III.13 Genesios gives us the etymology story of Tarsos toponym.
III.13. 5-15: διὸ στρατιὰν ἐξ Αἰγύπτου καὶ Παλαιστίνης συλλεξάμενος διάφορον, καὶ πρὸς τὸ Ταρσοῦ τῆς Κίλικος, ἥτις ὠνόμασται τῇ πτώσει Βελλεροφόντου ἐκεῖσε φοιτήσαντος καὶ κατὰ τὸν ταρσὸν πεπονθότος· ἢ Τερσὸς ἀπὸ τοῦ Ταῦρον τὸ ὄρος Τερσίαν κεκλῆσθαι τὸ πρίν, διὰ τὸ πρῶτον ἀνικμωθῆναι αὐτὸ κατακλυσμῷ ἐξυδατωθείσης γῆς· τέρσαι γὰρ τὸ ἀναξηράνθαι λέγεται. ὑπάρχει δὲ αὕτη παράδυτος, τῷ ἐμφανῆ εἶναι τὸν Ταῦρον καὶ τούτου τοῖς γηλόφοις εἴργεσθαι, ταύτης δὲ διὰ μέσου Κύδνον τὸν ποταμὸν ὁδεύοντα εὔφορον χρηματίζειν τὴν χώραν. καὶ μὴν ὑπὸ Ἐριχθονίου κτίσεως ἐτετεύχει, κατεσχέθη δὲ παρὰ Ὀρσάνου ἑνὸς τῶν Τιτάνων καὶ ἐπικτίσεως εἴληχεν. ἦν δὲ πάλαι Κύδνῳ τῷ ποταμῷ νῆσος, ἥτις ὑπ' αὐτοῦ περικλυζομένη εἰς τὴν νῦν θέσιν ἐλήλυθεν.
[Caliph Mutasim] gathered another army from Egypt, Palestina and from Tarsos of Kilikia, it is named after Bellerophontes who fell there and injured [his] ankle (τὸν ταρσὸν). On the other hand, Tersos (Τερσὸς: dry) was formerly called Tersia (Τερσίαν) because of Mount Taurus, for it was first to dry in the flood (αὐτὸ κατακλυσμῷ: the flood at the time of Noah). Because tersai means to dry up. The city lies on the sunken ground. Mount Taurus is seen and it is enclosed by hills (γηλόφοις εἴργεσθαι), River Kydnos55 flows through the middle of the city and makes the countryside fertile. In fact, the city was built
55 Berdan River sometimes referred as Tarsos River.
57
by Erikhthonios, then it was taken and rebuilt by Orsanos, one of the Titans. Once upon a time, the city/there was an island on the River Kydnos, washed by it all around, now it changed to its current place.
The account on Bellerophontes and his ankle is from Dionysios Periegetes 867. The same explanation can be found in Stephanos Byzantios and he attributes it to Dionysos Thrax. About the flood, Diller (1950, p. 246) compares Genesios’ account with that of Prokopios (Aed. V.5.14-20). However, the flood mentioned by Prokopios was the flooding of the River Kydnos during the reign of Emperor Iustinianus and according to him the whole city of Tarsos was submerged then (Aed. V.5.14-20, Arc. 18.40). But the description of Genesios (and of Stephanos Byzantios, who it seems was the source of Genesios) clearly describes the mountains around the city were the first to appear and dry up, ergo this can’t be the flooding of the River Kydnos. Kaldellis suggests (1998, p. 61, fn. 275) that the ultimate source must have been a mythographer describing the original Flood, which seems like a reference to Noah’s Flood. Regarding “sunken ground” the Greek expression παράδυτος is a little ambiguous. LBG translates it as “sunken” (Ger. eingesenkt). However, the only reference for this meaning is this very line we have quoted. On the other hand in Lachman’s CSHB edition (1834, p. 66) Latin translation clearly points that the city lies on a sunken ground (Est autem haec urbs depressa...). We believe this expression may also refer to low grounds in the south of Tarsos (Şengör, 2021, personal communication). Genesios is wrong about the etymology of Tarsos, for the toponym itself has Hittite root, most probably derived from God Tarhunz. However, the minor details he gave about geography is accurate.
Genesios is one of the Byzantine sources, which describe Anzes. He clearly refers to it as a mountain (ὄρος). According to the writer it has inaccessible mountain-passes and firm jagged rocks, which we have stated above can be limestones (Io. Gen. IV. 14. 11-13: …λυσιτελείας ἡγοῦνται σκοπὸν ἀναβεβηκέναι πρός τι ὄρος πέτραις τραχέσιν ἀντίτυπον καὶ παρόδῳ δύσβατον, ὃ Ἀνζῆς κατωνόμασται.). Genesios finds that it is advantageous to climb such a mountain, for military reasons it seems. Moreover, he states that the emperor climbed this mountain to see Caliph’s army (III.14). This helps us furthermore to locate the mountain, for the Arab army came from the southeast direction. See the fig. below.
58
Figure 2.9 The possible location of Anzes and Dazemon.
Genesios mentions Poson as well. He refers to it as Porson (Πόρσων) and tells us that there is a mountain in that location. (Io. Gen. IV. 15) However, he gives no details apart from that mountain as between themes of Paphlagonia and Armeniakon. Yet his statement does not contradict Theophanes Continuatus’ statement. Genesios claims that Petronas climbs the mountain to fight with Omar’s army. In the following battle, Omar fell and remnants of his army retreated by crossing Halys. Since Omar was the Emir of Melitene, his retreating army along with his son, who survived to battle, must have retreated to Melitene. In that case, according to Genesios’ narrative, Porson is on the west bank of Halys. Also, there is no mention of Gyris in Genesios’ account. It appears Gyris has something to do with the encirclement of Omar’s troops. Without Gyris, our author’s only description regarding the battle is that both sides tried to occupy that mountain, which we identify as Deveci Dağı. However, this mountain might be the 811 metres high rock where today Iskilip Fortress lies upon.
When it comes to the explanation and the interpretation of the natural phenomena. Genesios was not as strict as Theophanes Continuatus (or at least the author of the first four books). From his account of the disasters that occurred during the reign of Emperor Leon V we can see that he was hesitant to explain these phenomena with Leon’s iconoclast behaviour.
Io. Gen. I. 22.25-30: δι' ὧν τάχα σεισμοὶ φρικωδέστατοι λοιμοί τε καὶ αὐχμηρίαι καὶ ἐκφλογώσεις ἀέρος, πρὸς τούτοις καὶ ἐμφύλιοι στάσεις κατὰ
59
πόλιν καὶ χώραν πᾶσαν, ἀρχῆθεν τῆς θεομισοῦς βασιλείας αὐτοῦ μέχρι πολλῶν χρόνων διήρκεσαν καὶ αὐτῶν τῶν στοιχείων δυσανασχετούντων οἷον τούτου τοῖς κακουργήμασι.
Perhaps (τάχα) because of these (Emperor Leo’s unchristian rule) earthquakes, horrible plagues, droughts (αὐχμηρίαι) and heat waves (ἐκφλογώσεις ἀέρος) [occurred], besides these [there were] civil revolts both in cities and in the whole countryside. [These things] lasted from the beginning of his godforsaken reign [and continued] for many years, even the very elements (στοιχείων) are greatly annoyed by such crimes of his.
In this narrative, it seems like Genesios was hesitant on the explanation of these disasters, for he uses τάχα, as an adverbium τάχα means both quickly, swiftly and perhaps. The author claims these natural disasters occurred from the beginning of Leon’s reign to its end due to his unchristian behaviour (despite that he admits Leon’s administration was good, although in Genesios’ eyes Leon was an ungodly monster, a τεράστιος. One might argue that τάχα should be translated as quickly, which in fact doesn’t make sense. Even so, in the following sentence, Genesios uses στοιχείων (i.e. elements, nature in Byzantine sense) as if he was giving a reference to the elements we know from Ancient Greek thought. Unlike some other authors who directly and strictly interpreted these phenomena as God-sent, (Like the anonymous author of Theophanes Continuatus Text I)56 we believe that Genesios was not sure that these disasters are the result of Leon’s wrongdoings, but still, he stated that elements are greatly annoyed (στοιχείων δυσανασχετούντων) as if they are living beings. However when we look at II. 3. 3-6, Genesios mentions a passing of a comet during Leon’s reign. The author states that it was interpreted as a sign about Thomas the Slav’s Rebellion (of course like all prophecies in history this was understood after Thomas has rebelled) or about the return of the headless doctrine of heathens (iconoclasm) against Christians (παρεισαγαγόντων κατὰ Χριστιανῶν τὸ ἀκέφαλον δόγμα τῆς στασιώδους αἱρέσεως) for the comet took the form of a headless man (ἀκέφαλον ἀνεπλάσθη ἀνδρός). In this context, Genesios clearly believed that this comet has a
56 This difference, we believe, is another reason which points out that Genesios was not the author of Theophanes Continuatus Text I’s author.
60
divine explanation. Genesios’ source on was not Theophanes Confessor, but this is Georgios the Monk. According to Kaldellis (1998, p. 24), Genesios’ last sentence about the disasters that occurred during the reign of Leon57 also from Georgios. If that is the case then Genesios might not have a genuine opinion after all and simply copied previous authors. However, his account of the February 824 Earthquake suggests otherwise.
In Book II, Chapter 9 verses 1-8, Genesios tells us that Emperor Mikhael II, after putting rebel Thomas to death, pushed forward to capture the remaining rebellious cities. Panion was one of them. The city rejected his terms and refused to lay their arms and surrender. However, an earthquake occurred and destroyed the city walls. From the breaches, the imperial army entered and retook the city. According to Ioseph Genesios this powerful earthquake was a God-sent sign (θεόθεν σημεῖον). He also states that certain σεισμοσκόποι (people who study earthquakes?) interpreted this earthquake as a sign of the fall of rebels (ὃ τοῖς σεισμοσκόποις σημεῖον ἥττης, ὅθεν γεγένηται τοῦτο). Despite their claim, Herakleia refused to bend the knee to the Emperor. Theophanes Continuatus mentioned the same earthquake and the damage it made to Panion (Th. Cont. II.20.5-7). However, in his narrative, there was no explanation or an interpretation. This statement above is probably Genesios’ own opinion, which in a way contradicts his hesitation about the disasters that occurred during Leon’s reign.
Nevertheless, Genesios’s account above has an important point for our study. The word he used, σεισμοσκόπος, for the earthquake examiners, was probably his own invention. It is a unique word, one which can only be found in this text. It certainly is σεισμοῦ+σκοπός (from σκοπέω: look to or into, consider, examine) hence the word means an earthquake examiner. We know nothing of them. However, our guess is that Genesios might be referring to astronomers or astrologers, who were responsible for observing earthquakes according to some of the authors in this thesis (Leo. Takt. Epil. 61), or to people who prepared Σεισμολόγιον. According to Konstantinos VIII Σεισμολόγιον is a book, a catalogue more likely on earthquakes, which a general must
57 ἀρχῆθεν τῆς θεομισοῦς βασιλείας αὐτοῦ μέχρι πολλῶν χρόνων διήρκεσαν καὶ αὐτῶν τῶν στοιχείων δυσανασχετούντων οἷον τούτου τοῖς κακουργήμασι.
61
bring to his military expeditions (Porph. Mil. Text C.200-203). On the other hand, σεισμοσκόποι mentioned in Genesios’ work, were with Emperor Mikhael II in his expedition. They interpreted the earthquake for the Emperor and used it as a military advice. We believe we can assert that the two are related. Furthermore, this book Σεισμολόγιον is the very first reference to the word seismology. The Oxford English Dictionary points to Robert Mallet (1810-1881), the father of seismology and his work “The Earthquake Catalogue of the British Association” (1858) for the coinage of the term, and states to compare it with the Late Greek σεισμολόγιον. It is clear that the word is a Byzantine “invention.”
In III.19.7-9 Genesios also narrates the disaster that occurred during the reign of Emperor Theophilos. He says that every day of Theophilos’ reign bore witness to many stormy winters, hardships, droughts, famines due to “bad temperaments” and also earthquakes and eruptions of the earth (παλμοί τε καὶ ἀναβρασμοὶ γῆς). This is similar to Theophanes Continuatus’ account on the same disasters (Th. Cont. III.39.19-22). He did not explain the disasters that occurred. Yet Genesios seems to have one. ἐκ δυσκρασίας (due to bad temperaments) suggests these disasters were the result of weather phenomena. Ergo, Genesios gives us a rational explanation. Strabo has similar theories on winds (Str. 6.4.1). There is a possibility that Genesios read Strabon. In I. 24.5-658 he mentions Armenos, the eponym who was the ancestors of Armenians according to Strabon (Str. XI.14.12-13). However, this story exists in Stephanos Byzantions as well, like most of Genesios’ references. Therefore, his source could be Stephanos rather than Strabon. Nevertheless, from his narrative and quotes, we can see Genesios was fluent in classical texts, especially in Homeros and also used Psalms to enrich his narrative (II. 13).
In short, according to the aim of our thesis, we can say that Genesios was not interested in giving geographical details in general. The sources he had under his hand had those details, still, he chose not to record them. On the explanation and interpretation of natural phenomena, it is not clear whether his comments were his own or belong to those who Genesios quoted. However, from what we have seen, it can be said that he
58 I. 24.5-6: Ἀρμενίους δέ φασιν ἐξ Ἀρμένου κληθῆναι τοῦ ἀπὸ Ἀρμενίου πόλεως Θετταλίας, ὃς Ἰάσονι συνεστράτευσεν.
62
was inclined to divine explanations. His account on σεισμοσκόποι is very valuable for this study. It seems he was the inventor of this word and from his statement, we can relate these scholars with the officials responsible for the earthquake examination, who were described by taktika authors. Konstantinos VII Porpyhrogennetos
The Greek text we have used for Scholar-Emperor Konstantinos VII is the very edition prepared by Gyula Moravcsik (1967). The same edition also has the English translation made by Romilly James Heald Jenkins, which we have also benefitted by comparing with ours. The edition has the original Greek text on the left-hand page and the English translation on the facing page. We have also benefited from the Russian edition prepared by G. Grigorievich Litavrin; A. Petrovich Novoseltsev (1991), especially from the commentary.
The first region described by Konstantinos is the realm of Pechenegs and Rhos, which he referred to as χώρα μεγάλη, a great realm or a vast country59 (de Adm. Imp. 8.31). According to Konstantinos the Rhos buy oxen, horses and sheep from Pechenegs, for these animals don’t live in their lands. (2.6-8) In summers Pechenegs River Dnieper and pass the seasons there. (8.34-35)
Our scholar-emperor’s account on how the Rhos (Scandinavians, Vikings or Varangians) travelled to Konstantinoupolis via rivers is very important. The entire ninth chapter is devoted to this. In fact, the title of the chapter is “Περὶ τῶν ἀπὸ Ῥωσίας ἐρχομένων Ῥῶς μετὰ τῶν μονοξύλων ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει”.60 According to Konstantinos, the Rhos come from Outer Rhosland or Outer Russia (ἔξω Ῥωσίας). The author doesn’t give any description or any details about the borders. However, he writes that the Rhos come from Novgorod and other Rhos from Smolensk, Chernihiv, Vyshegrad down to the River Dnieper with their monoxyla. (i.e. longships) and gather in Kyiv (= Kiev). This implies that these cities, except Kyiv, are part of ἔξω Ῥωσίας with Novgorod being their capital. In the text, there is no comparison of Outer-Inner
59 So accurate, in fact Soviet patrotic WWII anthem Свяще́нная война́ (lit. Sacred War) refers Russia as страна́ огро́мная literally a vast country in Russian, which is also the second name of the anthem.
60 On the Coming of the Rhos with longships from Rhosland/Russia to Konstantinoupolis.
63
Rhosland, let alone a single mention to Inner Rhosland. However, we can suggest that the lower part centred on Kyiv might be Inner Rhosland according to Konstantinos’ narrative. Note that Byzantine geography accepts Konstantinoupolis as the centre of their geographical-narration (Magdalino, 2013, p. 25).
Before describing Dnieper rapids the Scholar-Emperor mentions the preparation of monoxyla. These longships were prepared by Slav vassals of the Northmen, named Kryvichs and the Lenzanenes and the rest of the Slavonic regions. They construct these longships “in their mountains” during winter (9.10-11: εἰς τὰ ὄρη αὐτῶν κόπτουσι τὰ μονόξυλα ἐν τῷ τοῦ χειμῶνος καιρῷ) and when the spring comes with the melting of the ice they bring them to the neighbouring lakes. From these lakes, which flow into the Dnieper, they arrive in Kyiv, where they sell these ships to the Rhos. This account has two main problems geographically and historically. There are no mountains on the course of Dnieper, therefore Konstantinos is in error. From Vinland to Miklagard, the Northmen were great sailors, navigators, shipbuilders (and pirates obviously); on the other hands native Slavs were not. Ergo, the accuracy of the account on Slavs selling longships to the Northmen is complicated. However, since these Slavs were the vassals of the Northmen, those ships could be their tribute. The Emperor had a very strange source in this matter, in fact, the strangest source in this thesis. We will deal with the issue later.
The rapids do not exist today due to inundation in 1932 to make them a part of the reservoir of the Dnieper Hydroelectric Station (Pospelov, 1993, p. 25). However, they certainly used to lie between Dnipropetrovsk and Zaporizhzhya, which lit. means “beyond the пороги” (translit. porogi) and can be translated as thresholds, barrages or rapids (ibid, p. 26). This chain of rapids and waterfalls were formed by granite ridges running transversely from southwest to northeast (Huxley G. L., 1982, p. 95). The rapids are the outcrops of Ukrainian Crystalline Massif (Androshchuk, 2013, p. 167). We have located these rapids as follows:
64
Figure 2.10 Dnieper rapids.
The first rapid (φραγμὸς)61 they encountered is called Essoupi (Ἐσσουπῆ), which means “Don’t sleep!” (μὴ κοιμᾶσαι) in Russian and Slavonic according to our author. The description of this first φραγμὸς is as follows:
de Adm. Imp. 9. 26-30: ὁ δὲ τούτου φραγμὸς τοσοῦτόν ἐστιν στενός, ὅσον τὸ πλάτος τοῦ τζυκανιστηρίου· μέσον δὲ αὐτοῦ πέτραι εἰσὶ ῥιζιμαῖαι ὑψηλαὶ νησίων δίκην ἀποφαινόμεναι. Πρὸς αὐτὰς οὖν ἐρχόμενον τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ πλημμυροῦν κἀκεῖθεν ἀποκρημνιζόμενον πρὸς τὸ κάτω μέρος ἦχον μέγαν καὶ φόβον ἀποτελεῖ.
The barrage is narrow as width as Tzykanisterion (τζυκανιστήριον)62 In the middle of it are rooted rocks, looking like islands. Against these comes the water, thence well up and dashes to another side, making a great echo and panic.
61 LSJ: fencing in, blocking up, fortification. φραγμός is literally the obstacle which prevented the Rhos from advancing. We know that some of these rapids were waterfalls. However, from Konstantinos’ account his choice of words (again φραγμός) we are sure that these waterfalls were so high or so violent that they were impassable, even for the Northmen.
62 A field for playing the polo-like game known as τζυκάνιον, famous among Byzantine nobility. The game probably has Persian origins (Kazhdan, 1991c, p. 2139). Janin suggests it was a ball-game imported from Persia none other than polo. “un jeu de balle importé de Perse et qui n'est autre que le polo.” (Janin, 1964, p. 119). However, he doesn’t give any lengths. Yet if it was like a stadion it should be around 188 metres. Yet for Dnieper this length is too short.
65
What Konstantinos describes as Russian or the language of the Rhos (Ῥωσιστὶ) is in fact Old Norse language. The Rhos were Scandinavians, Varangians or Vikings, to put it more popularly. Slavonic (Σκλαβηνιστὶ) is Old Slavonic. However, the author sometimes confuses two languages (Entwistle & Morison, 1969, p. 173). The name of the first rapid Essoupi (Ἐσσουπῆ) is the Old Norse63 “Nes uppi” (lit. upper promontory), which is the perfect name for the first barrage. (Blöndal, 2007, p. 9) This rapid matches to the one called Kodak Fortress. It is approx. 330 meters wide and 512-544 meters long and has four waterfalls of approx. 2 meters high. Even in the nineteenth century, this rapid was considered to be one of the two most dangerous rapids on the Dnieper (Androshchuk, 2013, p. 168).
The narrative continues, they follow the river and come to the second fall known as Oulvorsi (Οὐλβορσί) in Russian and Ostrovouniprakh in Slavonic, which means “the Island of Barrage” (τὸ νησίον τοῦ φραγμοῦ). Holmfors in Old Norse means “Island-Waterfall.” This rapid is either associated with Lochanskii fall (Blöndal, 2007, p. 10) or Surskii Rapid (Androshchuk, 2013, p. 168). In that case, 73-102 m long second rapid with two 0.5 m high waterfalls should be at the 7,5 km south of the first barrier.
Once again, they disembark, carry their longships and continue. The third rapid is Gelandri (Γελανδρί), which mean “the Echo/Sound of Barrage” (ἦχος φραγμοῦ) in Slavonic. Gellandi means roaring or shouter in Old Norse, which accords with звонецький (translit. Zvonetskii). Again an impeccable name for a waterfall, for its sound can be heard kilometres away (Blöndal, 2007, p. 10). We can locate this rapid at the east of modern Звонецке. It was 186-217 m long and had four 1.5 m high falls (Androshchuk, 2013, p. 168).
The fourth rapid, known as Aeiphor (Ἀειφόρ) in Russian (which is probably Old Norse Eyforr) and Neasit (Νεασήτ) in Slavonic, for according to the emperor it is called so because pelicans made their nest on the barrage’s stone (διότι φωλεύουσιν οἱ πελεκᾶνοι εἰς τὰ λιθάρια τοῦ φραγμοῦ.) However, no pelican lives in that region. (Blöndal, 2007, p. 10) In that case, Konstantinos is in error there. His source might misinterpreted or mistranslated нєꙗсъιть (неясыть in Mod. Russian, means owl See. Sreznevskii, 1902, p. 239) as a pelican. Eyforr means ever-violent according to
63 For a very detailed etymological discussion on rapids see. (Melin, 2008)
66
Entwistle and Morsion (1969, p. 173). Therefore, Neasit must be the erroneous version of Nenasytets (i.e. insatiable). Today there is a town called Nenasytets on the east bank of River Dnieper. The toponym is probably related to the name of the rapid. Thus, we’ve located this rapid at 4-5 km west of this topos. The rapid is 1000-2500 meters long with 6 meters high twelve waterfalls.
The fifth barrage called Varouphoros (Βαρουφόρος) in Russian and Voulinprach Βουλνηπράχ in Slavonic, because it creates a great lake or a great basin (διότι μεγάλην λίμνην ἀποτελεῖ) (Entwistle & Morison, 1969, p. 174). Again this might be Old Norse Bárufors, which means ‘wave-waterfall’. This rapid is located right at the south of Vovnigi. The sixth one is Russian Leanti (Λεάντι) and Slavonic Veroutzi (Βερούτζη) that is “Boiling of Water” (βράσμα νεροῦ).64 Entwistle and Morsion suggest this name refers to the laughing like sound which the water makes, ergo Hlaejandi, “laughing” in Old Norse (ibid). This rapid can be located about 3,44 kilometres west of Varouphoros.
The seventh barrage, Stroukoun (Στρούκουν) in Russian and Naprezi (Ναπρεζή) in Slavonic means “Little Rapid” (μικρὸς φραγμός), which might indicate that this waterfall is shorter than the rest. On the other hand, Sturukum means “at the rapids” in Old Norse. Old Norse name might be related to fast-flowing current. This last rapid mentioned by the author is located about 2,66 km northeast of Pryvitne.
After these barrages above-mentioned the Rhos pass the Ford Krarion (9.65-66: Καὶ διαβαίνουσιν εἰς τὸ λεγόμενον πέραμα τοῦ Κραρίου), where Chersonites cross to Russia and Pechenegs to Kherson. Ford is wide as the hippodromos65 and from bottom where the depth emerges to top,66 it is measured a bowshot in length (ἔχον τὸ αὐτὸ πέραμα τὸ μὲν πλάτος, ὅσον τοῦ ἱπποδρομίου, τὸ δὲ ὕψος ἀπὸ κάτω ἕως ὅτου προκύπτουσιν ὕφαλοι, ὅσον καὶ φθάζειν σαγίτταν τοῦ τοξεύοντος ἔνθεν ἐκεῖσε.) It appears because due to features of topos Pechenegs come down67 and attack the Rhos
64 Byzantine Greek νερόν (nerón), from Ancient Greek νηρός (fresh, water, wet, damp).
65 τοῦ ἱπποδρομίου the article suggests this is “the” hippodrome. The one in the Konstantinoupolis. Therefore, the measurements are approximately 427 meters by 122 meters. (Grosvenor, 1899, p. 19)
66 or flows to top according to Greek.
67 κατέρχονται suggests Pechenegs move in North to South direction.
67
(9.71-71: Ὅθεν καὶ εἰς τὸν τοιοῦτον τόπον κατέρχονται οἱ Πατζινακῖται, καὶ πολεμοῦσι τοὺς Ῥῶ). Ford Krarion68 must be right before Hagios Gregorios, a narrow pass where the travellers can easily be threatened by Pechenegs. Kičkas passage depicted in seventeenth-century map “Tractus Borysthenis vulgo Dniepr et Niepr Dicti, à Kiovia ufque ad Bouzin, Willem Blaeu” must be this pass (Androshchuk, 2013, p. 171). “Wielka Przeprawa Tatarska” can be clearly seen in the map below (Fig. 2.11). This means “Big Tatarian passage" in Polish.
Figure 2.11 Wielka Przeprawa Tatarska in Tractus Borysthenis vulgo Dniepr et Niepr Dicti, à Kiovia ufque ad Bouzin, Willem Blaeu (detail) (Androshchuk, 2013, p. 171).
After they passed there, they come to an island called Hagios Gregorios, where a great oak lies in the middle used for animal sacrifices. Today the island is located as Khortytsia (Androshchuk, 2013, p. 171). They continue until they reach River Selinas (Σελινάς), hence they sail for four days and reach a lake which forms the mouth of the river (ἕως οὗ καταλάβωσιν εἰς τὴν λίμνην τοῦ ποταμοῦ στόμιον οὖσαν) and on the mouth lies the Island of Hagios Aitherios, which we located as Berezan Island (Fig. 2.12). This river seems to flow to the Black Sea because in the following sentences he mentions that the island lies on a sea (καὶ πρὸς τὴν θάλασσαν κεῖται ἡ νῆσος τοῦ Ἁγίου Αἰθερίου) and from there they can sail to Bulgaria and River Danube. This narrative
68 Jenkins preferred to translate Krarion as Vrar. CSHB edition Latin translation is Crarium, which is faithful to Greek original. For the discussion on πέραμα τοῦ Κραρίου see. Vasmer, M. (1961). Das πέϱαμα του̃ Κϱαϱίου bei Konstantin Porphyrogennetos. Zeitschrift Für Slavische Philologie, 29(2), 379-381.
68
suggests River Selinas is a name for the lower Dnieper River, which begins from Zaporizhzhya and continues towards Berezan Island until it debouches to the Black Sea. One might identify this river with Berezan River, for Berezan Island lies at its mouth. However, it wouldn’t make sense if the Rhos would disembark, move on foot and embark with their ships again. Besides four days travel from for Khortytsia would contradict with it. Moreover, the emperor states that the travellers would be safe from Pecheneg attacks. Any other route on the western bank of Dnieper means approaching the Pecheneg menace. The author indeed describes the mouth of Dnieper later in Chapter 42, as if Selinas and Dnieper are two different rivers. One might propose that as well. Yet we know Konstantinos’ writing style is untidy and full of sudden jumps. (Howard-Johnston, 2007, p. 177). Therefore, this River Selinas must be another name for lower Dnieper.
Figure 2.12 Hagios Aitherios and Nekropyla.
These rapids do not exist today due to inundation in 1932 to make them a part of the reservoir of the Dnieper Hydroelectric Station (Pospelov, 1993, p. 25). However, it is certain that they used to lie between Dnipropetrovsk and Zaporizhzhya, which lit. means “beyond the пороги” (translit. porogi) and can be translated as thresholds, barrages or rapids (ibid, p. 26). This chain of rapids and waterfalls, outcrops of Ukrainian Crystalline Massif (Androshchuk, 2013, p. 167), were formed by granite ridges running transversely from southwest to northeast (Huxley G. L., 1982, p. 95).
69
In 42.29-39, scholar-emperor retells the same story about Sarkel, the city built by Byzantines at River Tanais because the terrain lacks stone and Khazarians lack engineering skills to build it. The same narrative can be found in Th. Cont. III.28.3-8. Moreover, Konstantinos’ source was probably the very account presented by Theophanes Continuatus. However, when Theophanes Cont. claims that Byzantines baked lime from the pebbles (καχληκων) of the river, Konstantinos claims that they used shells (κοχλιδίων) from the river. As we have stated above in p. 37, both accounts can be true.
After a long abruption, Konstantinos’ description of the Dnieper continues in Chapter 42. He narrates that at the mouth of Dnieper is Adara, in there lies a great gulf called Nekropyla (Νεκρόπυλα) where it is completely impossible for someone to pass (42.68-69: κἀκεῖσε κόλπος ἐστὶν μέγας, ὁ λεγόμενος τὰ Νεκρόπυλα, ἐν ᾧ τις διελθεῖν ἀδυνατεῖ παντελῶς.). According to Konstantinos, this place lies at the opposite side of Lake Maeotis, (κόλπος τῆς Μαιώτιδος ἔρχεται ἀντικρὺ) and a ditch dug by the ancients carries the sea (Maeotic) through (ἐν ᾧ καὶ σοῦδαν οἱ παλαιοὶ ποιησάμενοι διεβίβασαν τὴν θάλασσαν) and encloses the all Khersonian land (μέσον ἀποκλείσαντες πᾶσαν τὴν Χερσῶνος γῆν). This “ditch” is the Perekopski Isthmus. The name Νεκρόπυλα probably means the Gate of Death. However, it can be Νεκρόπηλα. Πηλόν means swamp, therefore the name of the place would be “Death Swamps/Bog” which indicates a shallow place in the gulf. Italians called this gulf Golfo de Nigropoli, which might be derived from the Greek name (Tochtasiev, 2012, p. 82). Evliya Çelebi also mentions this place and names it “Ölü Deniz”, describing it as a shallow sea that sinks all who sail on69 (Çelebi, 2007, p. 331). This description also suits Νεκρόπηλα. Strabonic toponym of this place is Karkinites and Tamyrakes (Str. VII. 3. 17-19) even though our author knows Strabon he doesn’t use his nomenclature. We have located this place Karkinit Bay today.
69 Ve bu kal‘a Or kal‘ası demeden murâd oldur ki bu Kırım vilâyeti Karadeniz kenârında yedi yüz yetmiş mîl bir cezîre-i şekl-i müselles vâki‘ olup sağ cânibi taraf-ı garba Ölü denizdir kim Karadenizden girmiş bir sığ deryâdır. Ölü deniz demeden murâd bir gemi yâhûd bir kayık Karadeniz fırtınasıyla bu deryâya düşerlerse aslâ halâs mümkin değildir. Cümle âdemleriyle gemileri gark olup öldüklerinden Ölü deniz derler. Ve kıble cânibi Karadeniz’dir ve şark tarafı [109a] Azak denizidir, Balısıra denizi dahi derler.
70
Konstantinos’ depiction on the region continues, according to his statement “after [Crimean] Bosporus, comes the mouth of Maeotic Lake (Lake Maeotis), everyone calls it sea because it is very big (42.73-75: Καὶ ἀπὸ Βοσπόρου τὸ τῆς Μαιώτιδος λίμνης στόμιόν ἐστιν, ἥτις καὶ θάλασσα διὰ τὸ μέγεθος παρὰ πάντων ὀνομάζεται.) Konstantinos here claims that into this Maeotis runs many rivers. One of them is Dnieper, which lies at its north. (42.75-76: Εἰς δὲ τὴν αὐτὴν Μαιώτιδα θάλασσαν εἰσρέουσιν ποταμοὶ πολλοὶ καὶ μεγάλοι· πρὸς μὲν τὸ ἀρκτῷον αὐτῆς μέρος ὁ Δάναπρις ποταμός,) However, this is wrong and it also contradicts with the author’s later statement. In 42. 86-89 Konstantinos tells us that Tanais (Don) flows from the city of Sarkel to Maeotis. (μέρος τῆς Μαιώτιδος λίμνης εἰσέρχονται πολλοί τινες ποταμοί, ὅ τε Τάναϊς ποταμός, ὁ ἀπὸ τὸ κάστρον Σάρκελ ἐρχόμενος,) Other than this from the Dniester to Dnieper Konstantinos gives a “roughly” accurate depiction of the Black Sea.
The mentioning of naphtha wells in Chapter 53 is one of the highlights of this work. According to what Konstantinos’ reports in 53:494-511, outside Tamatarkha city (mod. Tmutarakan, which is located in the eastern bank of the passage from the Black Sea to the Sea of Azov) there are many naphtha wells (πηγαὶ ὑπάρχουσιν ἄφθαν). In Zikhia (roughly mod. Circassia) there are nine wells, however, oils (ἔλαια)70 are not of the same colour. Some are red, some are yellow and some black. Again, in Zikhia there is a place called Papagi. In Papagi there is a village called Sapaxi, which means dust (κονῐορτός) and another village called Khamoukh. According to Konstantinos, Papagi, Sapaxi and Khamouk are at the distance of one day from the sea without changing horses, and these villages have springs (βρύσις, lit. bubbling up) yielding naphtha. In addition, the following villages have naphtha wells: In Thema Derzene villages Sapikion and Episkopion. In Thema Tiziliapert, below the village of Srechiabarax. Derzene is mod. Tercan, Erzincan. As a thema it also used to cover Erzurum. Villages Sapikion and Episkopion are to be sought in that region. Tiziliapert’s location is unknown. Litavrin and Petrovich suggest (1991, p. 458) that Tiziliapert is the distorted version of Παιπερτε and therefore should be sought at the north of Derzina (Adakale, Siirt?). If we accept their argument then the village
70 ἔλαιον also means olive-oil or in that regard any other oily substance. (LSJ)
71
mentioned should be in that region. Haldon, on the other hand, suggests Ardahan, Çıldır Gölü and the mountainous region betweem Georgia and Turkey for Tiziliapert (Haldon, 2006, p. 305). Also, note that both Tiziliapert and the village in it does not sound Greek. Moreover, they might have Turkish roots. Konstantinos narrative is extremely untidy he jumps from one region to other. The main concern of this account is to point out to naphtha wells, the very source of the ingredients of Greek Fire (Magdalino, 2013, p. 34). Haldon also points to North Caucasian oil-fields as the primary source for oil (Haldon, 2006, p. 305).71 None of the above-mentioned locations is known. We have located Zikhia as a region bordered by Tamatarkha in the west, by Krasnaya Polyana in the east, and by Labara River (mod. Laba River) in the north (Fig. 2.13), roughly the modern Adygea Republic (one of Russia’s ethnic republics located in the North Caucasus). Oddly, Konstantinos does not give the detailed location of villages because as we have stated above these wells were the source for Byzantine’s secret-superweapon, the Greek Fire. In the works of Konstantinos’ contemporary writers there are no references to these villages, and no references in ancient sources as well. Strabon mentions some naphtha wells, however, they were in Babylonia (Str. XVI. 8). It seems his sources on this were the same as the sources on Dnieper rapids and the rest of the region: spies.
Figure 2.13 Tamarkha and Zikhia. 71 This region was also very important in WWII due to its oil sources. Both the Third Reich and the Soviet Union were in need of these oil fields. Without oil, the German Warmachine could not continue its Blitzkrieg.
72
Unlike his contemporaries, Konstantinos, in his account on Iberia quotes some authors from antiquity. E.g., he quotes Artemidoros’ Geographia while describing Iberia: “Within Pyrenes is Iber, a great river flows interior (23.1: Ἐντὸς δὲ Πυρήνης Ἴβηρ τ' ἐστὶ μέγας ποταμὸς φερόμενος ἐνδοτέρω.). This reference is right on the nail (Ἀρτεμίδωρος δὲ ἐν τῇ βʹ τῶν Γεωγραφουμένων). This is also similar to Strabo’s account (III.4) who also cites Artemidoros a lot. However, he gives no other geographical descriptions, even though he quotes others as well, Herodotos, Marcianus, Athenaeus, Aristophanes, Kharax etc. The author focuses on where the name Iberia derived (from River Iber) and on the people who live in Iberia. He gives no geographical details. Also, note that contrary to the other authors of the era Konstantinos does not describe Iberia as a partly poor country. Even though the emperor gives references to ancient sources, Magdalino states that most of his chapters are picked up mainly from contemporary and previous chronicles and, in the case of Iberia, from Stephanos Byzantios (Magdalino, 2013, p. 31). This chapter on Iberia is kinda like the summary of his style in De Administrando Imperio. Even though he knew classical sources and quotes them he still omits geographical details and mainly records ethnographical and etymological data.
Konstantinos account of Dalmatia and what we today know as former Yugoslavian countries might be the most detailed chapters in the whole work in the case of geography. Yet, still, Konstantinos simply counts people, cities, rivers etc. and their etymologies, rather than giving solid geographical information. E.g., in 29.218-220, he gives the equivalent of Ragusa in Roman tongue (i.e. Latin), which according to him derives from λαῦ because the citizens dwell on cliffs (λέγεται ῥωμαϊστὶ ‘ὁ κρημνὸς λαῦ’· ἐκλήθησαν δὲ ἐκ τούτου Λαυσαῖοι, ἤγουν ‘οἱ καθεζόμενοι εἰς τὸν κρημνόν’). However, he gives no details on the region’s topography. Yet, a few details he gave, which we have quoted and translated below, are very solid and accurate. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the only reason he gave descriptive details is that he wanted to prove the etymological origin of that particular city or region.
29.258-261: Ὅτι τὸ κάστρον τὸ Τετραγγούριν νησίον ἐστὶν μικρὸν ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ, ἔχον καὶ τράχηλον ἕως τῆς γῆς στενώτατον δίκην γεφυρίου, ἐν ᾧ διέρχονται οἱ κατοικοῦντες εἰς τὸ αὐτὸ κάστρον. Τετραγγούριν δὲ καλεῖται διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸ μικρὸν δίκην ἀγγουρίου.
73
The city of Tetrangourin is a little island on the sea with a very narrow neck that reaches to land like a bridge, through that the inhabitants crossed to city. It is called Tetrangourin because it’s little shaped like cucumber (διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸ μικρὸν δίκην ἀγγουρίου.)
This is the description of modern Trogir, Crotia (Fig. 2.14) and a very accurate one. In Jenkins translation, “μικρὸν δίκην ἀγγουρίου” is translated as long-shaped like cucumber. In the Greek text, it is μικρὸν (little). However, Jenkins suggest it should be μακρόν (1967, p. 137). Note that the author uses κάστρον from Latin castrum, instead of Greek πόλις. However, it is clear that these places are cities, not fortresses or castles. Konstantinos had no distinction between κάστρον and πόλις.
Figure 2.14 The city of Tetrangourin.
Another etymology-topography related description belongs to the city of Decatera, i.e. modern Kotor, a coastal town in Montenegro.
29.263-271: Ὅτι τὸ κάστρον τῶν Δεκατέρων ἑρμηνεύεται τῇ Ῥωμαίων διαλέκτῳ ‘ἐστενωμένον καὶ πεπνιγμένον’, διότι εἰσέρχεται ἡ θάλασσα ὥσπερ γλῶσσα ἐστενωμένη μέχρι τῶν ιεʹ <ἢ> καὶ κʹ μιλίων, 72 καὶ εἰς τὸ τῆς θαλάσσης
72 15 (ιεʹ) or 20 (κʹ) Byzantine miles. 1 Byzantine mile is around 1437 meters. (Schilbach, 1970, pp. 32-36)
74
συμπλήρωμά ἐστιν τὸ κάστρον. Ἔχει δὲ τὸ τοιοῦτον κάστρον κύκλῳ αὐτοῦ ὄρη ὑψηλά, ὥστε μόνῳ τῷ καλοκαιρίῳ βλέπειν τὸν ἥλιον διὰ τὸ μεσουρανεῖν, τῷ δὲ χειμῶνι οὐδαμῶς.
The city of Decatera means ‘contracted and strangled’ in Roman dialect because the sea enters like a contracted tongue as far as 21 or 28 kilometres and the city is towards this blocking that comes from the sea. This very city has high mountains in a circle of the city, therefore the Sun can only be seen in summer (lit. at good temperatures) because at that time it is in the mid-heaven and in winter none can see it.
The narrative continues with the domed church of St. Tryphon, which has a miraculous healing gift. This church also helps us to locate Decatera as Kotor (Fig. 2.15), for the cathedral is among the city’s famous tourism destinations. The city lies at the southern Bay of Kotor and is encircled by high mountains (Fig. 2.16). Konstantinos description here is extremely accurate. Due to the region’s topography Austrian-Hungarian Empire used Kotor as a naval base (Vego, 1996, p. 51). Ptolemaios mentions the same city as Acruvium (Ptol. Geog. II.15) again the author does not use classical nomenclature. ‘ἐστενωμένον καὶ πεπνιγμένον’ seems like a reference, but there is no such reference neither in ancient nor among Byzantine authors. Konstantinos’ expression about the movement of Sun shows that he had knowledge of astronomy. In LSJ μεσουρανέω means to be in mid-heaven or be in the meridian, (Arist. Mete. 373b13).
75
Figure 2.15 Decatera "ἐστενωμένον καὶ πεπνιγμένον."
Figure 2.16 Kotor's topography.
Konstantinos’ narration of the region continues in Chapter 30 with Dalmatia. According to his depiction, the islands neighbouring Dalenos, that are Meleta, Kourkoura, Bratza and Pharos are the fairest and fertile, with forsaken cities and olive trees (30.110-111). Dalenos’ location is far from the sea and its inhabitants work the land for a living. (ἡ δὲ τοῦ Δαλενοῦ μήκοθέν ἐστιν τῆς θαλάσσης, καὶ ἐκ τῆς ἐργασίας ζῶσι τῆς γῆς). Chapter 30 gives the political borders of Dalmatia (or as the author claims the story/διήγησις of Dalmatia) in general. However, it is more like the history
76
of the inhabitants and the location of cities and some rivers. Borders are described according to old Roman provinciae, with some Latin names. No detailed geographical description was given. The mentioned region is called which the author locates between the River Orontios and River Zentine, which we have located as Neretva River and Cetina River (Fig. 2.17). Strangely, Konstantinos used Orontios for the river for, in the sources he used, the river was identified as Νάρων, from Latin Naro, Nareta. This points wandering off from classical nomenclature. Byzantine sources identify this region as Pagani, Pagania, from παγανός, due to its pagan inhabitants. Again Konstantinos depiction is very accurate. Even today the region is famous for its olive trees. The entire chapter looks like a draft which will be elaborated on later (Živković, 2012, p. 40).
Figure 2.17 Dalmatian cities. Rivers marked with red indicators show the region's boundaries.
In his descriptions of Zakhlumia and Kanali, again we can see his etymology-topography related description. In 33.10-15: He begins with etymology, tells us that Zakhlumia means “behind the mountain” (ὀπίσω τοῦ βουνοῦ) in Slavonic because there is a great mountain with two cities on top of it called Bona and Khlum, ‘behind the mountain’ lies a river called Bona (good in Latin). Zakhlumia must be “Za+Khlum+ia” the topos behind Khlum. Therefore, the name directly refers to Mt. Hum in Bosnia. We have located Bona as River Buna, a tributary of Neretva (Fig. 2.18). Buna also gives its name to the town which lies at its mouth. Thus, this must be the Bona city, our author mentioned. Khlum is either Rodoc or Mostar, both lies at its outskirts. As for Kanali, we see the same approach. Konstantinos begins by explaining
77
the meaning of Kanali: according to him it is flat land and it means waggon-load (ἁμαξία) in Slavonic, because the land is so flat (ἐπίπεδον) that they can carry all labour with wagons (34.15-18). According to him the land of Terbouniotes (a Slavic tribe centred in today Trebinje) and Kanalites are the same. Hence, Kanali might be at the plains around Trebinje (Fig. 2.19). Another candidate is Gruda which lie about 20 km further south. In both cases Konstantinos’ depiction is accurate.
Figure 2.18 Khlum and Bona.
Figure 2.19 The possible location of Kanali.
The remaining few geographical descriptions are scattered in chapters. In 21.5 Konstantinos states that Arabs (Μαρδαῗται in the text, prob. refers to the party of Muawiyah) conquered Lebanon and became the master of her summits (καὶ ἐχειρώσαντο τὰς τοῦ Λιβάνου περιωπάς). This indicates that Lebanon is depicted as a mountainous region, which is accurate. Another one is in Chapter 46, where he
78
describes the countryside of Ardanoutzin73 (which was a key city in Caucasian Iberia, modern Ardanuç in Artvin) as very fertile and wide (46.46-47: Ἡ δὲ χώρα τοῦ κάστρου Ἀρδα- νουτζίου, ἤτοι τὸ Ἀρζῦν ἐστιν καὶ πολλὴ καὶ εὔφορος), and situates the city as a big commercial centre between Trapezous, Iberia, Armenia, Abasgia and even Syria. This is one of the exceptional depictions without giving any etymological account and simply pointing to the town’s defensive, strategic value and its importance in the region’s commercial network along with its rich agricultural hinterland (Magdalino, 2013, p. 36).
His description of Pentadaktylos Mountain in Peloponnesos is also among the few descriptions he made. And again a very accurate one.
50.16-21: Καὶ ἐπειδὴ ὄρος ἐστὶν ἐκεῖσε μέγα καὶ ὑψηλότατον, καλούμενον Πενταδάκτυλος, καὶ εἰσέρχεται ὥσπερ τράχηλος εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν ἕως πολλοῦ διαστήματος, διὰ δὲ τὸ εἶναι τὸν τόπον δύσκολον κατῴκησαν εἰς τὰς πλευρὰς τοῦ αὐτοῦ ὄρους, ἐν μὲν τῷ ἑνὶ μέρει οἱ Μηλιγγοί, ἐν δὲ τῷ ἑτέρῳ μέρει οἱ Ἐζερῖται.
And there is a great and very high mountain there [in Peloponnesus], called Pentadaktylos (Πενταδάκτυλος, lit. five-fingered), which runs like a neck with long apertures towards the sea. Since the terrain is difficult, [they, the invader Slavs] settled to the both sides of the mountain, on one side Milingoi and the other Ezeritai.
In antiquity, Pentadaktylos Mountains (Fig. 2.20) were known as Mount Taygetos, which is one of the first-mentioned landscapes in Greek literature (See. Hom. Od. VI.103). Byzantines prefered the name Pentadaktylos, which is based on the mountain’s physical description, over Taygetos, which derives from nymphe Taygete. In antiquity, this mountain was also known as the place Spartans practised “infant exposure”, the first eugenic practice in the history of mankind. (Plut. Lyc. 16.1) The above-mentioned Slavic tribe Ezeritai in all probability settled in Helos, located at the eastern side of the mountain. Therefore, Milingoi must be located somewhere on western slopes. Maina, a city in Peloponnesus, is another depiction in the region.
73 Note that Konstantinos also refers to city as Ἀρζῦν (Arzyn) which is probably Georgian.
79
According to Konstantinos (50.76-77), it is a waterless and an unproductive74 place (ἄνυδρος καὶ ἀπρόσοδος), but it has olives. The exact place can’t be located, still, it must be a city in the Mani Peninsula that is the continuation of the Taygetos mountain range. However, the description is correct: Due to its karstic topography the region suffers from aridity (Şengör, 2021, personal communication).
Figure 2.20 Pentadaktylos Mountains and its vicinity.
In short, Konstantinos Porphyrogennetos’ work mainly focuses on ethnography and the history, genealogy of the particular nation under the scope. In general, most of the geographical depictions are nothing more than the lists of city and region names. Very few details are given in regard to topography, and they are mostly related to ethnography and etymology. Konstantinos has no interest to give geographical details unless it helps him to confirm the toponym’s root. However, a few details he gave are very accurate. Even though he knew classical sources the nomenclature he used was a contemporary one. Apart from what we have presented above, the fact that he defines ancient Pannonia (roughly mod. Hungary) with toponym Turkey (Τουρκία), proves this argument. Moreover, it also proves Konstantinos inclination towards ethnocentric depiction. As we have stated in chapter 1 we know that Konstantinos was a very learned prince, who spent his years in the archives and libraries of Konstantinoupolis. Yet his sources on the Dnieper were more elaborate than the works of classical authors or the chronicles of his contemporaries. We believe his geographical depiction,
74 Can also be read as inaccessible.
80
especially the one about the Dnieper and its vicinity, was based on the reports of a Byzantine spy network, which we also know from this era’s military manuals (Androshchuk, 2013, p. 167; Magdalino, 2013, p. 33). E.g., in Chapter 6 he mentions a certain imperial official75 who was sent to the land of Pechenegs for such a mission. It is known that the aim of Byzantine spies or to be more precisely ἀληθεῖς κατάσκοποι76 was to gather accurate intelligence (Koutrakou, 2015, p. 53), as was expected from any spy in any age, and from Konstantinos’ depictions, we understand that Byzantine intelligence77 did a good job. Middle Byzantine hagiography is full of monks or priests who are “falsely” arrested as spies. (ibid. p. 54) Psellos’ unnamed monk friend had firsthand knowledge of Syria and could inform him on matters in the East as an informant. Then again, Princess Olga’s visit to Konstantinoupolis might also have an effect on Konstantinos’ depictions (Androshchuk, 2013, p. 174). Moreover, his choice of words for describing topoi seems to have no classification. Exempli gratia, it seems there is no difference between πόλις and κάστρον. Konstantinos and his account hold a valuable place in this study given the relationship between geography and espionage. Ioannes Kaminiates
The Greek text used for the analysis of Ioannes Kaminiates' work is a Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae edition prepared by Gertrude Böhlig (1973). We have also benefited from the English translation made by David Frendo and Athanasios Fotiou based on the text of Böhlig’s edition (2000).
75 Konstantinos simply identify this person with adiectivum “βασιλικός” without giving any nomen that accords with this adiectivum. (7.1) Jenkins translated this as imperial agent, which makes sense. However, agent sounds too Cold Warish, (1967, p. 55) even though ancient Romans have agentes in rebus for espionage. We too agree that this imperial official was a spy, an imperial spy.
76 Lit. real spies. Probably to distinct professionals from the informants etc.
77 Like a modern state, Byzantine Empire tried to solve matters with diplomacy and espionage. Military action was the last resort. From σκρίνιον τῶν βαρβάρων (lit. Barbarian Desk, which served in a way like British Foreign Office) to imperial postal service, Byzantine Empire had many offices for intelligence collection. (Dvornik, 1974, p. 121)
81
As can be expected from a text written about Thessalonike by someone living in Thessalonike the information given is long and detailed. Therefore, we did not give the quoted long Greek text along with our translation. Instead, we deemed it is better to quote the Greek text in our narration. In Chapter 4 Ioannes starts to describe the city and its vicinity. He begins by emphasizing its fortifications and continues with the description of the Thermaikos Gulf (Θερμαϊκός Κόλπος) and city’s harbour. However, he does not give the name of the gulf. According to Kaminiates “the city has a gulf stretched from the sea at the south, which washed away from all sides, and the ships across the world can sail easily into it (4.1.3-6: θαλάσσιον ἔχουσα κόλπον ἐκ νότου καθηπλωμένον, ᾧ καὶ περικλυζομένη τὴν ἐκ πλαγίου πλευρὰν ταῖς ἁπανταχόθεν εἰσρεούσαις ὁλκάσιν εὐεπίβατον τὴν πρὸς αὐτὴν πορείαν παρέχεται). Also, he states that the city’s “marvellous” harbour is a safe haven from the waves of the sea and from the winds and stormy weather. Moreover, he defines the gulf as round and with a very deep sea-bed (4.8.2-3: ὁ δὲ κόλπος ἐστὶ περιφερής, τὸ κύτος ἔχων διὰ πλείστου βάθους χωροῦν). Ioannes also mentions a certain isthmus which the locals called ἐκβολῆς’. According to him, thanks to this ἐκβολῆς’ that stretches to sea like an elbow and cuts the gulf from the sea (4.5.3-5: διὰ τὸ πόρρω που τοῖς ὕδασιν ἐκβεβλῆσθαι), in a way becomes a strait opposite to the shore, which makes the gulf second harbour.
After describing the Gulf of Thermaikos (without giving any toponym) Kaminiates moves on to describe the city’s surroundings. Seemingly, the description order of Kaminiates is based on directions. First, he begins by describing the south of the city (ch. 4). After this he moves on to describe the north of the city. Ch. 5 begins with “Enough of the southern side of the city, its north is extremely jagged and impossible to pass. (5.1.1-2: Ἀλλ' ἐν τούτοις τὸ κατὰ νότον μέρος τῆς πόλεως, τὸ πρὸς βορρᾶν δὲ ὡς λίαν τραχὺ καὶ δύσβατον.) In the same chapter, he also describes the city’s eastern side. In Ch. 6 he moves on to describe what lies at city’s west (6.1.1-3: Ἀλλ' ἱκανῶς ἐν τούτοις τά τε πρὸς ἀνατολὴν καὶ βορρᾶν τῆς πόλεως, ἔτι γε μὴν καὶ τὰ πρὸς νότον διαγραψάμενοι τὴν πρὸς δύσιν αὐτῆς τοῦ χώρου θέσιν κατὰ τὸ δυνατὸν ἱστορήσωμεν.). Again Kaminiates does not give the name of the mountain, which is plainly Mt. Khortiatis. According to him, the mountain range condescends over the city with its overhanging ridges. Thanks to the mountain, significant portion of the city lie on high ground. When one part of it is even and suitable for the citizens, the other extends into the elevated ground and to mountain peaks. Moreover, Kaminiates claims
82
that this mountain range is very useful for the city’s defence. In fact, due to its structure and its impassable nature, the enemy can’t traverse it to attack the city. Besides, the mountain offers a great spot for an observation post. Kaminiates explains Mt. Khortiatis’ impassable structure due to its rising78 aloft in an easterly direction in a ragged formation of ridges and gullies/ravines (5.4.1 τὸ δ' ἐντεῦθεν ἀνατείνεται μέχρι πολλοῦ τὸ ὄρος καὶ ὑπερίδρυται, τοῖς λόφοις καὶ ταῖς χαράδραις ἐντραχυνόμενον, (τὴν μεσαιτάτην ἀνατολὴν ἀφορῶν,) and adds that the more it extends easterly the more it moves away from the lowland areas forming its adjoining slopes on each side (ἀλλ' ὅσον διήκει τὴν πρὸς ἀνατολὴν ἐπειγόμενον, τοσοῦτον τὰ ἐκ πλαγίου ἐφ' ἑκατέρου μέρους ὑποκείμενα διαφεύγει τῆς γῆς.). In the next sentence, Kaminiates identifies these lowland plains which lies on the two sides of the mountain as the southern and the northern one. This expanse of lowlands offers all necessities for the citizens. He claims the southern and the eastern plains are astonishingly beautiful. They have huge trees, colourful gardens,79 copious water supply from spring and rivers which rise from the mountain thickets80 (5.7.1-3: κεκόσμηται γὰρ δένδρεσιν ἀμφιλαφέσι, παραδείσοις ποι- κίλοις, ὕδασιν ἀπείροις, τοῖς μὲν πηγαίοις, τοῖς δὲ ποταμίοις, οἷς αἱ λόχμαι τοῦ ὄρους τῷ πεδίῳ χαρίζονται). According to his description, the rivers and springs rise from mountain thickets, which is wrong.
Afterwards, Kaminiates states that “on the left side of the mountain there is [another] plain (5.10-11: τὸ δὲ κατὰ λαιὰν πλευρὰν τοῦ ὄρους πεδίον ἐστὶ). This is the perfect line to understand Kaminiates’ geography. In Byzantine geography, as we have said, narrations were made according to the Konstantinoupolis-centred view. Since this text is only about Thessalonike, one might think that the centre is the very city itself. Yet, it is not. In fact, the view is based on the position of Kaminiates himself. In this line what Kaminiates describe as the left is not the west of the city, it is, in fact, the north of the city. Because, in this description, Kaminiates is facing east therefore, what he meant by the left is the north of Thessalonike. Thus, the plains he described as “spreads to a great length” (τεταμένον εἰς μῆκος πολύ) and “extends to another range of
78 in fact ἀνατείνεται extending and soaring. (LSJ)
79 Note that the word used for garden is παράδεισος, which also means Garden of Eden.
80 lit. mountain thickets bestow rivers and spring to plains.
83
mountains” (εὐρύνεται δὲ μέχρις ἄλλων ὀρέων) must be the plains, which lies between Mt. Khortiatis and Besalica/Kerkini Mountains. Moreover, Ioannes mentions two large lakes in these plains, which occupy most of the plain and offer some necessities, esp. fish. (5.10.3-5: οὗτινος ἐν μέσῳ πελαγίζονται δύο τινὲς εὐρεῖαι λίμναι, τὸ πλεῖστον τούτου διακατέχουσαι καί τινα μεγάλην καὶ αὖται συνεισφέρουσαι χρείαν). We have located these as Lake Koroneia and Lake Volvi today. According to his statement, these lakes are so copious that they can compete with the sea. (5.12.1-2: οἷον φιλονεικοῦσιν αἱ λίμναι ταῖς τούτων ἐπιδόσεσι πρὸς τὴν θάλασσαν).
In Chapter 6, the western surroundings of Thessalonike are depicted (Fig. 2.21). Kaminiates states that there is another plain, the one starts at the ἐκβολῆς he mentioned in Ch. 4, follows the mountain on the right and the sea on the left (6.2: ἔστιν ἕτερον πεδίον, ἀπ' αὐτοῦ τοῦ τείχους τῆς Ἐκβολῆς ἀπαρχόμενον, τῇ δεξιᾷ τοῦ ὄρους ἁπτόμενον, τῇ λαιᾷ δὲ τῇ θαλάσσῃ συνομοροῦν). Note that the right and left again. This the author is facing west, therefore what he meant by right is the north and by left it is the south. His narrative continues with the depiction of the plain. He states that the plain extends inland in the direction of the Sunsets, until it reaches another range of high mountains. (6.5.1-3: διήκει δὲ τὴν ἡλίου δύσιν ἀποσκοποῦν, ἕως τινῶν ἄλλων ὀρέων ὑψηλῶν καὶ μεγάλων παρατεινόμενον), where according to him a city called Berrhoia is situated. Again, Kaminiates does not give the name of the mountain, however from his description it is clear that the aforementioned “range of high mountains” are Mt. Vermio, which was known as Bermios (Str. VII. 26: Ὅτι ἡ Βέροια πόλις ἐν ταῖς ὑπωρείαις κεῖται τοῦ Βερμίου ὄρους.) in antiquity. about 65 km west of Thessalonike. Other than depicting them as high mountains, Kaminiates gives no further details. After this depiction, the author states he feels sorry for such a long description, but he feels nostalgic towards his hometown (7.1-2: πεποίηκε δὲ τοῦτο ὁ περὶ τὴν πατρίδα πόθος, ἡδέως τῇ τε μνήμῃ συνεφελκόμενος).
84
Figure 2.21 Thessalonike and its vicinity according to Kaminiates.
After the fall of the city to Saracens, Kaminiates became a pow. As their prisoner, he was brought to Tarsos. During his “voyage” in Ch. 67 he was brought to an island called Diadromoi, which he described as follows:
67.5-9: εὑρέθημεν εἴς τινα τόπον Διαδρόμους παρὰ τῶν ναυτιλλομένων ὀνομαζόμενον, δύο μὲν ἔχοντα νήσους ἀμφιμήκεις ἐξ ἐναντίας ἀλλήλων, μέσον δὲ τούτων ποταμοῦ δίκην τὴν θάλασσαν παραθέου- σαν καὶ τὰς νήσους ὡς ἀπὸ σταδίου καὶ μόνον ἐξ ἀλλήλων διείργουσαν.
We found a place called Diadromoi by the sailors. It consists of two elongated81 islands opposite to each other (parallel) with the sea running between them like a river and separating them about one stadion apart from each other
The described island is modern Alonnisos Island (Tr. Kırlangıç Adası) (Koder, Hild, & Hunger, 1976, p. 147). The toponym probably derives from δία+δρόμοι (ships or paths), therefore the name either means ship passage or simply passage.
In the next chapter, Kaminiates describes the conditions he and his fellow prisoners are in. On one occasion at Patmos Island, when he describes the foul water they have to drink to stay alive, for according to his statement the island had no water (68.2: ἀνύδρου γὰρ ὄντος τοῦ τόπου ἐληΐζετο τοὺς αἰχμαλώτους ἡ δίψα.). To drink this “water” they have to hold their nose first for the smell of the water was so foul puff,
81 LBG: ἀμφιμήκης: elongated, longitudinal (Ger. länglich). A Medieval Greek word, only reference is to this line.
85
that according to our author even the very nature would grieve, even at the mere sight of it (68.4.3-4: τῆς φύσεως ἀνιωμένης καὶ εἰ μόνον ἀπιδεῖν ἠβουλήθη τοῦτο).
In Ch. 23 Kaminiates describes a wind that helps the approaching invaders, his description is as follows:
23.4-5: καὶ γὰρ κατά τινα σύμβασιν ἔτυχε τῷ καιρῷ τούτῳ κατ' οὐρὰν αὐταῖς ἐπεις- φρήσας ἄνεμος, ὡς τοῖς πολλοῖς δοκεῖν μηδ' ἐφ' ὑδάτων ἀλλὰ δι' ἀέρος μεταρσίους κομίζεσθαι. Ἰούλιος γὰρ ἤγετο, καθὼς εἴρηται, μήν, ὅτε καὶ πλέον τῶν ἄλλων ἡμερῶν ὁ τῇδε διακόλπιος ἐπεισέρχεται ἄνεμος, ἐκ τῶν ἐξοχῶν τοῦ τῆς Ἑλλάδος Ὀλύμπου τὴν ἀρχὴν ἔχων, καὶ μέχρις ἐνάτης ὥρας ἀπὸ πρωΐθεν ἐφ' ἑκάστης τῶν θερινῶν ἡμερῶν συνεισπίπτων τῇ πόλει καὶ τὸν ἀέρα διαφορῶν.
It happened at the time that the ships were driven by a tailwind in such a way as to it seemed that they were not advancing on the water but floating in the air. For it was the month of July, as has been told, a time of year when the wind that blows through the [Thermaikos] Gulf is at its most high, blowing from the slopes of Olympos Mountain in Hellas. Each summer day, from dawn to the ninth hour, it falls upon the city and causes a breeze.
According to Kaminiates this winds help the Arab fleet (23.6: ἐκεῖνον οὖν εὑρηκότες συνεργὸν οἱ πολέμιοι, ἔτι τῆς ἡμέρας ἐν ἀρχαῖς οὔσης, ἐγγύθεν προσέρρηξαν). However, what he stated above, contradicts our modern knowledge of meteorology. The wind that blows from the slopes of Mt. Olympos should be the west wind, Zephyros, as the ancients called. This wind blows during the hot summer months only in the late afternoon or early evening hours, not in the morning and early afternoon, as Kaminiates stated. More importantly, this wind that blows from the west would not have helped the Arab fleet, rather it would push them towards to east, to Khalkidiki. Therefore, in this account Kaminiates is wrong. If there really was a wind that helped Arabs it could not be the west wind. According to Frendo and Fotiou (2000, p. 166) no wind fits to Kaminiates’ description.
In Ch. 77 Kaminiates mentions a ship about to sink around Krete. However, according to him, God made a storm, a gentle breeze that soothes the waves and saves those about to sink. His narrative is clearly Biblical, as his explanation.
86
Being a fellow citizen of Thessalonike and a learned Byzantine, Kaminiates geographical descriptions are highly accurate. He focuses on physical geography and in general, does not give toponyms, yet his depictions are intertwined with geomorphology and general geography. Contrary to Konstantinoupolis-centred geographical view, Kaminiates presents a geographical narrative, which he was the centre of it. The directions he gave were related to the side he faced. This is a particular example. His knowledge of meteorology seems to fail, however. Moreover, the only natural disaster he told in his work is explained and interpreted by a Biblical approach. Symeon Logothetes
The Greek text we used for Symeon is the CFHB edition edited by Wahlgren Staffan (2006). We have also compared with Bekker’s CSHB edition (1842), yet his edition is destitute. It omits the most and the beginning of Genesis and directly starts with the exile of Adam and Eve. Besides, his text is unreliable. Bekker’s edition starts with Τοίνυν ἐκ τῶν εἰρημένων ἐννοεῖν (according to his pagination that is 3.1) The same line corresponds to 19.1 in Staffan’s edition (Έστι τοίνυν εκ των είρημένων έννοεΐν) along with his English translation (2019). Therefore, we used Staffan’s edition but nonetheless compared his Greek text with that of Bekker’s.
As a typical world chronicle, Symeon’s text begins with a Genesis narrative. However, his narrative has a little “Hellenic” touch concerning the elements.
1.1: συνυπέστη δε τη γη τό τε ύδωρ και το πῦρ· και τούτο τεκμήριον εναργές το έκ λίθου μέν καί σιδήρου όντων έκ γής πυρ άφθονον έξάλλεσθαι, έκ πηγών τε και φρεάτων82 ύδωρ ττλούσιον άναδίδοσθαι. ταύτης γαρ έκ μή όντων υπόστασης δήλον ότι καί τα έν αυτή.
Both water and fire came into existence at the same time as the earth. And a clear proof of this is that bounteous fire comes out from stone and iron, which are from earth, and that water pours richly from springs and wells. For since [earth] came into being from non-existing substances, so it is clear with that which is in it (i.e. earth).
82 φρέαρ: Any artificial water source, e.g. reservoir, cistern, tank. (LSJ)
87
This could be an incorporation of Greek thought into Genesis. The incorporation of Greek mythology was a common feature in Byzantine historiography. E.g., in Ch. 28 of this text, Symeon states that in Sem’s (i.e. Shem, שֵׁם ) tribe there appeared a man of the race of giants, named Kronos after the errant star (i.e. planet) by his father (28.2 έκ δε τής φυλής τοΰ Σήμ άνεφάνη άνθρωπος γιγαντογενής ονομασθείς υπό τοΰ πατρός Κρόνος εις έπώνυμον τοΰ πλανήτου αστέρος). According to him, Kronos was the first to rule over the Assyrians (ός πρώτος κατέδειξεν άρχειν και βασιλεύειν Άσσυρίων). This line also shows this basic knowledge in astronomy. His narrative continues by describing the first day of the so-called Creation.
1.2: πάντα ουν γέγονε κατά τήν τοῦ θεοῦ βούλησιν. επειδή δε δίκην σκηνής ó ουρανός περιταθείς τον έναπολειφθέντα τόπον έσκότισεν, είπεν ό θεός· γενηθήτω φώς·
Thus everything was done according to God’s will. But since heaven was like a tent and was stretched around the rest of the world and darkened it, God said: “Let there be light.”
In this passage, Symeon likens heaven (ουρανός) with a tent (σκηνής). In this regard, we believe by tent he meant “the holy tabernacle” (σκηνὰς ἐς ἱεράς). It is possible that this is a reference to Kosmas Indikopleustes. His narrative continues, in Ch. 5 he briefly mentions the creation of the Sun, the Moon and the stars without any details. Manasses, another world chronicler we analysed in this thesis offers a different narration and details (Man. 113-141).
In chapters 29 and 30 Symeon describes the allotting of certain topoi to Noah’s sons, Cham and Japheth respectively.
29.1-2: Τω δέ Χάμ, τω δευτέρω υΐω τού Νώε, έλαχον χώραι κατ' όνομα αϊδε· Αίγυπτος, Αιθιοπία ή βλέπουσα κατά Ινδούς, έτερα Αιθιοπία, όθεν εκπορεύεται ό των Αιθιόπων ποταμός, 'Ερυθρά ή βλέπουσα κατά ανατολάς, θηβα'ίς, Λιβύη ή παρεκτείνουσα μέχρι Κυρήνης, Μαρμαρίς, Σύρτις, Λιβύη ή άπό Ποταμέως παρεκτείνουσα μέχρις άκρας Σύρτεως, Νουμμηδία, Μασσυρίς, Μαυριτανία παρεκτείνουσα μέχρις Ήρακλεωτικών Στηλών κατέναντι Γαδείρων. έχει δέ έν τοις κατά βορράν τα παρά θάλασσαν Κιλικίαν, Παμφυλίαν, Πισιδίαν, Μυσίαν, Λυκαονίαν,. Φρυγίαν, Καμαλίαν, Λυκίαν, Καρίαν, Λυδίαν, Μυσίαν άλλην, Τρωάδα, Αίολίδα, Βιθυνίαν, την άρχαίαν
88
Φρυγίαν. έχει δέ και νήσους Σαρδανίαν, Κρήτην, Κύπρον και ποταμόν Γηών, τον καλούμενον Νεΐλον.
To Kham, (i.e. Ham/ חָם ) Noah’s second son, the lands named as follows were assigned: Egypt, Ethiopia (the part which looks towards India), the other Ethiopia (from which the river of the Ethiopians flows out), Erythra (which stretches towards the East), Thebais, Libya (as far as Kyrene), Marmaris, Syrtis, Libya (the part stretching from the Delta [of Nile] as far as the end of Syrtis), Numidia, Massyris, Mauritania (which stretches as far as to the Pillars of Herakles, opposite Gadeira). He has those that in the north, along the sea, Kilikia, Pamphylia, Pisidia, Mysia, Lykaonia, Phrygia, Kamalia, Lykia, Karia, Lydia, the other Mysia, Troas, Aiolis, Bithynia, the old Phrygia. He also has the islands of Sardinia, Krete and Kypros, and the River Geon, called the Nile.
From the toponyms here we can see Symeon’s knowledge of classical geography. His identification Gihon with Nile could be a reference to Iosephos who identify Gihon with the River Nile (J. AJ 1.39: Γηὼν δὲ διὰ τῆς Αἰγύπτου ῥέων δηλοῖ τὸν ἀπὸ τῆς ἐναντίας ἀναδιδόμενον ἡμῖν, ὃν δὴ Νεῖλον Ἕλληνες προσαγορεύουσιν.) It seems in this depiction the centre is Egypt, for the lands in Anatolia are described at the north. Again we see the integration of the knowledge of Greek geography into Genesis.
30.2: είσίν δε αΰτώ καί νήσοι αΐδε· Βρεττανία, Σικελία, Εΰβοια,'Ρόδος, Χίος, Λέσβος, Κύθηρα, Ζάκυνθος, Κεφαληνία, 'Ιθάκη, Κέρκυρα καί αϊ Κυκλάδες καί μέρος τι τής 'Ασίας ή καλούμενη 'Ιωνία, ποταμός δέ έστιν έν τοις αύτοΰ μέρεσιν Τίγρις ó διορίζων μεταξύ Μηδίας καί Βαβυλώνος.
To him (i.e. Yapet, יֶפֶת ) belong also the following islands: Britain, Sicily, Euboia, Rhodes, Khios, Lesbos, Kythera, Zakynthos, Kephalonia, Ithaka, Korfu and the Kyklades, and the part of Asia, which is called Ionia. The River Tigris, which divides Media from Babylonia, is in his territories as well.
Strangely enough, Symeon mentions Britannia among the islands of the Mediterranean. Yet, one would also expect to see semi-mythical Thule. There is no mention of Thule, however, and he should have known it.
Other than those mentioned above, Symeon offers nothing related to geography. However, this is expected from a world chronicle, which offers little detail, let alone
89
the ones related to geography. Yet his chronicle offers two weather phenomena. One of them is very detailed.
122.11: έφ' ου χρόνου γέγονε χειμών καί ψύχος μέγα καί πικρότατον, ώστε καί την άρκτώαν τού Πόντου θάλασσαν επί μίλια εκατόν άπολιθωθήναι και έπί πήχεις τριάκοντα το βάθος τού πελάγους παγήναι, ούπερ χιονισθέντος ηύξήθη έπ' άλλας κ' πήχεις, ώστε συμμορφωθήναι τήν θάλασσαν τή ξηρά καί πεζοπορεΐσθαι ϋπερθεν του κρύους ύπό αγρίων τε καί ήμερων ζώων. τω δέ τῷ δὲ Φεβρουαρίῳ μηνὶ προνοίᾳ θεοῦ τού τοιούτου πελάγους εις πλείστα και όροφανή τμήματα διαιρεθέντος καί τή των άνεμων βία έπί το Ιερόν κατενεχθέντων ούτως δια τοΰ Στενού έπί τήν πόλιν έφθασαν κάκεΐθεν μέχρι των νήσων καί 'Αβύδου πάσαν τήν παράλιον έπλήρωσαν έχοντα καί ζώα διάφορα προσπεπηγμένα. διό πας ό βουλόμενος άπό Σοφιανών είς τον άγιον Μάμαντα καί εϊς τήν πόλιν καί πάλιν εις Χρυσόπολιν ώς δια ξηράς διεπέρων βαδίζοντες, έκ δε των μεγάλων εκείνων τμημάτων εν τω τείχει τής πόλεως προσραγέν έκ τών θεμελίων έδόνησε συν των ενδοθεν πλησίων οικημάτων όπερ διαιρεθέν εις τρία άπό των Μαγγάνων εως του Βοοσφοριου τήν πόλιν περικύκλωσαν υπερείχε πολύ τω ΰψει τα τείχη, καί ταΰτα θεωροΰντες οΐ τής πόλεως έθρήνουν απαρηγόρητα.
At this time a winter storm came, and there was such a great, bitter cold that the northern sea of the Pontos became hard as stone for a distance of a hundred miles. The Sea froze to a depth of thirty cubits. When it snowed upon this, the surface piled up for twenty cubits more. Thus, the sea took the shape of dry land, wild and tamed animals could walk over the ice/snow. In the month of February, through the Providence of God, this sea was split into many mountainous pieces and, by the force of the winds, it was brought down to the Hieron and then through the Stenon (i.e. Bosporos) to the City, (i.e. Konstantinoupolis) and from there it reached the islands (prob. Marmara Islands) and came to Abydos. It filled all the coast, along with the different kinds of animals, which were stuck in it. Because of this, anyone who wished to, could pass on foot, from Sophianai (Çengelköy) to Hagios Mamas (mod. Ortaköy) and into the City, and from there to Khrysopolis, as if it is a land. One of these large pieces [of mountain-like ice] crashed into the City wall, which was destroyed from its foundations together with the nearby buildings inside.
90
Also, when this piece was split into three, it surrounded the City from Mangana to Bosphorion and reached much higher than the walls. On seeing this, the inhabitants of the City bewailed bitterly.
From his narrative, we understand that this phenomenon occurred in 762 during the reign of Konstantinos V ‘Kopronymos’ (dung-named), who reigned between 718-755. Symeon’s description is very detailed however it is not his own. His source was Theophanes the Confessor (1963, p. 434). Moreover, he omits some details. Theophanes claims that from Zikhia to the Danube the Black Sea froze, which is an exaggeration. Symeon has no explanation or interpretation for this phenomenon. Even though he claims the frozen sea was split due to the Providence of God (προνοία θεού), he makes no further comment. Moreover, the same phenomenon was also repeated by Glykas (1836, p. 527), Kedrenos (II. 11.20), and Georgios the Monk (1978, p. 758). At this juncture, it would be proper to assert that Glykas and Kedrenos, both authors who are under the scope of the thesis, offers nothing new related to this thesis. Moreover, their works were mere copies of what was previously written in terms of historiography as well. This assessment will be repeated in their respective chapters. The recorded phenomenon above, was in fact the result of the third cold period which extended from the eighth to the thirteenth century, during which the Bosporus and even parts of the Black Sea were repeatedly frozen, and floating ice masses entered the Sea of Marmara (Yavuz, Akçar, & Schlüchter, 2007, pp. 643-644).
Another weather phenomenon described by Symeon is as follows:
131.23: ἔπεσε δὲ τότε κόνις ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ κατενεχθεῖσα ἐπὶ τοὺς κεράμους αἱματώδης πλήρης. καὶ πολλοὶ εὕρισκον λίθους ἐν ταῖς ὁδοῖς ἢ κήποις ἐρυθροῖς ὡς αἷμα.
At this time thick dust with the colour of blood fell from the sky and down upon the roof tiles, and many people found stones red as blood in the streets and in gardens.
Again Symeon has no explanation or interpretation. The phenomenon above-mentioned is known as Blood Rain or Red Rain in the modern scientific community. The red colour of the rains probably comes from dust. In this context, the thick dust with the colour of blood could be Saharan dust. The date is sometime between 867-886. We found the same account in Georgios the Monk (1978, p. 824) as well.
91
Due to the nature of his work Symeon offers little for this thesis. However, his geography holds an important point in this study for the incorporation of Greek knowledge with Christian thought. Moreover, the two weather phenomena he described are also important. Yet, they are mere copies from other authors.
92
Leon Diakonos
The Greek text we used is Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae edition prepared by the French Byzantinist Charles Benoît Hase (1828). We have also benefited from the translation made by Alice-Mary Talbot and Denis Sullivan (2005).83
The first depiction given by Leon is about his hometown, Kaloe (Fig. 2.22). According to him, his birthplace Kaloe (today Kiraz, İzmir) was a very beautiful village in Asia, situated on the slopes of Mt. Tmolos (Boz Dağ) near the source of River Kaystros (Küçük Menderes), which after flowing throughout the Kelbianon region and offering a most pleasant vista to the beholder, empties out into the Gulf of Ephesos, that famous and celebrated city, and forms an estuary (I.1.30-35). Ramsay suggests that Mt. Tmolos had a remarkably fertile range (Ramsay, 1890, p. 106). Leon’s accurate description must be based on his own observations.
Figure 2.22 Kaloe, Mt. Tmolos and the River Kaystros.
Once again in a Middle Byzantine historian, we see Krete as a fertile location. In I.4.5-13: Leon briefly describes Krete as a fertile land with abundant of crops and cattle (εὐδαίμων γὰρ ἡ χώρα, καὶ ὡραίων καρπῶν καὶ χυμῶν ἰδέαις ἐπιεικῶς περιβρίθουσα, εὔβοτός τε καὶ εὔμηλος), also the
83 It appears Harry Turtledove, the celebrated author of Agent of Byzantium, was also preparing an English translation, that never appeared in print. (Talbot & Denis F. Sullivan, 2005, p. 52)
93
dense mountain thickets and clefts, which Saracens used in their advantage against Byzantines (τούτων οἱ βάρβαροι, τοῖς ἐπικαιροτάτοις καὶ ἀμφιλαφέσι τῶν ὀρῶν ἐλλοχῶντες (…) τῶν δρυμῶν καὶ χηραμῶν ὑπεκδύντες). Yet this is the first reference to mountain thickets in a Middle Byzantine history. Moreover in II.8.20-26 Leon states that after the battle in Krete Nikephoros went to a lofty and steep hill (λόφον ὑψηλὸν καὶ ἀνάντη) and ordered his soldiers to build a wall and fortifications, because this place was safe since it was cut off by cliffs and steep ravines on both sides, and gave forth ever-flowing springs from the summit, and was watered with their streams (ἀνεπισφαλὴς γὰρ ὁ χῶρος ἐδόκει, καὶ πρὸς ἔρυμα καρτερὸς, κρημνοῖς τε διεῤῥωγὼς καὶ φάραγξιν ἀποτόμοις ἑκατέρωθεν, κἀκ τῆς κορυφῆς ἀεννάους ἀναδιδοὺς πίδακας, καὶ τοῖς ὕδασι τούτων κα- ταῤῥεόμενος) and he named it Temenos (Τέμενος τὸ ἄστυ ὠνόμασε).
Leon Diakonos’ depictions of the kleisourai (military districts) at Taurus and its vicinity are typical.
II.4.15-18: ἐνέδραις οὖν διειλήφει τὴν ὁδὸν, ἀπο- τόμους τὰς ἀκρωρείας προβαλλομένην, κρημνώδεις τε καὶ σηραγγώδεις ὡς τὰ πολλὰ, τὰς ὑπωρείας δὲ βαραθρώδεις τε καὶ ἀμφιλαφεῖς πρέμνων τε καὶ παντοδαπῶν ἰδέαις φυτῶν.
Therefore, he set ambushes at intervals on the road, which had sheer mountain ridges (ἀκρώρεια) above, for the most part, precipitous and full of caves (σηραγγώδης), while the skirt of the mountain (ὑπωρείας) was filled with ravines84 and thick with tree stumps and all kinds of plants/trees.
The exact location is unknown. There is a certain location given by Theoph. Cont. (479.21) as τόπος Άνδρασσός and by Skylitzes (Skyl. 250.53) as εν τινι χωρίω Άδρασσω. It can be identified as kleisoura Κύλινδρος. Ramsay suggests it is Balabolu in Mt. Adras (Ramsay, 1890, p. 379). According to Honigmann (Honigmann, 1935, p. 86) it is a pass near Çayhan, Konya. TIB positions it somewhere on the Kappadokian-Kilikian border, the precise position is unknown (Hild, 1981, p. 218). In short, it is an unidentified location on a route from Ariaratheia via Koukousos (Göksun, Maraş) to Mopsouestia, i.e. mod. Misis (Fig. 2.23). In this narrative,
84 or can be read as “the foot of the mountain looks like a pit” (δὲ βαραθρώδεις)
94
we also see the most common Byzantine military advice against Arabs: ambushing them in the kleisourai of Taurus. The following one is another depiction made by Leon on the region:
II.4.27-30 : ἐπεὶ δὲ τὴν ἱππήλατον ὁδὸν διελθὼν ταῖς δυσχωρίαις προσέβαλλε, καὶ τοῖς στενωτάτοις καὶ ἀνωμάλοις συνειληθέντες τῶν τόπων οἱ βάρβαροι τὴν φάλαγγα διελύ- σαντο, καὶ ὥς πη ἐνὸν ἦν ἑκάστῳ, κατὰ κρημνώδη διῄεσαν,…
When he had traversed the section of the road that was passable by horses, and reached difficult terrain, the barbarians had to gather in very narrow and rough places, breaking their formations and had to cross the steep part each one as best he could.
The Middle Byzantine depiction of this region is almost identical and very accurate indeed.
Figure 2.23 Kilikia.
In Book III, Chapter 10, Leon describes the march of Emperor Nikephoros II towards Tarsos in spring 964. At Tarsos the Emperor lays siege to the city. In his account, Leon also describes the topos and the city. According to him, the walls of the city made of hewn white stone (λίθων λευκῶν κατεσκευασμένῃ ξεστῶν) and the wall had a cutting through its middle. These hewn white stones must be limestone, which also shows they were brought from the vicinity, where they are abundant. Through this cutting River Kydnos (today Tarsus Çayı), with a strong current from its sources, flows cold and clear. The river also provides great safety for Tarsos, within the lower town it was crossed by three bridges. When the war break out, they would release the river into the moat and in one hour it would be filled to overflowing (III.10.13-19: εἶχε μὲν καὶ
95
τὸν Κύδνον τὸ ἔρυμα, κατὰ μέσον αὐτὸ διατέμνοντα, ὃς ἐξ αὐτῶν τῶν πηγῶν πολυχεύμων τις, ψυχρός τε καὶ διειδὴς περινάων πρόεισιν, ἀσφάλειαν οὐ μικρὰν τῇ Ταρσῷ παρεχόμενος, καὶ γεφύραις τρισὶν ἔνδον τοῦ ἄστεος διαζωννύμενος· ὅτε δὲ πόλεμος αὐτοῖς ἐπιβρίθει, κατὰ τῆς τάφρου αὐτὸν ἀφιᾶσι καὶ ἐν ὥρᾳ μιᾷ πλημμυροῦσαν ταύτην ἐργάζεται). Leon does not give the source of River Kydnos. However, what he gave is a very detailed and accurate depiction of Tarsos and River Kydnos (Fig. 2.24). Whether this belongs to him or any previous author is unknown. We could not find a similarly detailed depiction among Leon’s contemporaries and his predecessors. Kydnos used to flow through Tarsos (Str. XIV. 5. 12), but after the flood occurred in 550 CE during the reign of Emperor Iustinianus (Prok. Arc. XVIII. 40). The Emperor made another riverbed and divided the river in two, in order to diminish its volume, so only half of the river would flow through Tarsos (Prok. Aed. V. 5.14-20).
Later after the capture of Mopsuestia, which we mentioned below, the Emperor decides to return Tarsos for a second attempt. During the march, one of the light infantries took off his shield because he was exhausted by the rough terrain, for the army was marching through a very deep defile, hemmed in/enclosed by cliffs and caves (IV.2.2-4: πρὸς τὴν δυσχωρίαν ὀκλάσας ἔτυχε γὰρ δι' αὐλῶνος τὴν στρατιὰν βαθυτάτου, εἰς ἀποῤῥῶγας καὶ σήραγγας κατακλειομένου, διαπορεύεσθαι).
Figure 2.24 Tarsos and the River Kydnos.
Leon’s depictions of Kilikia is very accurate contrary his general view and approach to geography. In X.11.3-4, the Emperor, on his way back from the Syrian campaign, passes
96
through Longinias in Tarsos and Drize in Kappadokia, which Leon describes as fertile and prosperous lands recently conquered by the Byzantines. TIB 5 identifies Longinias as a market town or another important location in Tarsos, without giving any specific location. (Hild, 1990, p. 335). TIB 2 locates Drize (aka Drizion) in a ruin called “Kınıkören Harabeleri”, about 6 km south of Altunhisar (Antigus) and 1 km south of the road from Bor to Altunhisar (Hild, 1981, p. 172; Fig. 2.25). Note that the area around Kınıkören is extremely fertile and well-watered by a strong stream, which confirms Leon’s description.
Figure 2.25 Drize and Antigus.
In the following part, Leon tells us that Tarsos’ defences (including Kydnos) proved too strong, therefore Nikephoros decided to lift the siege and instead siege Mopsuestia (mod. Ceyhan), which the author accurately situates near River Pyramos (Ceyhan River). In fact, Pyramos serves a moat and the Emperor orders his troops to fill this moat with earth. As a result, the imperial army breaches the city and starts to pillage it. Leon, gives the time of Emperor’s order to stop sacking as follows: “When the Sun passed through Sagittarius and was moving to Capricorn, and the hardships of winter were upon them, (III.11.29-30: ἐπεὶ ὁ ἥλιος τὸν τοξότην παρελαύνων μετέβαινε πρὸς τὸν αἰγοκέρωτα, καὶ τὸ τοῦ χειμῶνος δεινὸν ἐπετείνετο,). Descriptions such as these while mentioning the time of events are common in Leon’s text. To give a few examples, in III.10.1-2 he states when the spring equinox (ἐαριναὶ τροπαὶ: lit. spring solstice/spring turning) changed the gloom of winter into calm and cheerful weather,… (Ἐπεὶ δὲ τὴν τοῦ χειμῶνος κατήφειαν ἐαριναὶ τροπαὶ πρὸς γαληνιῶσαν μετεσκεύαζον ἱλαρότητα…).
97
We can also quote his description on Kappadokia for the very passage starts with the same style:
III.1-8: Ἤδη δὲ τοῦ ἦρος μεσοῦντος, καὶ τοῦ φωσφόρου πρὸς τὸν ἀρκτικὸν πόλον ἠρέμα ὑπανακάμπτοντος, καὶ περὶ τὸν ταῦρον τὴν διφρείαν ἐλαύνοντος τοῦ Βυζαντίου ἀπάρας ὁ Νικηφόρος ἐπὶ τὴν καταντιπέραν τῆς Ἀσίας χώραν καταίρει· καὶ πρὸς τὴν Καππαδοκῶν ἀφικόμενος (Τρωγλοδῦται τὸ ἔθνος τὸ πρόσθεν κατωνομάζετο, τῷ ἐν τρώγλαις καὶ χηραμοῖς καὶ λαβυρίνθοις, ὡσανεὶ φωλεοῖς καὶ ὑπιωγαῖς, ὑποδύεσθαι) καὶ τὴν σκηνὴν ἐκεῖσε πηξάμενος,…
When the spring is in the mid-point and the Sun returns to (or bends back to) the North Pole, driving its chariot in the [sign of] Bull [Emperor] Nikephoros left Byzantion and crossed over to the opposite shore of Asia. Upon his arrival in Kappadokia, whose people were formerly called troglodytes, because they dwelt in caves, hollows, and labyrinths as if in dens and holes, he encamped there,…
In this quote apart from Leon’s dating with astronomy, the word troglodytes is also interesting. Generally, the term τρωγλοδύτης is used for animals like foxes, rabbits that dwell in caverns, holes etc. However, Herodotos uses the same term for an Aethiopian tribe (Hdt. IV. 183). As a well-educated scholar in Ancient Greek, Leon might base his description for the people of Kappadokia on Herodotos description for Aethiopians. Other than Leon Diakonos, we could not find a similar reference to Kappadokians or any other. According to Haldon and Kennedy (2004, pp. 96-97), Kramer and Weit translation (1964) of Ibn Hawqal’s “Configuration de la Terre” (Kitab surat al-ard), the tenth-century Arab geographer refers to the same Kappadokian cave dwellings and to those who dwell in them, whom he also describes as “troglodytes” in his work. Ib Hawqal indeed mentions people in Roman (= Byzantine) realm who dwells in caves and caverned villages. But the Greek term “troglodytes” or its Arabic transliteration can not be found in the Arabic text (Hawqal, Sûratu'l-Arz, 1992, p. 181).
In the Book IV, Leon once again returns to depict the eastern regions. In IV.10.10-11 Emperor Nikephoros seizes Antiokheia and continues towards Palestina, where Leon describes as all fertile (or blessed) and flowing with milk and honey (ἣν καὶ Παλαιστίνην καλοῦσιν, εὐδαίμονα πᾶσαν καὶ ῥέουσαν μέλι καὶ γάλα). He plainly states that the land is just as in the Holy Scriptures (κατὰ τὴν θείαν γραφήν). According to his depiction on the Emperor’s right (= west)
98
he had Kilikia and the coast (ἐν δεξιᾷ δὲ τὴν Κιλικίαν εἶχε καὶ τὰ παράκτια.). It seems there is an error in Leon’ account, both geographically and historically, for Nikephoros’ expedition probably only ventured as far as North Lebanon. In addition, it appears Leon’s Palestina is situated in Northern Lebanon or on the western coast of Syria. His Biblical quote “flowing with milk and honey” clearly contradicts the geography, whether it is in fact Palestina or not. Moreover, Leon’s account in the tenth book of his work, shows us that he describes Lebanon as a great mountain, one that separates Phoenikia and Palestina as follows:
X.4.19-24: ὁ δὲ, φόρους αὐτοῖς τάξας ῥητοὺς καὶ ὑποσπόνδους Ῥωμαίοις ἀπεργασάμενος, ἐκεῖθεν ὁρμηθεὶς διὰ τοῦ Λιβάνου (ὄρος δὲ ὁ Λίβανος κατ' ἐκεῖνον τὸν χῶρον τραχὺ καὶ μέγιστον διατεῖνον, τήν τε Φοινίκην καὶ Παλαιστίνην ἀλλήλων ἀπείργει)…
And after he imposed specified tribute on them [people of Damascus] and made them subject to the Romans (i.e. Byzantines), he set forth and traversed Lebanon (Lebanon is a huge mountain that extends through that rugged and vast region, it separates Phoenikia and Palaistina from one another)
According to Leon, Lebanon is a mountain and it seems the northern border of Leon’s Palestina’s begins further than the usual as if north of Palestina begins from the east of Lebanon. His depiction of Lebanon is accurate and also accords with the other contemporary Byzantine accounts, which we have presented here. Yet, from his depiction of the Levant region, it is clear that Leon has a problem in positioning them. Despite his depiction here in X.6.2-4: he describes Tripolis as a city spread out on a precipitous hill (ἐπὶ λόφου τινὸς ἀποτόμου διατείνουσα) and surrounded by stout walls by land, and on both sides is washed by the sea, which also provides a great harbour and a bay especially during the winter season.
The last geographical depiction is in the tent and also the last book of Leon’s Historia.
X.2.9-15: ἀλλὰ γὰρ ἐπέσχε τὴν τούτου ὁρμὴν ἥ, τε λειψυδρία τῶν τόπων, καὶ ἡ σπάνις τῶν ἀναγκαίων. ἡ γὰρ ἐπιλεγομένη Καρμανῖτις ἔρημος διὰ τῶν ἐκεῖσε χωρίων διήκει, τραχεῖαν καὶ ἀνάντη προβαλλομένη ὁδὸν, καὶ μήτε ὕδωρ βλυστάνουσα, μήτε βοτάνην ἀναβλαστάνουσα, ψαφαρά τις οὖσα καὶ ἄνικμος.
But his invasion was checked by the lack of water and scarcity of provisions in the area; for the desert called Karmanitis extends through those regions, providing a rugged and
99
steep route, and it neither produces any water nor bears any vegetation, but is sandy and dry.
Leo’s geography seems to be in error and he may intend to refer to the “Syrian desert” west of the Euphrates. Karmania is the area of Iran southwest of the great desert (the Dasht-i-Lut), a region into which it is impossible for Emperor Tzimiskes to lead his army. Karmanitis was the desert Alexander the Great crossed on his return from the Indian expedition. Leon may have known about Karmania (Καρμανία) from Strabon (XV.2.14). In the previous sentence, Leon says Emperor Tzimiskes pushes towards Ecbatana (mod. Hamadan), which makes no sense. Again, we believe that he incorrectly refers to Iran. Probably by Ecbatana he means Baghdad. Yet it still doesn’t make sense. It is also a historical error for Tzimiskes never pushed towards Baghdad. Note that future Byzantines will name Karmanitis as Karbonites, see below Skylitzes and Bryennios. Also, note that Byzantines were almost always in error when it comes to the geography of the east.
In the tenth book, Leon once again quotes Bible (Gen. 2:14) for depicting Syria, this time he plainly states that he learned it from the Holy Scriptures.
X.1.4-7: καὶ δῆτα τὴν μεσογαίαν περιοδεύσας, τὸν Εὐφράτην ἐπεραιώθη. μέγιστος δὲ οὗτος τῶν τὴν Ἀσίαν διατεμνόντων. ποταμῶν, καὶ εἷς τῶν ἐκ τῆς Ἐδὲμ ὁρμωμένων, ὡς ἐκ τῆς θείας γραφῆς μεμαθήκαμεν.
And so after traversing the interior regions [of Syria], he crossed the Euphrates; this is the biggest of the rivers that cut across Asia and also one of those that rise in Eden, as we have learned from the Holy Scriptures.
Once again we see Leon’s bible influenced geography in the eighth book. Interestingly this time it is not Middle-East. Leon mentions Istros (Danube), where Emperor Tzimiskes sent the navy to prevent Scythians (Pechenegs under Sviatoslav) from crossing Crimean Bosporos. He describes Istros as follows:
VIII.1.21-29: λέγεται δὲ τὸν Ἴστρον ἕνα τῶν ἐξ Ἐδὲμ ἐκπορευομένων εἶναι ποταμῶν, τὸν ἐπικεκλημένον Φισῶν, ἐκ τῆς ἕω μὲν ἐκδιδόμενον, ὑποδυόμενόν τε κατὰ γῆν ἀμηχάνῳ τοῦ δημιουργοῦ σοφίᾳ· καὶ αὖθις ἐκ τῶν Κελτικῶν ὀρέων ἀναπιδύοντα, ἑλισσόμενόν τε διὰ τῆς Εὐρώπης, καὶ, εἰς πέντε τεμνόμενον στόματα, τὸν ῥοῦν ἐσβάλλειν παρὰ τὸν Πόντον, ὃς Εὔξεινος ὀνομάζεται. τινὲς δὲ Φισῶν τὸν τὴν Ἰνδικὴν
100
τέμνοντα γῆν τυγχάνειν, ὃν καὶ Γάγγην κικλήσκειν εἰώθασι, παρ' ᾧ ἐξευρίσκεται ὁ λίθος ὁ σμάραγδος.
The Istros is said to be one of the rivers that originate from Eden, the so-called Phison, which originate from the east, and goes underground through the infinitely great wisdom of the Creator and springs up again in the Celtic mountains (Pyrenees); then it winds through Europe, and, after dividing into five mouths, empties its streams into the Pontos, which is called the Euxine. But some people say that Phison is [the river] that divides the land of India, usually called the Ganges, where emerald stones are found.
The source of Leon’s very wrong depiction was probably Kosmas Indikopleustes (lit. the one who sailed to India), whose geographical descriptions were heavily based on the Holy Scriptures. Emeralds of Ganges is also described in Genesis 2:11-12 as ὁ ἄνθραξ καὶ ὁ λίθος ὁ πράσινος (lit. dark red and bright greenstone). Note that this is only in Septuagint. The modern Bible translations are “Bdellium and the onyx stone are there.” Most likely due to Latin translation, which is “ibi invenitur bdellium, et lapis onychinus.” We also see how wrong it is to use modern Bible translations in Byzantine-Medieval studies. If one would compare Leon’s quote with a modern translation of the Holy Bible, then one could not see the connection between the two.
Speaking of Istros, Leon’s depiction of Bulgaria reflects the era’s general view on the Bulgarian landscape (Fig. 2.26). However, this is one of the detailed accounts on Bulgaria. In IV.5 imperial army marches against Bulgarians (Mysians in the text). The author describes the Bulgarian terrain bordering the Empire as follows:
…ἐχώρει κατὰ Μυσῶν· καὶ φρούρια μὲν, ὅσα Ῥωμαίοις ὅμορα ἦν, εἷλεν ἐξ ἐπιδρομῆς. τὴν δὲ χώραν περισκεψάμενος, καὶ ταύτης τὸ ἀμφιλαφὲς καὶ κρημνῶδες ἰδὼν (ποιητικῶς γὰρ εἰπεῖν, τῇ τῶν Μυσῶν χώρᾳ πάντη κακὸν κακῷ ἐστήρικται, καὶ τὴν ἀμφιλαφῆ καὶ λοχμώδη χώραν σηραγγώδης καὶ κρημνώδης ἐκδέχεται, εἶτ' αὖθις ἐκείνην τελματώδης τε καὶ σομφώδης· ὑδρηλὴ γὰρ ἐκτόπως ἡ χώρα, καὶ λίαν ἀλσώδης, καὶ ὄρεσι δυσβάτοις ἑκασταχοῦ περικλείεται, παρὰ τὸν Αἶμον καὶ τὴν Ῥοδόπην κατῳκισμένη καὶ ποταμῶν τοῖς μεγίστοις περιῤῥεομένη)·
…set forth against Mysians. (= Bulgarians) by assult [Emperor Nikephoros II] took all the fortresses that bordered Roman (= Byzantine) territory; and then surveyed the
101
terrain, and saw that it was densely wooded and full of precipitous hills (to use the language of the poet, in the land of the Mysians in every way evil was heaped upon evil85). An area full of caverns and steep cliffs followed a region that was densely wooded and overgrown with bushes, and then immediately after that would be a marshy and swampy area; for the region located near the Haimos and Rhodope [mountains], which is watered with great rivers, is extremely damp, heavily forested, and surrounded on every side by impassable mountains).
Figure 2.26 Mysia (Bulgaria) between Haimos and Rhodope.
Again the tenth book of his opus Leon narrates the imperial expedition that pushes towards Sardica (present-day Sofia). Once again, Leo describes Bulgarian lands as densely wooded and full of caverns and steep terrain, filled with gullies (X.8.37-38: διά τινος ὑλώδους καὶ σηραγγώδους αὐλῶνος διῄει τὸ στράτευμα·) and has nearly impassable mountains.
A similar approach can be seen in the fourth book, where Leon describes Sicily. According to his account (IV.8.2-5), Sicily is, for the most part, a craggy and a forested island, and able to provide natural defences for anyone who wants them (κρημνώδης γὰρ ὡς τὰ πολλὰ καὶ δενδρώδης ἡ νῆσος, ἱκανή τε τῷ βουλομένῳ φρουρὰν αὐτοσχέδιον ἐπιχορηγεῖν.) The author
85 “The” poet is Homeros, This quote is from Ilias (Hom. Il. XVI.111.). However, it is not related to geography, let alone Bulgaria. The passage is about Aias being overwhelmed by the Trojan missiles.
102
also points to that the inhabitants of the island left their cities for they prefer the defensiveness of the rough terrain over to their cities, and regrouped at strategic locations (τὰς πόλεις ἀπολιπόντες τὰς δυσχωρίας ὑπῄεσαν, καὶ ἐπὶ τόπων ἐπικαίρων ἠθροίζοντο). In the following part, Leon mentions how Saracens used these cliffs for ambushes against Byzantines, (similar to how Byzantines used the Taurus against Arabs) whose formation was disorganised due to rough terrain. On one occasion Byzantines couldn’t see the sunlight due to the dense shade of the copses (IV.8.19-20: καὶ μηδὲ τὸ ἡλιακὸν φῶς τῷ συνηρεφεῖ τῆς λόχμης ἐώμενοι καθορᾷν). Apart from an accurate portrayal of Sicily, the author’s narrative also proves to us that the geographical knowledge in Middle Byzantine military manuals was known by the historians. Another similar approach in terms of geography and the art of war relations can be seen in the tenth book. In X.7.17-18 the author mentions the Battle at Pankaleia, which was fought in ca. 979. Leon locates Pankaleia as a plain near Amorion (Emirdağ, Afyonkarahisar) and describes it as a topos suitable for cavalry action. The exact place is unknown. Belke (1984, p. 212) identifies it as a plain near Amorion. However, we already know this from Byzantine sources. Holmes suggests (Holmes, 2005, p. 453) the plain is at the northeast of Amorion. Even though we can’t locate the exact place the plains near Amorion is very suitable for cavalry action (Fig. 2.27).
Figure 2.27 The City of Amorion and the plains in the northeast direction.
Among Middle Byzantine authors Leon holds a special place for his detailed narratives on natural disasters. In the first book, the author states that during his lifetime he saw terrible things
103
like thunders, sky phenomena, earthquakes etc. (I.1.6-9). It appears the first phenomenon he recorded is a comet that appeared twice in the sky, when Konstantinos Porphyrogennetos was born and died, foretelling his future (I.1.39-43).
Leon’s description of the September 967 earthquake is remarkable. Not only he gives its date (or at least gives enough details for us to determine its date), but describes its effects in detail, he also quotes Aristoteles’ theory on earthquakes and compares it with his own. Therefore, this quotation below is very valuable. Not only that it is also, in a way, a summary of the view of Middle Byzantine scholars.
IV.9.1-22: θʹ. Κατὰ δὲ τὸν αὐτὸν χρόνον, ἄρτι τῆς θερινῆς τροπῆς μεταβαλλούσης ἐπὶ τὸ μετόπωρον, ἔσεισεν ὁ Θεὸς μέγα, ὡς καὶ οἰκίας καὶ ἄστη ἀνατραπῆναι. Κλαυδιούπολίν τε, τὸ εὐδαιμονέστατον χωρίον τῶν Γαλατῶν, τότε συνέβη, κατεριπωθεῖσαν ἐκ τῆς ἀνυποστάτου κινήσεως καὶ ἐνόσεως, αἰφνίδιον τῶν οἰκητόρων τάφον γενέσθαι, καὶ πολλοὺς τῶν ἐπηλύδων παρατυ χόντας ἐν ἀκαρεῖ διαφθαρῆναι. αἴτιον δὲ τῆς τοσαύτης ἐνόσεως καὶ κινήσεως ἀτμοὺς μὲν οἱ μαθηματικοὶ καὶ ἀναθυμιάσεις μυθολογοῦσί τινας, ἐναποκλειομένας τοῖς κόλποις τῆς γῆς, αὖθίς τε εἰς πνεῦμα καταιγίδος συνισταμένας, ἐπεὶ μὴ ἀθρόον συμβαί- νει τὴν διαπνοὴν τούτων ἐκτρέχειν, διὰ τὴν τῶν πόρων στενό- τητα, συνειλεῖσθαί τε καὶ περιδινεῖσθαι, καὶ τὰ κοῖλα περιδονεῖν μετὰ σφοδρᾶς τῆς κινήσεως, καὶ τὸ ἐπιπροσθοῦν καὶ περιέχον ἅπαν σαλεύειν, ἕως ἂν ἐκ τοῦ τέως εἵργοντος διεκπνεύσωσι, καὶ πρὸς τὰ ἔξωθεν ἐξατμισθέντα εἰς τὸν ὁμογενῆ διασκεδασθεῖεν ἀέρα. ἀλλὰ ταῦτα μὲν ἡ τῶν Ἑλλήνων εἰκαιομυθία πρὸς τὸ ταύτῃ δοκοῦν ἐξηγήσατο. ἐγὼ δὲ τῷ θείῳ Δαβὶδ συνεπόμενος, ἐπισκοπῇ φαίην τοῦ Θεοῦ πρὸς ἡμᾶς τὸν τοσοῦτον κλόνον ἐγγίνεσθαι, ὅταν ἐπὶ τοῖς ἡμῶν ἐπαγρυπνήσῃ ἐπιτηδεύμασι, παρὰ τὸν θεῖον δρωμένοις θεσμὸν, εἴ πως ἀλλὰ ταύτῃ δείσαντες ἄνθρωποι τῶν μὲν φαύλων ἔργων ἀφέξοιντο, ἀνθέξοιντο δὲ τῶν ἐπαινετῶν.
During the same year (965), when summer was just turning to autumn (late September), God greatly shook the earth, so that buildings and towns were destroyed. Klaudioupolis (present-day Bolu), the most prosperous town of the Galatians, was destroyed by the irresistible quakings and tremblings, and thus became a sudden grave for its citizens. Also, many foreigners/visitors who happened to be there were killed instantly. Mathematicians/Scholars tell tales/myths that the cause of such a quake and trembling is certain vapours and fumes, which are confined in the innards of the earth, which are
104
then combined into a violent wind. Since the vapours can’t all escape together, due to narrow outlets, they compress together, whirl and spin round the hollows [of the earth] with a violent movement, and shake everything that is covering and containing them, until they explode from the area they confined. After being blown outside are spread into the same air. The foolish gibbering of the Hellenes has explained these things the way they want it. However, I would agree with [King] David, blessed by God, and say that it is through the will of God that such quakes happen to us. As God watches over our ways of life, when [He sees] deeds that contradict with divine order, hopes that men, frightened in such a way, might avoid vile deeds, and instead struggle for the worthy ones.86
Here, Leon Diakonos rephrases the theory of the cause of the earthquakes, which belongs to Aristoteles (Meteorologica 365a-370). Yet, Leon, like many of his contemporaries, who quoted this theory, probably knew this from Agathias (60.22-27). However, in the following sentence he states that he rejects this “Hellenic nonsense” and prefers King David’s version, that is Psalms 103 (104):32: “the Lord, Who looks upon the earth and makes it tremble.” In fact, Leon’s choice of words clearly reflects his attitude. According to Leon, the scholars or mathematicians87 μῡθολογοῦσι this theory. The verb μυθολογέω means to tell legends, tales, myths. This is the perfect example of a Byzantine view on earthquakes along with its explanations and interpretation. His reference to the fall equinox helps us to date the earthquake to late September 967 (Guidoboni, Comastri, & Traina, 1994, pp. 398-399). Klaudioupolis is present-day Bolu. However, contrary to Leon’s narration it was not in Galatia, but in Bukellaria (a theme which covers the parts of Paphlagonia, Kappadokia, Kharsianon).
The following chapter records another phenomenon, a storm this time:
IV.9.22-46: ἀλλ' οὕτω μὲν ἡ Κλαυδιούπολις τῇ τοῦ σεισμοῦ βίᾳ ἐκ βάθρων ἀνετράπη τότε πᾶσα, καὶ συνεχύθη, τῆς ὀργῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐκπιοῦσα τὸ ποτήριον ἄκρατον. παρὰ
86 24 September 2020, 16:39, at the very moment I had finished this translation an earthquake of 4.0 magnitude shook us, Istanbul. The above-mentioned earthquake also occurred in late September.
87 οἱ μαθηματικοὶ: lit. learned men, also used for astronomers. In Byzantine texts earthquakes frequently seen as a subject for astronomers.
105
τοῦτον δὲ τὸν ἐνιαυ- τὸν, θερείας ὥρας κατὰ τὸ μεσαίτατον, ἄρτι τοῦ ἡλίου τῷ καρκίνῳ προσεπιβαίνοντος, ὄμβρος ἐν Βυζαντίῳ κατεῤῥάγη καὶ τοῖς προσομοροῦσιν αὐτῷ, οἷον οὐ συνέβη κατενεχθῆναι τὸ πρότερον. κλινούσης γὰρ τῆς ἡμέρας (παρασκευὴ δὲ ἦν) ἀρξάμενον τὸ δεινὸν εἰς ἐννάτην ὥραν κατέληγεν· οὕτω δὲ ῥαγδαία τις ἡ ὑέτισις κατεφέρετο, ὡς μὴ σταγόνας ὁρᾷν ὀμβριζομένας κατὰ τὸ σύνηθες, ἀλλά τινας ἐπικλύζοντας ὕδασιν ὀχετούς. οὐχ ὑπελείφθη γοῦν τῶν σηκῶν ἢ τῶν περιπύστων οἴκων, ὅστις ἄνωθεν ἐκ τῆς ὀροφῆς οὐκ ἐπληροῦτο τοῦ ὕδατος, καίτοι τῶν κατοίκων μόχθῳ ἀπαντλούντων αὐτὸ πρὸς τὰ ἄμφοδα· τὸ μὲν ἀπέῤῥεε, τὸ δ' ἐπέῤῥεε, καὶ ἀκαταγώνιστον ἦν τὸ δεινόν. ἐπὶ τριῶν οὖν ὡρῶν διαστήματι κατέσχεν ὁ ὑετὸς, καὶ ἦν ὁρᾷν ποταμοὺς πελαγίζον τας διὰ τῶν τῆς πόλεως στενωπῶν, καὶ τὸ παρασυρόμενον τῶν ἐμψύχων διαφθείροντας. οἱ δὲ ἄνθρωποι ἐλεεινῶς ἀπεθρήνουν οἰμώζοντες, κατακλυσμὸν αὖθις ἐπισκῆψαι κατ' ἐκεῖνον τὸν τε- θρυλλημένον ὑποτοπάζοντες· ἀλλ' ἡ συμπαθὴς καὶ φιλάνθρωπος πρόνοια ἶριν διὰ τῆς νεφέλης ἐρείσασα, τῇ ταύτης ἀναλάμψει τὴν τοῦ ὑετοῦ κατήφειαν διεσκέδασε, καὶ αὖθις τὸ τῆς φύ- σεως σύγκριμα ἐπὶ τὴν προτέραν κατάστασιν ἐπανήγετο. συνέβη δὲ καὶ αὖθις ὄμβρον καταῤῥαγῆναι τεθολωμένον καὶ σύμμικτον τέφρᾳ, ὡς ἐπὶ καμινιαίας αἰθάλης, καὶ χλιαρὰν δὲ παρεῖχε τοῖς ἐπαφωμένοις αὐτοῦ τὴν ποιότητα.
Thus at that time, all of Klaudioupolis was overturned from its foundations by the force of the earthquake and wiped out, draining the cup of God’s pure wrath. Also during this year, around the middle of summer, just as the Sun was entering the sign of Cancer, a storm burst forth in Byzantion and its surroundings, such as had never occurred before. The disaster began as the day was ending (it was Friday), and ended at the ninth hour. The rain poured down so violently that none could see drops of rain as usual, but it was like streams overflowing with water. There was no church or well-known building that was not filled with water from above, through the roof, despite the fact that citizens arduously drained it off into the streets. But as much as they poured out, [the rain] poured in. The flood was unstoppable. For three hours the rain poured down repetitively. One could see overflowing rivers in the narrow streets of the [Imperial] City, destroying whatever creature they carried along with them. The people fearing that a flood like that fabled one of old [Noah’s Flood] was again happening on them moaned and lamented miserably. Yet, compassionate and benevolent Providence placed a rainbow through the
106
clouds, and with its rays scattered the gloomy rain. Once again, the order of nature returned to its previous state. It so happened that there was a later rainstorm, which was turbid and mixed with ashes, as in the soot from a furnace, and it seemed warm to those who touched it.
This narrative is full of Biblical references. “The cup of God’s pure wrath” is from Revelation 14:10. “The soot from a furnace” is from Exodus 9:8,10. Leon didn’t give a plain reason or an explanation such as the one he gave for the earthquake that destroyed Klaudiopolis. However, from his narrative, it is clear that God is involved. The rainstorm or downpour mixed with ashes (τέφρα) suggests a volcanic eruption.
In the fourth book about the time of winter solstice, when the Emperor was in Syria, a Solar eclipse occurred (The eclipse of 22 December 968). Leon mentions that such eclipse had never occurred before except the one when Jesus was crucified. Leo describes the eclipse as follows:
IV.11: εἰκάδα δευτέραν ἤλαυνεν ὁ Δεκέμβριος, τετάρτῃ δὲ τῆς ἡμέρας ὥρᾳ, σταθηρᾶς αἰθρίας οὔσης, σκότος ἐπέσχε τὴν γῆν, καὶ οἱ διαφανεῖς τῶν ἀστέρων ἅπαντες κατεφαίνοντο. ἦν δὲ ὁρᾷν τὸν τοῦ ἡλίου δίσκον ἀλαμπῆ καὶ ἀφώτιστον, αἴγλην δέ τινα ἀμυδρὰν καὶ ἰσχνὴν, ταινίας δίκην λεπτῆς, κατὰ τὸ ἄκρον κυκλόθεν τὸν δίσκον περιαυγάζουσαν. κατὰ μικρὸν δὲ τὴν σελήνην παραμείβων ὁ ἥλιος (ὡρᾶτο γὰρ αὕτη κατὰ κάθετον αὐτὸν ἀντιφράττουσα) τὰς ἰδίας ἀκτῖνας ἐξέπεμπε, καὶ φωτὸς αὖθις ἐπλήρου τὴν γῆν. τῷ καινῷ οὖν καὶ ἀσυνήθει τοῦ ὁράματος ἐκδειματωθέντες οἱ ἄνθρωποι, τὸ θεῖον ἱκετηρίαις, ὡς τὸ εἰκὸς, ἐξιλάσκοντο. τότε καὶ αὐτὸς ἐγὼ τῷ Βυζαντίῳ ἐπεχωρίαζον, μετιὼν τὴν ἐγκύκλιον παίδευσιν.
On the 22nd of December, at the fourth hour of the day, in calm, clear weather, darkness covered the earth. All of the brighter stars were visible. One could see the disk of the Sun dark and unlighted, a dim and faint glow, like an elegant headband, illuminating the edge of the disk all the way around. Gradually the Sun passed by the Moon (for the Moon could be seen screening off the Sun in a direct line), and sent out its own rays, which again filled the earth with light. People were terrified at his new and unaccustomed sight, and appeased the divinity with prayers, as was fitting. At that time, I myself was living in Konstantinoupolis, pursuing my secondary education.
107
Leon has no explanation for this. However, he states that in a phenomenon such as this it is fitting to pray to God to appease him. What he likens to an elegant headband, in fact, is the corona effect. This is the earliest reference to the corona effect and it is coming directly from an eye-witness (Stephenson, 2009, p. 390).
Leon doesn’t always plainly explains phenomena with God. In IX.9, in a battle against the Rhos, a violent wind and a rainstorm breaks out and affects the enemy in favour to the Byzantines. Leon doesn’t plainly state this is God’s doing. However, he combines this story with other so-called miracles that helped the Byzantine cause. Therefore, directly or not Leon’s natural explanations are divine.
X.6.7-19: κατὰ τοῦτον δὴ τὸν καιρὸν, Αὔγουστος δὲ μὴν ἦγεν ἀρχὴν, κομήτης ἐξεφάνη ἀστὴρ, χρῆμα θεῖόν τι καὶ καινὸν, λογισμὸν ὑπερβαῖνον ἀνθρώπινον. οὐδὲ γὰρ τοιοῦτόν τι κατὰ ταύτας ὤφθη τὰς γενεὰς, οὐδ' ἐπὶ τοσαύτας ἡμέρας ἐπιφαίνειν τὸ πρόσθεν συμβέβηκεν. οὗτος ἀπ' ἀνατολῆς βορειότερος ἀνίσχων, καὶ εἰς ὕψος ὅτι πλεῖστον αἰ- ρόμενος, ὡς κυπάριττός τε ὑψούμενος, εἶτα ἠρέμα κυρτούμενος, πρὸς μεσημβρίαν ἀπένευεν, ἀπλέτῳ πυρὶ ἐκκαιόμενος, καὶ τηλαυγεῖς καὶ λαμπρὰς τὰς ἀκτῖνας ἐπαφιεὶς, πρᾶγμα δείματος καὶ φρίκης γέμον τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ὁρώμενος. ἀπ' ἀρχῆς δὲ μηνὸς Αὐγούστου, ὡς ἔφην, φανεὶς, ἐφ' ὅλαις ἡμέραις ἐπεποίητο τὴν ἐπιτολὴν ὀγδοήκοντα, ἀπὸ μέσων ἀνίσχων νυκτῶν, καὶ μέχρι σταθηρᾶς ἡμέρας ὁρώμενος.
At that time, it was the beginning of August, there appeared a comet, an amazing and unique sight surpassing human understanding, for nothing of the sort had been seen in our age, nor had one shone before for so many days. It rose in the northeast and reached its greatest altitude, high as a cypress [tree], then gradually curving down, it inclined toward the south. Burning with giant flames and shooting brilliant rays far away, it was an object that filled people who saw it with awe and terror. As I have said, after appearing at the beginning of August, it continued to rise for a full eighty days, rising in the middle of the night and remaining visible until full daylight.
The narrative continues with the Emperor’s questions about this comet to certain people learned in astronomy (τοὺς περὶ τὴν τῶν μετεώρων ἐσχολακότας). These men interpreted this as a sign of victory to satisfy the Emperor. Leon tells us they didn’t interpret this not according to their technical knowledge (οὐχ ὡς ἡ τέχνη παρεῖχε τεκμαίρεσθαι). Among these men Stephanos, the
108
Bishop of Nikomedeia was also present. According to Leo (X.6.27-33), appearance of a comet only means bad things such as invasions, civil wars, public upheavals, famines and plagues and terrible earthquakes, almost the total destruction of the Roman Empire (= Byzantine Empire), all of which he claims he witnessed as the events unfolded (ἀλλ' οὐχὶ ταῦτα ἡ τοῦ κομήτου παρεδήλου ἐπιτολὴ, ἃ πρὸς χάριν οἱ ἄνδρες τῷ αὐτοκράτορι ὑπηγόρευον, ἀποστασίας δὲ χαλεπὰς, ἐθνῶν τε ἐπιδρομὰς, καὶ ἐμφυλίους στάσεις, καὶ μεταναστάσεις πόλεων καὶ χώρων, λιμοὺς καὶ λοιμοὺς, καὶ φρικώδεις σεισμοὺς, καὶ πανολεθρίαν σχεδὸν τῆς Ῥωμαϊκῆς ἐπικρατείας, ἅπερ ἡμεῖς ἐκ τῆς τῶν πραγμάτων ἐκβάσεως εἴδομεν.) Leon’s statement “surpassing human understanding” (λογισμὸν ὑπερβαῖνον ἀνθρώπινον) is a remarkable comment on how he saw nature and in a way science. He was certainly a “God works in mysterious ways, son.” person. Clearly, for him, comets were ill-portents, láthspells.88 After four chapters, in Ch. 10 of the tenth book, he repeats the calamities heralded by the star above-mentioned.
X.10.1-15: Καὶ ἄλλα δὲ παγχάλεπα ἡ τοῦ φανέντος ἀστέρος παρε- δήλου ἐπιτολὴ, καὶ οἱ παραδειχθέντες αὖθις πρὸς τὸ βόρειον μέρος ἀωρὶ τῶν νυκτῶν πύρινοι στύλοι, καὶ τοὺς ὁρῶντας ἐκδειματούμενοι. καὶ γὰρ καὶ οὗτοι τήν τε συμβᾶσαν πρὸς τῶν Ταυροσκυθῶν τῆς Χερσῶνος ἅλωσιν παρεδήλουν, καὶ τὴν τῆς Βεῤοίας κατάσχεσιν παρὰ τῶν Μυσῶν. ἔτι δὲ ὁ πρὸς δύσιν ἐπὶ καταφορὰν τοῦ φωσφόρου ἀνίσχων ἀστὴρ, ὃς ἑσπερίους ποιούμε- νος τὰς ἐπιτολὰς, οὐδένα στηριγμὸν ἐφ' ἑνὸς διεφύλαττε κέντρου, λαμπρὰς δὲ καὶ τηλαυγεῖς τὰς ἀκτῖνας ἐπαφιεὶς, μεταβάσεις ἐποιεῖτο συχνὰς, πῆ μὲν βορειότερος ὁρώμενος, πῆ δὲ νοτιώτερος, ἔστι δ' ὅτε καὶ αὐτὴν τὴν μίαν ἐπιτολὴν καὶ μεταμείβων τὸν αἰθέριον τόπον, καὶ ποιούμενος ἐναργῆ καὶ σύντομον τὴν μετάβασιν· ὡς θαυμάζειν τοὺς ὁρῶντας καὶ καταπλήττεσθαι, καὶ οὐκ εἰς καλὸν τελευτήσειν οἴεσθαι τὴν τοῦ κομήτου ἀλλόκοτον κίνησιν. ὃ δὴ καὶ συνέβαινε κατὰ τὴν τῶν πολλῶν ὑπόνοιαν.
Still, other calamities were heralded by the rising of the star that appeared and again by the fiery pillars that were manifested in the north in the middle of the night and terrified
88 In the presence of this peculiar Old English word it would be fitting to commemorate J.R.R. Tolkien (Tolkien, 2004, p. 513).
109
those who saw them. For these were the heralds of the capture of Kherson by the Tauruscythians (=the Rhos) and the capture of Berrhoia by the Mysians. (= Bulgarians) Then there was the star that rose in the west at sunset, which as it appeared in the evening didn’t remain fixed on one point, but discharged bright and far-reaching rays. It frequently changed its position, for once visible in the north, then in the south and sometimes during a single appearance it would change its place in the sky, making a clear and rapid shift in position, so that people who saw it were awed and amazed yet suspected that the comet’s odd movement didn’t bode well. Indeed it wasn’t, it justified the suspicions of the many.
What Leon describes here was the passing of Halley’s Comet in August and September 989. “Fixed in one point” (a reference to fixed stars, Lat. fixae stellae) and his description shows Leon’s knowledge of astronomy. When we combine this with Leon’s other description we can conclude that Leon had a proper astronomy education, probably during his secondary education in Konstantinoupolis. Another comet-disaster relation can be found in Leon’s account on the 26 October 989 earthquake:
X.10.16-32: καὶ γὰρ ἑσπέρας ἐνισταμένης, ἐν ᾗ μνήμην τοῦ μεγάλου Δημητρίου καὶ Μάρτυρος τελεῖν παρέλαβεν ἡ συνήθεια, φρικώδης ἐπενεχθεὶς σεισμὸς, καὶ οἷος οὐκ ἄλλος κατὰ ταύτας δὴ συνέβη τὰς γενεὰς, τά τε πυργώματα τοῦ Βυζαντίου πρὸς γῆν κατερίπωσε, καὶ τὰς πλείους ἑστίας ἀνέτρεψε, τάφον αὐτὰς τοῖς οἰκοῦσιν ἀπεργασάμενος, τά τε προσέγγια τοῦ Βυζαντίου χωρία μέχρις ἐδάφους κατέβαλε, καὶ πολὺν τῶν ἀγροίκων φθόρον ἐποίησεν· οὐ μόνον δὲ, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ ἡμισφαίριον τῆς ὑπερῴας τῆς μεγάλης ἐκκλησίας σὺν τῇ πρὸς δύσιν ἀψίδι κατέβαλε καὶ εἰς γῆν κατερίπωσεν· ἅπερ αὖθις ὁ αὐτοκράτωρ Βασίλειος ἐν ἓξ ἐνιαυτοῖς ἐδομήσατο. καὶ οἱ παγχάλεποι δὲ λιμοὶ, καὶ λοιμοὶ, αὐχμοί τε, καὶ ἐπικλύσεις, καὶ ἀνέμων ἐξαισίων ἐπιφοραί· ὁπηνίκα καὶ ὁ ἐν τοῖς Εὐτροπίου στύλος τῇ βίᾳ τῶν κυμάτων κατηνέχθη, καὶ ὁ ἐν αὐτῷ μοναστὴς ἐναπεπνίγη τοῖς θαλασσίοις ῥοθίοις δεινῶς· καὶ ἡ ἀφορία δὲ τῆς γῆς, καὶ τὰ ἐπισκήψαντα χαλεπὰ μετὰ τὴν τοῦ ἀστέρος ἐπιτολὴν, ἅπαντα ἐξεγένοντο.
On the eve of the day, when traditionally the memory of the great martyr Demetrios is celebrated, a terrible earthquake occurred, the likes of which had not happened in this generation. [The earthquake] razed the fortifications of Byzantion to the ground and destroyed most of the houses, turning them to graves for their residents, and razed to the
110
ground the districts near Byzantion, causing much loss of life among the peasants. Not only that, but it also brought down the half-dome of the upper part of the Great Church, (= Hagia Sophia) along with the west apse (these were rebuilt by Emperor Basileios in six years) and razed them to the ground. The severe famines and plagues, droughts, floods and storms of violent winds, when the column in [the quarter of] Eutropios was toppled by the force of the waves and the monk on it89 was horribly drowned in the waves of the sea, and the barrenness of the earth and disasters that occurred, all came to pass after the appearance of the star.
These were the effects of the 26 October 989 earthquake. However, Leon explains these and many other calamities he describes to the appearance of Halley’s Comet. The word ἄγροικος literally means those who dwell in fields, farmers, these people are connected to the “razed districts around Byzantion.” Leon points to how the earthquake damaged the countryside.
To conclude, we can say that even though Leon has accurate geographical depictions some of his depictions are based on the Holy Scriptures, and it seems he has no vision of geography of his own, rather he quotes his findings to enrich his narrative. Therefore, most of these depictions are either erroneous, flawed or contradicting each other, and he is not aware of this. We are certain that he has problems with locating ancient topoi or toponyms in his own geography. His views on natural phenomena were clearly influenced by the Holy Scriptures. From his narrative, it is clear that he sees natural disasters as God’s doing and for him, atmospherical phenomena, in particular, equals ill news. His quotation of Aristoteles’ theory on earthquake (probably through Agathias, even though he was well-educated in Classical Greek) and deeming it “Hellenic rubbish” is remarkable. In a way, it is like his own summary.
89 a Stylites it seems, the monks who live on columns (στῦλος, translit. stylos). Hence, the name στυλίτης.
111
THE ANALYSIS OF THE TEXTS BETWEEN 1056-1204
In this chapter as the title suggests, the analysis of the texts between 1056-1204 will be covered. Mikhael Psellos
Two works of Psellos are covered in this thesis, his Historia Syntomos and Chronographia. For the Greek text of Historia Syntomos, we have used the bilingual edition of Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae prepared by late Dutch Byzantinist Willem Johan Aerts (1990). For the Greek text of Chronographia, Emile Renauld’s edition is used (1967). Besides, we have benefited from the eminent British Classicist-Byzantinist Edgar Robert Ashton Sewter’s English translation (1979).
Psellos’ Historia Syntomos has a few points related to our study. In 1.10-11, he gives the location of Rome: According to him the city of Rome is situated in the western part of Italia near the River Tiber at a distance of 120 stadia (approx. 23 km) from the Tyrrhenian [Sea]. Tiber flows into the sea at the middle of the coast. This is a very accurate depiction for a man who has never been in Italia, let alone Roma. According to modern calculations, Roma is about 25 km from the mouth of the River Tiber. We are certain that this description is from Strabon (Str. V.3.2).
There are also a few phenomena he recorded. 53.7: ἐπὶ τούτου σῖτον ἐξ οὐρανοῦ ὕδατι βεβρεγμένον ὑετίζει θεός. During this [reign] God rained water-soaked bread (or watered grain) from heaven/sky. What Psellos meant by this, is ambiguous. However, it is clear that the architect of this phenomenon was God. The timeline he mentioned was Probus (r. 276-282). However, Psellos incorrectly states that Probus reigned for two years and four months. Psellos’ source could be Zosimos, however, Zosimos has no such claim (Zos. I. 63-65).
In Chapter 70, Psellos mentions that during the reign of Iustinus I (r. 518-527) “the whole world” suffered from earthquakes. In one of them, Antiokheia was razed to the ground. Psellos claims that the city becomes the tomb of her inhabitants. Screams of
112
the people buried under the debris can be heard. This must be the 526 earthquake, for he does not mention any previous earthquake. The second earthquake was to hit Antiokheia in November 528.
In Chapter 99, during the reign of Emperor Basileios I, there were earthquakes in several towns and Konstantinoupolis as well. According to Psellos, the City was shook for 40 days. This is probably the 869 earthquake.
Due to the nature of his work (chronicle) Psellos gives no details nor does he make any explanation or interpret the very few phenomena he recorded. Yet, his Chronographia is no different. Apart from a few examples, Psellos offers nothing for this study. Still, his narrative in III.16 is very interesting.
III. 16.4-15: καὶ οὐδὲ τοσοῦτον ἐξ ἀριθμητικῆς ἢ γεωμετρίας ὤνητο, ἵνα τι ἀφέλοι τοῦ μεγέθους ἢ τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ, ὥσπερ οἱ γεωμετροῦντες τὸ ποικίλον ἀφείλαντο, ἀλλ' ὥσπερ ἐν ταῖς οἰκοδομαῖς ἄπειρον ἐβούλετο τὸ μέγεθος ἔχειν, οὕτω δὴ καὶ ἐν τοῖς μονασταῖς τὸν ἀριθμὸν παρεξέτεινεν· ἐντεῦθεν οὖν τὰ ἀνάλογα· ὥσπερ ἐκεῖ τῷ μεγέθει τὰ πλήθη, οὕτως ἐνταῦθα τοῖς πλήθεσιν αἱ συνεισφοραί. Ἑτέρα γοῦν τις οἰκουμένη διηρευνᾶτο, καὶ ἡ ἐκτὸς Ἡρακλείων ἀνεζητεῖτο θάλασσα, ἵν' ἐκείνη μὲν ὡραῖα τρωκτὰ, αὕτη δὲ τοὺς πελωρίους καὶ κητώδεις κομίζοι ἰχθῦς· καὶ ἐπεὶ ἔδοξεν αὐτῷ ψεύδεσθαι ὁ Ἀναξαγόρας ἀπείρους ὁριζόμενος κόσμους, τὸ πλεῖστον τῆς καθ' ἡμᾶς ἠπείρου ὑποτεμόμενος καθοσιοῖ τῷ νεῴ·
[Emperor Romanus III] was not well educated in arithmetic or geometry to diminish the size or the number of his buildings, like the geometricians simplify/subtract something complex pattern. Just as he wished to have buildings of great size, he also extended the number of monks. Thence was proportionate, as there were multitudes of monks, so there were contributions in multitudes. Another inhabited land was searched through and the sea beyond the Pillars of Herakles was searched, in order to provide seasonable fruits/sweetmeats and gigantic fishes and whales. Besides, since it seemed to him that Anaxagoras had lied when he said that the worlds were infinite, he dedicated the greater part/wealth of our infinite world/continent to the church.
Despite this exciting information, Psellos gives no further details about this. It is clear that the sea mentioned is the Atlantic Ocean. The verb he used ἀναζητέω both means
113
to search/investigate and to discover. However, in this context, it is about “a search” for new sources. Nevertheless, we believe it is an exciting record.
Like the previous author we have examined above, Psellos too, accounts for the Naval Battle of 1043 which take place at the Rhos-Byzantine war Rhos-Byzantine War, which occurred near Konstantinoupolis (at the Anatolian coast to be more precisely) and Psellos was an eye-witness. His account is as follows:
VI.95.8-20: Καὶ ὁ ἥλιος ἀθρόον νεφέλην ἐφελκυσάμενος κάτωθεν, ἐπειδὴ πολύ τι τοῦ ὁρίζοντος μετεώριστο, μετατίθησι τὸν ἀέρα, καὶ ὃς πνεῦμά τι τῶν ἰσχυρῶν ἐξ ἀνατολῆς ἐπὶ δύσιν κινεῖ, καὶ λαίλαπι χαράξας τὴν θάλασσαν ἐπὶ τὸ βάρβαρον ἐπαιγίζει τὰ κύματα· (…) Γέγονέ τε τῶν βαρβάρων φόνος πολὺς, καὶ ὥσπερ ἐκ ποταμῶν ἄνωθεν ῥευμάτιον ὡς ἀληθῶς φόνιον τὴν θάλασσαν κατεφοίνισσεν.
Suddenly the Sun attracted a mist from the coast (or from the lowlands), for most of the horizon was of high [ground], and the weather changed. Strong wind blowing from east to west, sharpened the sea with a hurricane/storm and rolled the waves upon the barbarians (= the Rhos). The slaughter of the barbarians was so great, that the blood reddened the sea as if it flows from the river of the mainland/interior.
According to Psellos, the Sun attracted the mist, which created a tempest. This is his explanation for the tempest. Also, since it is obvious that the sea was reddened because of the slaughtered Russians, it is odd of Psellos to mention that blood looked like flowing from the rivers of the mainland. Was it another natural phenomenon (e.g. a river looked like red because of the clay deposits) or was there another ongoing land battle at the rivers? To our knowledge, during the clash there was no land battle in the vicinity, but only after the battle is won (in the pursuit of enemy survivors). Other records on the battle mentions no such natural phenomenon. Psellos gives no further explanation. Note that he doesn’t interpret this as a Divine help, but in 98.5-6 he says that the outcome of events must be ascribed to a higher power (τὰ δὲ πράγματα ὡς τετελευτήκασιν, ἐς τὸ δόξαν τῷ Κρείττονι ἀναφέρωσι. According to Sewter’s translation it is the will of God 1979, p. 228). Note that Attaleiates does not mention the storm, but only the merit of the Emperor and the Imperial Navy, and the Greek fire of course (Attal. 5.2-3).
114
Psellos, narrating the civil war that broke out after the disaster at Mantzikert, provides us with with a few descriptions of Taurus Mountains and its vicinity. In VII. 34.10-13, Khatatoures, the Doux of Antokheia helped the dethroned and outlawed Romanos IV to escape to Kilikia. Psellos mentions (actually quotes Khatatoures) that the remote valleys of Kilikia would give Romanos a respite from the attacks of “goofus” Emperor Mikhael Doukas and his supporters (εἰς δὲ τὴν τῶν Κιλίκων χώραν ἀπαγαγὼν καὶ εἰς τὴν ἐξ ἐφόδου φυλακὴν τὰ τέμπη τῆς Κιλικίας αὐτοῦ προβαλόμενος,). Later, after the failed negotiations Andronikos was given the eastern command to get rid of Romanos Diogenes. Note that during Andronikos’ march, Romanos was probably in Adana. Psellos writes as follows:
VII.36.9-15:δεύτερον δὲ σκοπὸν τίθεται λαθεῖν τὸν Διογένην ὁπότε τοῖς τῆς Κιλικίας στενοῖς προσπελάσειεν, καὶ τοὺς ἑλιγμοὺς τῶν ἐκεῖσε ὀρῶν καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν δύσβατον ἀτραπὸν ἠρέμα διεξελθεῖν, καὶ ἀθρόον αὐτοῖς τοῖς πολεμίοις φανήσασθαι. Οἱ μὲν οὖν ἐν τούτοις ἦσαν, καὶ κατὰ τὰ βεβουλευμένα τὴν στενὴν καὶ παράκρημνον διαβεβήκασιν ἀτραπόν·
[Andronikos’] the second objective was to escape Diogenes’s notice when he drew near the narrow passes into Kilikia, to proceed quietly through the contorted mountain defiles and to show himself unexpectedly before the enemy, after crossing all the difficult parts. Our men following the plan were onto this, they marched through the pass on a narrow and precipitous path.
This is a typical Byzantine description of the passes at Taurus. In general, Psellos provides no geomorphological depictions, even when he was sent as an envoy to Isaakios I and accompanied Romanos IV. This is odd in the case of Psellos, for he was a curious fellow and he was interested in geography among many other things. This might due to his style as a historian, or to put it bluntly due to his “sycophancy” he did not consider it necessary to give depictions, details etc. Yet his explanation of the tempest that occurred in the Battle of 1043 is interesting: He clearly has his own explanation aside from divine origins, which we also know from his other works. His cast of mind is close to Aristotelian thought. Moreover, his brief description on the aim of astrology (V.19: which according to him it is the examination of the rise and fall of the zodiacal signs above or below the horizon.) and his claim that he also had studied this “science”, yet no longer believes that movements of planets and stars have any influence on human affairs are remarkable and valuable examples.
115
Mikhael Attaleiates
The Greek text we used is Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae edition prepared by Immanuel Bekker. (1853) We have also benefited from Dumbarton Oaks’ bilingual translation prepared by Kaldellis and Krallis (2012), which we both compared Bekker’s Greek text and our translation.
Attaliates’ depiction of Bulgaria and Northern Macedonia accords with the Byzantine approach of his age, which is accurate in terms of modern physical geography.
10. 4-9: καὶ μετὰ τῶν δυνάμεων τῇ Σαρδικῇ τῇ νῦν λεγομένῃ Τριαδίτζῃ καὶ δι' αὐτῆς Ἰλλυρικῷ προσβαλὼν κατὰ κράτος τοὺς ἀποστατήσαντας ἐτροπώσατο, καὶ τὴν χώραν αὐτῶν πολλὴν καὶ μεγάλην καὶ στενόπορον οὖσαν, καὶ χρόνοις πολλοῖς ἀνταγωνιζομένην τοῖς πρὸ τοῦ βασιλεῦσι διὰ τὸ δυσεξίτητον τῶν ἐν αὐτῇ αὐλώνων, ἰσχυρῶς παρεστήσατο,
… with his forces [Emperor Mikhael IV reached] Serdica (present day Sophia, Bulgaria), now known as Triaditze, and through there attacked Illyrikon. With strength, he pushed rebels back and [reclaimed] their territory, which is large and broad and has defiles/narrow passes. For many years [Bulgarians] struggled against emperors for exiting the defiles at there was hard…
Illyrikon might also suggest Albania. However, the toponym compasses Northern Macedonia as well, and that context later makes more sense. His narrative continues in p. 37.
37.16-21: συναγηοχὼς οὖν οὗτος τοὺς ὅλους, ἁδρᾷ δυνάμει διαβαίνει τὸν ὑπερανεστηκότα βουνὸν καὶ οἷον μεθόριον κείμενον τῆς τε Μακεδονικῆς καὶ τῶν περὶ τὸν Ἴστρον χωρῶν, ὃς καὶ Ζυγὸς διὰ τοῦτο τοῖς ἐπιχωρίοις κατονομάζεται καὶ στενωποὺς ἔχει πολλοὺς, οὓς ὁ δημώδης λόγος κλεισούρας καλεῖν παρέλαβε.
[Emperor Konstantinos IX, Monomakhos] gathers all of his army, with a mighty force he passes the mountain range that lies between Macedonia and the lands around the Danube and called Zygos by the locals and has many defiles/narrow passages, which called kleisoura in colloquial language.
The word Attaleiates used for mountain ranges, τὸν ὑπερανεστηκότα βουνὸν, is odd, it litterally means “hills that are higher” (Ger. Hügel, die weiter oben liegen, see LBG).
116
He could have used ὅροι, instead of this. However, Attaleiates’ style is known to be obscure and we know he likes to play with words or invent new words. Zygos is another name Byzantines used for Mt. Haimos (Soustal, 1991, p. 279). Pindos Mountains are also known as Zygos, however, it does not fit Attaleiates’ description. Note that in the Byzantine texts we have examined, the description of the Taurus Mountains and the mountainous regions of the Balkans are similar, which is correct. Both topographies are karstic, thus in a way, Byzantine authors accurately described these regions, without knowing their karstic features. Another description related to the region is provided later by Attaleiates.
230.9-16: τρεψάμενος γὰρ τοὺς Βουλγάρους, καὶ διώκων ἐν τῇ κλεισούρᾳ τῇ λεγομένῃ τοῦ Κλειδίου, οὐκ ἀνίει σφάττων καὶ κατατιτρώσκων αὐτούς, ἕως εἰς ἀκρωρείας ἀνελθών, ἔνθα καὶ ἑτέρους ἑώρα Βουλγάρους καταφυγόντας, ἐςφάλη τῆς ἱππασίας, τοῦ ἵππου κατολισθήσαντος ἐν πλαξὶ λιθίναις καὶ σὺν αὐτῷ κατακρημνισθέντος, ὥστε καταπλαγέντας τοὺς ἐναντίους τὴν ἀνυπέρβλητον ὁρμὴν τοῦ ἀνδρὸς μηκέτι τοῖς Ῥωμαίοις τολμῆσαι εἰς χεῖρας ἐλθεῖν.
Because after routing the Bulgarians and pursuing them in the narrow pass (kleisoura) called Kleidion, [Emperor. Basileios II] didn’t give up. Slaughtered and killed the enemy until he reached a summit/mountain ridge, from there he saw some other Bulgarians who had fled. [Suddenly] his horsemanship failed him and his horse slipped on the stone slabs, falling down with him, so the enemy; terrified at the man's outstanding charge, no longer dared to engage the Romans (= Byzantine) in hand-to-hand combat.
This was the Battle of Kleidion (1014), a pass near the River Strymon (River Struma, which rises from Vitosha, Bulgaria and flows into Aegean near Nea Kardoulia, Greece), a very strategic point in the Byzantine-Bulgarian frontier (Fig. 3.1). The pass lies on the west of Struma. The battle probably occurred near Klyuch village in Bulgaria, about 25 km west of Struma. Again we see the term kleisoura, the term generally used to identify either the passes or the military posts at Taurus Mountains or in the Bulgarian frontier. The author has tremendous amounts of Homeric references.
117
Figure 3.1 The location of the pass at Kleidion.
Attaleiates’ account on the Battle of Kalavrye (1078) provides another depiction of Thracian-Balkan region. His depiction is as follows:
291.8-14: σύνθημα δοὺς τοῖς τὸν λόχον ἔχουσι Τούρκοις ὁ Κομνηνός, οὓς εἰς καιρὸν ἀπεκρύψατο χρείας, παραβοηθῆσαι τοῖς οἰκείοις προσέταξεν· οἳ καὶ παρ' ἐλπίδα φανέντες ἐπὶ τοῦ λόφου καὶ τοῖς ἐναντίοις ἐπιχυθέντες, καὶ τοῖς τοξεύμασι βάλλοντες ἐκ μέρους τοῦ τὸν λόφον ἐγκάρσιον ἔχοντος, τροπὴν αὐτῶν μετὰ τῶν συμπολεμούντων Ῥωμαίων εἰργάσαντο.
[Alexios] Komnenos gave a signal to his unit of Turks waiting in ambush, who he had hidden them for advantage in the moment of need, ordering them to assist his men. They suddenly appeared on the crest of the hill, pouring down on the enemy while shooting their arrows from a point on the hill where the ground/that part cut it at an oblique angle, and, along with the Romans who were fighting with them, causing a rout.
The above-mentioned Battle of Kalavrye (1078), occurred in Yolçatı, Silivri near the River Halmyros (Fig. 3.2). TIB suggests it is Kalivri Dere however there is none with that toponym. It could it be Kınalı Dere, which lies few km east of Yolçatı). (Kulzer, 2008, pp. 389-390) Note that Yolçatı’s former name was Gelevri which derives from Gelebrye/Gelevrye. TIB also notes that the place was mentioned by al-Idrisi as Geliwri, a place close to Silivri (ibid, pp. 421-422). The name Gelevri probably changed after 1922 Greece-Turkey Population Exchange (Mubadala), Kalivri Dere should have met the same fate, ergo Kalivri changed to Kınalı. The topos is close to Fort Kalavrye, whose exact location is unknown, but could be between Fenerköy and
118
Akören (Crow & Turner, 2009, p. 171). Note that The Wall of Anastasius used to pass through Fenerköy.
Figure 3.2 Kalabrye and the River Halmyros.
What makes Attaleiates’ account so valuable, in fact maybe the most valuable one in this thesis, is that he accompanied Romanos IV Diogenes in his eastern campaigns. Therefore, his depictions are based on an eye-witness account. In order not to interrupt his narrative, his account will be presented here chronologically. The first depiction is on Tephrike region (Divriği, Sivas), which was a commonplace for the military expeditions towards the east. He describes Tephrike as follows:
106.6-8: καὶ διὰ πολλῶν ὑψηλοτάτων βουνῶν τῶν τῆς Τεφρικῆς διερχόμενος, καὶ τοῖς ἐχθροῖς ἐπιτεθῆναι κατὰ τὸ ἐγκάρσιον ἐπειγόμενος,..
[Romanos IV] passed through the many and high mountains of Tephrike and made haste to fall upon the enemy downwards from that side,…
Note that the author used κατὰ τὸ ἐγκάρσιον. This means, after crossing Tephrike, the Emperor headed southwards towards Sultan Alparslan. His narrative continues:
107.1-7: Ὑποστρέψας οὖν ἐκεῖθεν εἰς τὴν Σεβαστηνῶν μητρόπολιν πρώτην ἄγοντος τοῦ ὀκτωβρίου μηνός, καὶ διαναπαύσας τὸν στρατὸν ἐν μόναις ἡμέραις τρισίν, ἄρας ἐκεῖθεν τῆς πρὸς Συρίαν ἀγούσης εἴχετο, καὶ διὰ τῶν τῆς Κουκουσοῦ αὐλώνων καὶ δυσδιεξοδεύτων ἀτραπῶν εἰς Γερμανίκειαν καταστὰς εἰς τὸ θέμα τὸ καλούμενον Τελοὺχ παρὰ τοῖς Ἀρμενίοις εἰσβάλλει.
Before the first month of October, he returned to the metropolis of Sebasteia (Sivas). He let his army rest merely for three days. From there he rose up and
119
took the road to Syria. Through the defiles of Koukousos and impassable paths, he arrived to Germanikeia and invaded the thema called Teloukh by Armenians.
The words ἄρας and καταστὰς indicate that the journey started in north and ended in the south, which accords with the description above. Koukousos or Cocusus is present day Maraş, Göksun. Teloukh is Dülük, Gaziantep, also known as Dolikhe or Dolykhe in some Byzantine texts. The Emperor advances towards Syria and Attaleiates conveys his observations:
111.15-23: εἰσὶ γὰρ περὶ τὴν Ἱεράπολιν ἱππήλατα πεδία πρὸς μῆκος ἐπεκτεινόμενα μέγιστον, καὶ πλὴν γηλόφων οὐδέν ἐστι τὸ ὑπερανεστηκὸς εἰς ὄρος μέγα καὶ πρὸς ἀέρα διατεινόμενον. καυσώδης δὲ ὁ τόπος ἐστὶν ὡς ἂν τοῦ ἡλίου θερμότερον ἐκεῖσε προσβάλλοντος διὰ τὸ μεσημβρινόν. περὶ δὲ τὰ ἑσπέρια τοῦ κάστρου λειμῶνες πεφύκασιν ὑδραγωγίοις κατάρρυτοι· χλιαρὸν δὲ τὸ ὕδωρ ἐστί, μεταλαμβάνον πάντως τῆς ἐκ τοῦ ἀέρος καὶ τῆς γεώδους φλεγμονῆς ἐπιτάσεως.
For around Hierapolis there are plains suitable for riding, stretching for vast distances, except hills there is no great elevation as high as a mountain and [that] stretches towards the air. The region blazing hot, for the Sun shines more hotly there, since [the region] is at the south. Towards the west of the fortress, meadows are irrigated by the canals, but the water is warm, because [it is] heated by the heat of the air and earth.
Hierapolis is present day Manbij, Syria. Attaleiates’ account is very accurate. He also points to plains suitable for riding, which has a military approach. After the capture of Manbij, according to Attaleiates (117.1-10), learned that Azas have a copious water source (μανθάνων παρὰ τινῶν ὅτι εὔυδρός ἐστιν) Emperor Romanos IV decided to approach Azas Fortress, however, the region has a small amount of water flowing (μικρόν τε ὕδωρ ἀπορρέον ἐκεῖθεν) and the fortress was built on the ridge of a hill, with strong double walls (ἐπ' ἀκρωρείας τοῦ λόφου ἱστάμενον καὶ τείχεσι διπλοῖς περιεζωσμένον). Attaleiates’ account is correct again. Azas or Azazion is modern Azez in the district of Aleppo. Note that even today Azez lies in a strategic position in terms of logistics (Fig. 3.3). The report Romanos received about the water sources of Azas, in fact, could be the Lake Maydanki, a few km west of Azas. Moreover, the Emperor
120
refuses to encamp in Azas and instead moves toward Terkhala, which, according to Attaleiates, has a mountain torrent spreading alone and was enclosed by mountains from both sides (118.1-2: ἦν δὲ καὶ τόπος ῥύακος τάξιν ἐπέχων, ἐξ ἑκατέρου μέρους βουνοῖς συνεχόμενος,). Terkhala is Targala village in Aleppo, on the east bank of the Nahr Afrin (Oinoparas Potamos), 22 km NNE of the town of Afrin (Todt & Vest, 2014, p. 1804).
Figure 3.3 Azez and Terkhala.
By 123.3-9, Attaleiates describe the Emperor’ return to Byzantine territory from Artakh. He doesn’t pass through Antiokheia, for the city has a food shortage. Marching through desert lands/wastelands he (i.e. Emperor Romanos IV Diogenes) crossed defiles and narrows passes/kleisourai, which separates Koile Syria from Kilikia, and arduously descended to a Kilikian city called Alexandros (İskenderun). [Ardously] for the army was in great distress in those regions, because of the narrows passes, precipitous rocks and endless cliffs. (διὰ τόπων ἐλάσας ἐρήμων ὑπερέβη τοὺς αὐλῶνας ἐκείνους καὶ τὰς κλεισούρας δι' ὧν ἡ Κοίλη Συρία τῆς Κιλικίας χωρίζεται. καὶ κατελθὼν ἐπιπόνως εἰς πόλιν τῆς Κιλικίας λεγομένην Ἀλέξανδρον (μεγίστη γὰρ ἔκθλιψις ἐν τοῖς τόποις ἐκείνοις τῷ στρατοπέδῳ γέγονε διὰ τὸ στενόπορον καὶ τὸ ἀπότομον τῶν πετρῶν καὶ τὸ συνεχὲς τῶν κρημνῶν) Afterwards the Emperor crosses Taurus Mountains and marches backs to Byzantine territory. According to the author, it was the end of December, and suddenly the army find itself in icy weather, everything covered in frost. Pack animals and soldiers (especially those who come from warmer regions of the Empire, for they don’t have winter clothing) froze to death. Next, Attaleiates tells his own memoir during the expedition. He tells that when the
121
army was crossing Mount Taurus his horse bent little -due to illness called lykoenterikos/λυκοεντερικός-90 and led him to slide off. He fell right side, for on the left there was a huge precipice (120.23-121.1: ἔσχε με καταβάντα τούτου αὐτίκα διὰ τοῦ δεξιοῦ μέρους· ἐν ἀριστερῷ γὰρ οὐκ ἦν διὰ τὸ κρημνὸν ἀποτέμνεσθαι μέγιστον.). Sadly, when he tried to regain control of his horse, the horse jumped off the cliff (εὐθὺς διατιναξάμενος αὐτόματος δι' ἑαυτοῦ τῷ κρημνῷ ἑαυτὸν κατηκόντισεν). He also states that the road was so tight that only one man can pass at a time (τῆς ὁδοῦ ἐκείνης ἕνα καὶ μόνον συγχωρούσης διέρχεσθαι διὰ τὸ πάνυ στενώτατον), which accords with the era’s Byzantine narrative. It appears Emperor Romanos IV used Belen Pass, for the author used κατελθὼν (to descend). Also, note that the author used Alexandros instead of Alexandreia. This is the only reference, Skylitzes Cont. (133) and Zonaras (III. 691) uses Alexandron. It also appears the distinction between the regions of Syria is lost in the Middle Byzantine Era and Byzantines identify whole of Syria as Koile Syria, which in fact accords with its Aramaic root (Grabbe, 2011, p. 173). In Ptolemaic geography, however, south of Syria along with cities of Damascus, Hierapolis and Dekapolis, i.e. “Ten Cities”, situated in Koile Syria (Ptol. V. 14). Strabon description accords with this (XVI. 2. 2). We also see a distinction between Koile Syria and Upper Syria in Diodorus Siculus (XIX.80 and 93), and in Polybios, Koile Syria is located in the south of Syria (Pol. 5.66).91 The toponym Syria on the other hand is also a bit problematic in Byzantine texts. From text to text, where it points to changes (Durak, 2011, p. 52). Sometimes it is from the plains of Kilikia to Lebanon and sometimes it is the whole Middle East.
Later, when Emperor Romanos IV was marching from Kaisareia to Larissa (mod. Mancınık, Sivas. see. Hild, 1981, p. 221), in an east-southeastward direction (marching from Kayseri to Malatya via Mancınık), heard the news of an approaching large Turkish force (126-127). Attaleiates doesn’t give the exact location, but he says while the Imperial Army hold the plains, the Turkish army was at the surrounding mountains.
90 This is probably λειεντερικός, a disease.
91 It seems Roman authors were no different. According to Plinius (Plin. Nat. 5.19) Apameia was in the Coele-Syria, bordered by River Maryas, a tributary of Orontes, in the north.
122
In the pursuit of the routed Turkish forces, the Imperial army reached an unknown location described by Attaleiates as follows:
(127.1-3): οἱ Ῥωμαῖοι, προηγουμένου καὶ μισθοφορικοῦ τῶν Σκυθῶν, παρῆλθον τοὺς μηνοειδεῖς ἐκείνους ἀγκῶνας καὶ κατόπιν ἐγένοντο,
Romans, with Scythian (= Pechenegs) mercenaries leading the vanguard, passed those crescent-shaped valleys and they got behind [them (= Turks)],
After the skirmish Emperor’s decides to disband the army and return to Konstantinoupolis. However, Attaleiates suggests otherwise. (129-130) He suggests capturing Khliat and according to him persuades Emperor Romanos.
131.22-132.9: ὡς γὰρ ὁ βασιλεὺς εὐθὺς τῆς Ῥωμανοπόλεως ἐλαύνων ἐφαίνετο, ἐξ ἧς ἡ πρὸς τὸ Χλίατ κάθοδος διὰ στενωπῶν ἐπιγίνεται, μεταστρέψας τὴν γνώμην καὶ τὰς σημαίας ἐν ἀριστερᾷ ποιησάμενος, περιπλανώμενον ἀφῆκε τὸ στρατόπεδον, τὴν ὡρισμένην ἀταρπὸν ἐν δεξιᾷ προερχόμενον, ἕως φήμη καταλαβοῦσα μετήγαγεν αὐτὸ πρὸς τὴν καινοτομηθεῖσαν τῷ βασιλεῖ. κατελθόντες οὖν ἀποτόμους τινὰς καὶ κρημνώδεις ὁδούς, ἐν βαθεῖ τόπῳ τὸν βασιλέα κατασκηνώσαντα εὕρομεν ἐκεῖσε,…
For it seemed, the Emperor aimed to march directly to Romanoupolis, and from there to descend to Khliat through narrow passages. Changing his mind he turned his banners to left and let the army wander on a separate route which led to the right, until a report arrived which changed the course, for a new route was decreed by the Emperor. Therefore, descending from some steep and precipitous roads to a deep valley; we found the Emperor encamped there…
Romanoupolis was a kleisoura, today located at Çapakçur, Bingöl (Hild, 1981, p. 86 ). Later, Romanos went North in search of snow and cold water, for his body was greatly overheated (132.17-20: Καὶ ταῦτα μὲν τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον ἐπράχθησαν, τῶν δὲ βορειοτέρων μερῶν ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐπελάβετο δι' εὕρεσιν χιόνος καὶ ὑδάτων ψυχρῶν· ἀκρατῶς γὰρ εἴχετο τούτων, τὸ σῶμα κατὰ πολὺ διαθερμαινόμενος.) Therefore he left the command to Philaretos, who brought the soldiers under his command to a place called Anthiai, after a struggle with the terrain.
132.22-133.14: καὶ τῷ μὲν Φιλαρέτῳ πόλεμον ἔνοπλον ἐγκατέλιπεν, ἑαυτῷ δὲ καὶ τοῖς συνοῦσι τὸν ἐκ τῆς δυσχωρίας οὐχ ἥττονα. διελθὼν γὰρ διὰ πολλῶν τραχινῶν καὶ δυσβάτων λόφων εἰς τοὺς λεγομένους Ἀνθίας μετὰ τῆς
123
ὑπολειφθείσης αὐτῷ στρατιᾶς κατεκομίσθη. ἔστι δ' ὁ τόπος ἐξ ὑπωρειῶν μεγάλων ὁρῶν πεδινός τε καὶ εὔυδρος, καὶ ταῖς δυσχωρίαις ἐνειλημμένος ψυχαγωγίαν οὐχ ἥκιστα τοῖς καταίρουσιν ἐν τούτῳ ἐνίησι, ποηφόρος ἅμα καὶ σιτοφόρος τυγχάνων καὶ οἷον ὀμφαλὸς ἢ ταμιεῖον τῆς γῆς ἐκείνης καὶ πεδίον τρυφῆς. ἡμέρας οὖν ἐκεῖσε στρατοπεδευσάμενος ὁ βασιλεὺς, καὶ τὸν Ταῦρον τὸ ὄρος, τὸν παρὰ τοῖς ἐγχωρίοις καλούμενον Μούζουρον, ὑπερβὰς ἐπιπόνως εἰς τὴν Κελεσίνην χώραν κατήντησε, διαβὰς τὸ δεύτερον τὸν Εὐφρά- την ποταμόν, κατὰ τοὺς ἀρκτώους πρόποδας τοῦ Ταύρου παρὰ τὸ μέρος ἐκεῖνο παραρρέοντα, καὶ διαιροῦντα τό τε ὄρος καὶ τὴν Κελεσίνην ὥσπερ μεθόριον.
So he left military affairs to Philaretos and, he and his troops engaged on a no mean [struggle] against the rough terrain. Passing through many rugged and impassable ridges, Philaretos brought the soldiers left under his command to a place called Anthiai. The place is formed by the skirts of vast mountains; there is a plain, well-watered, and surrounded by difficult terrain but a refreshing place for those who reach it, for the place is rich in grass and has grain and it is like the navel or store-room of that country and a field of delicacy. The Emperor camped there three days and then arduously climbed Mount Taurus, the one called Mounzouros by the locals, and descended to the region of Kelesine (Erzincan), crossing the River Euphrates a second time where it flows by the northern foothills of the Taurus and then divides the mountain from Kelesine as a boundary.
The exact location of Anthia is unknown, TIB has no suggestions either. However, the clues in Attaleiates’ account can help us to locate. First of all, the verb he used for Philaretos κατακομίζω, also means to bring something from the inland to the coast, or from up to down (as when Prometheus stole the fire and brought it to mankind) or to bring something to the home. Secondly, Mounzouros is Munzur Dağları. Note that Philaretos moved from Romanoupolis (mod. Bingöl) towards Anthia, which lies at the slope of Munzur. The Emperor traverses this mountain range and crosses the Euphrates for a second time, and enters the Kelesine region (Erzincan). In the light of these
124
Anthia can be none other than Ovacık, Tunceli (Fig. 3.4), and Attaleiates’ description is extremely accurate.
Figure 3.4 Anthiai in Ovacik, Tunceli.
In p. 134, Attaleiates give us another depiction of Taurus Mountains, “It would be like that, if Mount Taurus not blocked them, for it is high and mighty, rugged, impassable, precipitous, and able to cause an army to scatter and fall into disorder, also damage the hooves of the horses, which is exactly what had happened to us.” (134.23-135.3: καὶ γέγονεν ἂν τοῦτο, εἰ μὴ ὁ Ταῦρος τὸ ὄρος ἀπήντησε τούτοις ὑψηλὸς ὢν κατὰ πολὺ καὶ τραχὺς καὶ δυςδιεξόδευτος καὶ κρημνώδης καὶ δυνάμενος στρατὸν διασκεδάσαι καὶ παραστῆσαι ἀσύντακτον καὶ τὰς ὁπλὰς ἐπιτρῖψαι τῶν ἵππων· ὅπερ καὶ ἐφ' ἡμῶν προσυμβέβηκε). This is so true, for as we have mentioned Taurus Mountains display karstic topography mostly consisting of limestone, which is a special landform formed by acidic surface waters in soluble rocks. Hollowed karstic topography would indeed destroy the hooves of horses (Şengör, 2021, personal communication; Fig. 3.5).
125
Figure 3.5 Similar example of a karstic topography. This example is from Southern France, Prof. Şengör can be seen in the photograph, or at least part of him (Şengör archive, 2021).
In p. 136, it is stated that Romanos intends to march his own army through the town of Keramos to the banks of the Euphrates as far as Melitene, but Attaleiates, once again, intervenes stating that the area is full of narrow passages, where the army can only march in a single file. He also states that in that region the imperial army would meet with a horrible scarcity. The exact location of the town of Keramos is unknown. It might be Zimara (Hild, 1981, p. 173). Oddly enough, TIB gives no details regarding its district or region. We believe it might be Altıntaş in Iliç, Erzican, for the village’s former name was Zımara. Also, this account is one of the examples of how Attaleiates advises Romanos on matters about geography. This might be true, for as we have stated
126
in chapter 1, Romanos was the one who wanted Attaleiates to accompany him on this expedition. Yet, this might be Attaleiates’ own fabrication to show himself in a better light.
In the following part, in p. 137, the author mentions that Emperor Romanos IV ordered Armenians, who live in the mountains of Seleukia (mod. Silifke), to attack Turks in the narrow passages. Armenians indeed ambushed Turks in the valleys of Tarsos.
In p. 140, Attaleiates records a really interesting report, which arrived at the imperial camp.
140.14-141-8: οὔπω δὲ τὰ τῆς φήμης παρήκμασε, καὶ αὖθις ἑτέρα ἐπῆλθε, τοὺς Τούρκους ἀπαγγέλλουσα τὴν ἐν Χώναις πολιτείαν καὶ αὐτὸν τὸν περιβόητον ἐν θαύμασι καὶ ἀναθήμασι τοῦ ἀρχιστρατήγου ναὸν καταλαβεῖν ἐν μαχαίρᾳ, καὶ φόνου μὲν ἅπαντα τὰ ἐκεῖσε πληρῶσαι καὶ λύθρου, πολλὰς δὲ ὕβρεις τῷ ἱερῷ ἐμπαροινηθῆναι, καὶ τὸ δὴ σχετλιώτερον, μὴ τὰς τοῦ χάσματος σήραγγας, ἐν ᾧπερ οἱ παραρρέοντες ποταμοὶ ἐκεῖσε χωνευόμενοι διὰ τῆς τοῦ ἀρχιστρατήγου παλαιᾶς ἐπιδημίας καὶ θεοσημίας ὡς διὰ πρανοῦς ἀστατοῦν τὸ ῥεῦμα καὶ λίαν εὐδρομοῦν ἔχουσι, τοὺς καταφυγόντας διατηρῆσαι καὶ ὑπαλύξαι τὸν κίνδυνον μελετῆσαι, ἀλλ' ὅπερ οὐ γέγονέ ποτε, πλημυρῆσαι τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ οἷον ἀναρροιβδῆσαι καὶ ἀνερεύξασθαι, καὶ πάντας ἄρδην τοὺς καταπεφευγότας κατακλύσαν καὶ διὰ ξηρὰς ὑποβρυχίους ὑποποιήσασθαι. ταῦτα τοιγαροῦν ἐπιδιηγηθέντα πολλὴν ἐνῆκαν τὴν ἀθυμίαν ἡμῖν ὡς ἐκ θεομηνίας τῶν δεινῶν ἐπισυμβαινόντων, καὶ μὴ μόνον τῶν πολεμίων ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν στοιχείων ἀντιμαχομένων τοῖς καθ' ἡμᾶς.
Even when this news was fresh, there arrived another one which brings tidings that the Turks seized by force the city of Khonai and the shrine of Arkhstrategos (i.e. St. Michael the Prince-General of Heavenly Hosts), famed for its miracles and dedications, and they entirely filled the place with murder and carnage, and desecrated the church with many insolences. What was worse was this: the channels in the cavern, as if flowing rivers mixed with one another, through that place [where] the ancient visitation and divine manifestation of the Arkhstrategos [occurred,] with a turbulent, and a very swift current flowing
127
downwards, didn’t protect these refugees, who92 tried to escape from the danger. But this had never happened before, the waters rose/flooded, then swallowed and once again discharged themselves. It drowned all refugees at once, plunging them underwater, as it was dry land. The news of this greatly disheartened us, for it was as though these disasters were being caused by the divine wrath. Not only the enemy but also nature seemed to be fighting against us.
This occurred in 1070. The commander of the aforementioned Turkish forces advancing towards Khonai was Afshin. (Belke & Mersich, 1990, p. 224) Khonai is present day Honaz, Denizli. The author uses στοιχεῖον (elements) for nature. There is a legend about St. Michael. According to this legend, the Archangel had diverted a river at Khonai by splitting a rock to save a hermit and the shrine. Note that the church might be in Kolossai, about 3-4 km further north. It appears what Attaleiates explained as the deed of the Divine Wrath, was a karstic flood (Şengör, 2021, personal communication).
During Emperor Romanos IV marches from Helenopolis (present-day Hersek, Yalova) to Anatolikon [Theme], the author mentions that the Emperor encamped on plains that were full of wheat along the banks of the river flowing through there. (144.18-145.4: ἐάσας οὖν τὸ ἐπὶ πεδίων πυροφόρων κατασκηνῶσαι, τῷ περιρρέοντι ταῦτα ποταμῷ προςτιθεμένων) Emperor’s tent was in a steep and jagged location, (πρός τι ἄναντες καὶ τραχὺ χωρίον τὴν ἰδίαν κατασκήνωσιν ἐποιήσατο), but he found roofed hovels there and avoided the encampment. Later, the hovel Emperor stayed was burned. Sadly his horses died in the fire. Again, Attaleiates interprets this as an ill omen.
Helenopolis was a city and a bishopric in Bithynia, at the south entrance to the Gulf of Nikomedeia (Byz. Astakenos Kolpos), in the delta of the Drakon (Yalakdere). According to Attaleiates, the locals also call this city Eleeinopolis, which means “Pitiful City”. The original landing point was Hieria (mod. Fenerbahçe). However, Romanos changed it to Helenopolis, which according to Attaleiates was a bad decision,
92 Attaleiates might use the καὶ in here as pronomen relativum, for the καὶ as coniunctivum doesn’t make sense. In that case translation would be: “didn’t protect these refugees and tried to avoid danger.”
128
due to the city’s local name, “Pitiful City” as we have stated. (144.6-9: ὅπου καὶ ἡ βασίλειος σκηνὴ προδιωρίσθη καὶ προεπήγνυτο, Ἑλενόπολιν τὴν προδιατεθεῖσαν τοῖς εὔφρο- σιν ἐκ τῆς προσηγορίας ἐλεεινόπολιν. οὐδὲ γὰρ αὐτὸ τοῦτο, τὸ ἀπὸ τῶν Ἠρίων93 εἰς Ἑλενόπολιν τὸν βασιλέα μεθαρμόσασθαι τὴν ἑώαν ἀπόβασιν, ὁ οἰωνὸς ἀγαθὸς τοῖς ἀκριβοῦσιν ἐδόκει τὰ πράγματα·) In Attaleiates’ narrative there is a strong connection between toponyms and divination, as if there was a sort of divination type based on toponyms and topoi. It seems there were certain people who advised Romanos in these matters (Attal. 144.10). Besides, Attaleiates’ interpretation of poor horses burned to death as ill-omen indicates that Attaleiates was a man who highly regards these portents.
Locating the plains Romanos encamped is impossible. However, in the following chapter Romanos crosses the River Sangarios (mod. Sakarya Nehri) via the bridge called Zompos. The exact location of the bridge is unknown, but it used to lay in middle or upper Sangarios, probably spanned the middle course of the river, far to the east of Dorylaion (Şarhöyük), perhaps south of Pessinus, i.e. Ballıhisar, (Belke, 1984, p. 246). Therefore, the mentioned plains must be at the west bank of upper or medium Sangarios, which can be located as Kartepe, İzmit. In 184, during the march of Caesar Ioannes Doukas, the bridge is described as “that is sitting over the River Sangarios and connects the themes of Anatolikon and Kappadokia. (Attal. 184.20-24: ἄρας ἐκεῖθεν προσωτέρω ἐπεπορεύετο καὶ μέχρι τῆς γεφύρας τῆς τοῦ Ζόμπου καλουμένης, ἥτις τὸν Σαγγάρην ποταμὸν ἐπικαθημένη τὴν τῶν ἀνατολικῶν καὶ Καππαδοκῶν ἐπιζευγνύει ἐπαρχίαν) Attaleites also describes the bridge as slippery (186.2-3: καὶ τὸν ποταμὸν διαβὰς ἐπιπόνως διὰ τὸ τῆς γεφύρας εὐόλισθον).
After Romanos crossed the River Sangarios via the bridge known as Zompos (145.19-24: ὁ δὲ βασιλεὺς διαπεραιωθεὶς τὸν Σαγγάρην ποταμὸν διὰ τῆς τοῦ Ζόμπου καλουμένης γεφύρας), and began to assemble his remaining forces, who had scattered among the hills (more precisely crests of the hills/ridges) and hollows/gullies, the caves and some hiding places due to the earlier Turkish assault (διεσκεδασμένοι κατὰ λόφους καὶ σήραγγας καὶ κρησφύγετά τινα καὶ ἄντρα διὰ τὴν προδεδηλωμένην τῶν
93 Note that the ancient toponym Hieria, which derives from Goddess Hera turned to Hieron (ἠρίον) which means barrow, mound etc. Clearly, a sort of a censorship.
129
βαρβάρων ἐπίτασιν.). Again, the exact location is unknownn but the Emperor was marchings towards Kappadokia. The current topography accords with Attaleiates’ depiction.
Afterwards, the Emperor crossed River Halys and marched to Kharsianon and Kaisareia, but he didn’t let his army to enter the city of Kaisareia, instead he made camp at a place called Κρύα πηγὴ (Cold spring). Description of the place is as following:
146.11-18: ἐστὶ γὰρ ὁ τόπος οὐδενὸς τῶν χρηστῶν τὸ παράπαν ἀπολειπόμενος, τό τε [τὸ] ὕδωρ διειδὲς ἅμα καὶ πότιμον καὶ ψυχρότατον, δένδρα τε συνηρεφῆ μετὰ δαψιλοῦς τῆς πόης ἐκτρέφον καὶ ξυλίσασθαι εὔπορος, παντοίοις τε ῥόδοις κατάκομος καὶ κρινωνιαῖς, λόφοις τε ἠρέμα πρὸς ἑαυτοὺς ἀνάγουσιν εὔθετος, καὶ οἷον εἰπεῖν ἀστυκώμη καὶ ἀγρόπολις διὰ τῆς συμμιγοῦς ποριμότητος γνωριζόμενος.
For this place lacks no necessity at all, the water was clear and at the same time drinkable and cold, trees were both thickly shaded with wide leaves and abundant in wood, there was every kind of roses with dropping petals and lilies; it was well-situated place with slightly rising hills; and so to say, it was a city in the countryside94 or a rustic city, for the place was known for the variety and mixture of its resources.
The location is unknown. Hild suggests Krya Pege and Bathys Ryax is in fact the same place (Hild, 1981, p. 158). Honigmann (1935, p. 50) identifies Kharsianon as Muşali Kale in Yozgat. However, Hild (1981, p. 163) refutes this and locates it somewhere between Molu and Amarat, Kayseri. Hild bases his suggestion on sixteenth-century Ottoman tax registers.
It is odd that Attaleiates provides no details on Mantzikert. According to his account in 155-156, there are high hills (where on them, the Turks were stationed according to his statement in 162) and a river flowing nearby. Later he likens the defeat at Mantzikert to an earthquake (163.1-3: καὶ ἦν σεισμὸς οἷος καὶ ὀδυρμὸς καὶ πόνος καὶ
94 ἀστυκώμη: stadtähnliches Dorf: καὶ ἀγρόπολις Attal 146,17. id. JoScylCo 143,26.— Vgl. κωμόπολις LS.
130
φόβος ἀκίχητος). In fact, there is an ongoing debate whether Attaleiates was present at the Battle of Mantzikert or not. The evidence suggests he was at the imperial encampment, but not directly in the disastrous battle (Vratimos, 2012, p. 840).
In the aftermath of Mantzikert, Attaleiates’ focuses on the ensuing battle for the imperial throne. At this point Attaleiates was not among Romanos’ party, still, the depiction he had provided, mostly from his earlier observations, are accurate. According to him, dethroned Emperor Romanos invades Kilika through difficult passes that lead from the Taurus mountains (173.11-13: ἐμβαλὼν γὰρ εἰς τὴν τῶν Κιλίκων χώραν, δυσδιοδεύτους αὐλῶνας ἔχουσαν ἐκ τῶν Ταύρου ὀρῶν). His following depiction is as follows:
173.20-174.9: καὶ οὕτως μετὰ τὸ συστῆσαι τὴν ὅλην σύνταξιν τῶν δυνάμεων προῄει κατὰ τοῦ Διογένους ὡς τῆς Κιλίκων ἐπιβησόμενος, καὶ τὴν συνήθη κλεισοῦραν τὴν τοῦ λε γομένου καταλιπὼν Ποδαντοῦ διὰ τῆς τῶν Ἰσαύρων εἰς ταύτην ἐνέβαλεν, οὐ πάνυ τι ἀπεχούσης τῆς τῶν Ταρσῶν πόλεως. δυσδιεξόδευτοι δ' ὄντες καὶ τραχεῖς καὶ ἀνάντεις καὶ λίαν στενόποροι οἱ διατειχίζοντες τῶν ὀρῶν αὐχένες τὴν Κιλικίαν οὐ μετρίαν ἐποίουν οὐδ' εὔοδον τῷ στρατῷ τὴν εἰσέλευσιν. ὅθεν καὶ εἴ τινες τῶν τοῦ Διογένους τὰς ἀκρωρείας κατεῖχον, καὶ μᾶλλον ἑκηβόλοι καὶ τοῖς ποσὶν ἐπιβαίνοντες, οὐκ ἂν ἠδυνήθη ποτὲ τὸ τοῦ Ἀνδρονίκου στρατόπεδον τὴν πορείαν διὰ τούτων ποιήσασθαι, εἰ μὴ καὶ μᾶλλον δέους ἐπειγομένου τοῖς στρατιώταις πρὸς φυγὴν ὥρμησαν.
Thus, after gathering and organizing his entire force, [Andronikos Doukas] marched against Diogenes to attack Kilikia. Passing through the kleisoura called Podandos. He strikes that land through the land of the Isaurians, which is not far from the city of Tarsos. But the passes through the mountains that encircle Kilikia which are difficult to get through, jagged, steep, and extremely narrow. Therefore, it didn’t make the march easy and suitable for the army, such that if some of Diogenes’ men had held the peaks/mountain ridges, advancing on foot and with bows, the army of Andronikos would never have been able to march through them; in fact, his soldiers might well have quickly panicked and retreat.
Note that the usage of κατὰ τοῦ Διογένους (marched against Diogenes) indicates a march from the north to the south or from highlands to lowlands. Podandos is located
131
in the ruins on the east bank of the Çakıt Suyu, 2 km N. of mod. Pozanti (Hild, 1981, p. 261; Fig. 3.6). Attaleiates gives us a correct portrayal of the topos, mostly based on his earlier observations. Nevertheless, the Middle Byzantine authors we have examined in this thesis always gave accurate depictions of this region. Also, note that Attaleiates was perfectly well-aware of the military tactics related to geography.
Figure 3.6 The location of Podandos.
301.7-12: Ἐν δὲ τῷ ἔτει τούτῳ δουλικὴν ὡμολόγησε πίστιν τῷ βασιλεῖ ὁ κουροπαλάτης Φιλάρετος ὁ Βαχάμιος· οὗτος γὰρ ἐν τόποις, δυσβάτοις καὶ ὀρεινοῖς καὶ τῶν Τουρκικῶν παρόδων ἀπῳκισμένοις τὰς οἰκήσεις ποιούμενος τείχεσι πλείστοις τοὺς στενωποὺς περιέλαβε, καὶ κατοχυρώσας τὰς διεκβάσεις ἀνάλωτον τοῖς ἐκεῖσε χώραν ἀπὸ τῶν ἐναντίων εἰργάσατο
In that same year (1078), the kouropalates Philaretos Brachamios declared his submission and loyalty to the emperor. For he had made his base in that impassable mountainous lands that were away from the Turkish routes, he fortified the narrow passes with many walls and secured the defiles, making the lands there impregnable to the enemy.
Attaleiates doesn’t give the name of the location, as was his style. He only uses ἐν τόποις (in that lands). However, we know that after Philaretos bend the knee to Emperor Botoneiates he became the Doux of Antiokheia and established his capital at Edessa (mod. Urfa), with an army of Normans and local Armenians under his command. Alas, to no avail against Seljuks. Therefore, the aforementioned location must be Edessa. However, Edessa does not fit Attaleiates description. He is in error there. On the other hand, Attaleiates might be confused that since Philaretos is the
132
Doux of Antiokheia, his base was in Antiokheia as well. Yet his depiction of Ani is very accurate.
79.14-20: Τὸ Ἀννίον πόλις ἐστὶ μεγάλη καὶ πολυάνθρωπος, καὶ πανταχόθεν τάφροις οὐ χειροποιήτοις ἀλλὰ φυσικαῖς κοιλάσι καὶ ἀδιεξοδεύτοις καὶ πέτραις ἀποτόμοις συμπεριειλημμένη, καὶ ποταμῷ βαθυδίνῃ καὶ ἀβάτῳ περιεζωσμένῃ τὸ μέρος καθ' ὅπερ ἀπορρῶγες καὶ φάραγγες ἐπιλείπουσι· καὶ βραχύς ἐστι τόπος ὁ τὰς ἀμφόδους ἔχων τῆς πόλεως, καὶ οὗτος μετεώροις καὶ ἰσχυροῖς κατωχύρωται τείχεσι.
Ani is a large and populous city, surrounded every side by trenches not made by the men but by the natural hollows without having an outlet and enclosed with steep rocks. Additionally, on the side where crags and ravines are lacking, a deep-eddying and impassable river enclose it. High and strong walls fortify the small entrance to the city.
In 218, Attaleitas mentions the famous Battle of the Milvia Bridge. However, he incorrectly gives the location in Gaul, instead of Rome (218.2-3: ἀφ' ὅτου τὸν Μαξέντιον περὶ τὰς κάτω Γαλλίας κατετροπώσατο,).
From 220.19 to the end of 222, Attaleiates gives a general geographic view of the known world. It is as follows:
For the Iberians originated in the Celtic lands, and Iberia proper along with Celtiberia lies to the west of Rome by the western ocean and they are now both called Spain. As Rome lies above Italy, those lands looking to the rising sun are called upper Gaul, while those facing the setting sun, all the way to the limits of the Alps, are called lower Gaul, where today one finds Nemitzia, (= the Germans) whose king is known as the rex. The lands transverse to the Alps to the south, extending all the way to the western ocean, are known as Iberia and Celtiberia, taking their names from the rivers that flow through that land. From these lands, whoever wishes to sail along the adjacent coast all the way to lower Gaul goes through the strait of the Pillars of Herakles, while he who moves toward the east, as the coast extends inward, will be led toward and eventually reach the British isles. The one who wants to sail toward the Islands of the Blessed must sail over a vast distance, for they are some thousand miles distant from the land. There are two of these islands, not too far from each
133
other, teeming with all manner of goods and covered throughout the year by soft and fragrant grass. As they are located at a distance from the world’s filth and the air’s pollution, which is generated by the foul and dry odours of the earth, they are not affected by them and offer the people and animals that live on them a healthy life devoid of sorrow, so that being there is most pleasant, carefree, joyous in all ways, and happy. The men who live in Iberia are most brave and mighty, and they had in the past been in continual and total war with the Romans, performing feats of endurance and bravery against them. The Romans managed only with great difficulty to conquer them through their own irresistible bravery and unrivalled impetus. Eventually, they made treaties and their people mixed through intermarriage and mutual emigration. It is for this reason that the greatest among the emperors, the most celebrated Constantinus, selected a not inconsiderable portion of the western Iberians and resettled them in the east, in the regions of Assyria. Henceforth, the country that received them has been called Iberia. Previously this country too had been inhabited by the Assyrians, then by the Medes, and after numerous years by the Armenians, and one cannot find any reference to the Iberians in the old histories except after the period when Constantinus Magnus settled them there.
The so-called Islands of the Blessed (μακάρων νῆσοι) are the legendary islands, though it might be an interpretation of a real island (Canary). Attaleiates’ claim “that one can’t find any reference to the Iberians in the old histories” is false, for it is available in Strabon (XI.4). Attaleiates should have known this. It shows that Attaleiates did not use Strabon much when he was compiling his work.
Other than those mentioned above, Attaleiates has some exaggerations or inaccuracies in terms of geography. In 9.5-6, his depiction of Sicily as a large island with beautiful cities on her coasts and and the availability of resources (καὶ τῶν ἄλλων χρηστῶν οὐδενὸς ἀποδέουσα), is clearly an exaggeration. Moreover, like all Byzantines his knowledge on Turkish-Persian geography is erroneous. In p. 45, Attaleites mentions that the leader of Nephthalite Huns, that is Tughrul Beg of Seljuks, who are the neighbours of Persians, crosses the River Ganges, a river of four and a half miles wide
134
(τέσσαρσι πρὸς τῷ ἡμίσει μιλίοις τὸ εὖρος ἀποτεινόμενος)95 and according to the author, it separates the Seljuks and the Persians, from its narrowest point. However, Attaleiates’ geography is in error for the river mentioned should be Oxus (River Ceyhun) not Ganges. The Ganges is probably due to a Biblical influence.
In Historia, there are other examples of the above-mentioned “toponym divination” related to Helenopolis. In pp. 67-68, during Emperor Isaakios I’s campaign against Hungarians and Pechenegs, the Emperor encamped at the foot of a hill called Lobitzos,96 which according to our author derives from λωβή: outrage, dishonour, disgrace, ruin, destruction. The author notes that despite the month being September (the exact date was 24 September 1059) torrential rain and a snowstorm struck the encampment. He states that cold and rain was unbearable and the flooding of the river destroyed the supplies. After the storm, he passed a ford of the river nearby, where floodwaters killed his men later. Finally, when Emperor stands at the shadow of a tree, with a loud sound rotting the tree's trunk crashed,, nearly killing the Emperor himself. Attaleiates states that omen bode not well. So, he interpreted these as an omen. Attaleiates provides no explanation and the connection between the toponym and the omen is somewhat ambiguous. However, a certain story about Nikephoros II Phokas, narrated in p. 225 provides a good example. According to his narration, when Nikephoros was about to set sail towards Krete, he asked the name of the place they will land. The answer was Phygella.97 He quickly changed the location to Hagia98 from Phygella. For since Phygella is connected with φυγή (flight), he accepted this as an ill omen. On the other hand, Hagia means holy, so he used the sanctity of that place. Once again we can see this “toponym divination” and certain people who advises the emperor in these matters.99
95 Approx. 7083 meters.
96 Loveč, in Bulgaria, about 50km south of the Danube.
97 Unknow location in Krete.
98 Probably Hagia Pelagia in Krete.
99 Moreover, the emperor was delayed with the entire armada on the island of Neos, because there was no captain to guide him to Krete. None knew that sea-lane, because for many years no Byzantine had sailed Krete. Two Karpathian (Bulgarians?) vessels helped him, but according to Attaleiates they were
135
Attaleiates mentions another group of men, who were experts in the motion of the heavenly bodies and scientists/astronomers (lit. μαθηματικοὶ) claims that the Moon reveals the fate of rebels and that misfortunes in its condition announce misfortunes100 in the rebel's fate. (287.8-11: τεκμαίρειν γὰρ τὴν σελήνην εἰς τοὺς ἀποστάτας οἱ περὶ τὰς τῶν φωστήρων δινήσεις δεινοὶ καὶ μαθηματικοὶ λέγουσι, καὶ τὸ πάθος ταύτης πάθος τοῦ ἀποστατοῦντος προκαταγγέλλειν.) In this context, Attaleiates points to Bryennios, who had rebelled to take imperial throne. Following an eclipse, his tent was collapsed on its own, which Attaleiates interprets both as an omen for Bryennios’ downfall.
Attaleiates himself is well-educated in astronomy. His dating events are mostly by referencing certain celestial motions. E.g., in 22.21-23, he says “when the Kronos (Saturnus) was also in the alignment with Zeus (Iuppiter)” (πρώτη δὲ ἴνδικτος ἦν, ὁπότε καὶ ὁ Κρόνος συνώδευσε τῷ Διί). Again in 54, rather than giving the exact date of Isaakios’ rebellion the authors simply dates it according to the spring equinox. Again in 101.9-11, when the author writing on 1 January 1068 he dates it according to solstice: “Therefore, on the first month of January, on the sixth indication, when the Sun changes the winter and makes haste to illuminate and warm the whole world, and when it marks the end of the most of the winter with a favourable beginning to a year, …”. (διὸ καὶ πρώτην ἄγοντος τοῦ ἰαννουαρίου μηνὸς τῆς ϛʹ ἰνδικτιῶνος, ὁπότε τῶν χειμερινῶν τροπῶν ὁ ἥλιος μεθιστάμενος τὴν οἰκουμένην φρυκτωρεῖν καὶ θάλπειν ἐπείγεται καὶ ἀρχὴν εὔκαιρον τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ τὸ πλεῖστον μέρος τοῦ χειμῶνος ἐπεξεργάζεται,...) In p. 102, once again Attaleiates gives the date according to the cycle of the Moon. In p. 215, we can see his detailed dating, which is as follows:
215.8-13: δευτέραν ἄγοντος τοῦ ἰουλίου μηνὸς τῆς αʹ ἰνδικτίωνος, ὁπόταν ὁ ἑωσφόρος ἥλιος τὸν ἰσημερινὸν κύκλον ἐλαύνων καθαρώτερον ἅμα καὶ λαμπρότερον τὸν περίγειον κόσμον ἐργάζεται, καὶ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τὴν ἡμέραν μεγίστην καὶ χαρίεσσαν καὶ ὑπερβλύζουσαν τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς ἀποδείκνυσι, καὶ κόσμον ὅλον χαρίτων ἀρρήτων ἐμπίπλησιν.
God-sent. It is strange that Attaleiates claims that the Byzantines, who were skilled in navigating, could forgot such knowledge.
100 τὸ πάθος ταύτης πάθος: this repeating can be a textual error.
136
The second day of the month of July, of the first indiction, when the Lightbringer Sun, moving on the equatorial cycle, makes realms of the earth clearer and at the same time brighter, and while overflowing with grace, grants the longest and merriest day to mankind; and fills the whole world with indescribable grace.
An again in p. 247, “The month of November had already set in, a time when the sky appears downcast and sullen as a result of the great light-giving star's retreat toward the sign of Taurus.” (247.9-11: ἄρτι τοῦ νοεμβρίου μηνὸς ἐπιστάντος, ὅτε κατηφὴς ὁ ἀὴρ ἐκ τῆς τοῦ μεγάλου φωστῆρος ὑποχωρήσεως, πρὸς τὸ ταυρικὸν ζώδιον ἀπιόντος, καὶ στυγνὸς καταφαίνεται). All of these examples are solid evidence for Attaleiates’ knowledge of astronomy. Among all authors we have analysed here, he was the one who dates events according to celestial motions.
Besides, Attaleiates’ account of earthquakes is also detailed and valuable. In pp. 88-89, Attaleiates mentions the 23 September 1064 Earthquake. The whole chapter is about the earthquake. He says that it has begun in the western regions with three sequential tremors (he claims that this is usual). The magnitude was so great that it even overturned churches along with houses and people died horribly. During the night, another 10 to 12 tremors (but less strong than the earlier) shook the ground. According to the author, if it would be as strong as earlier ones, nothing would prevent the total destruction of the Konstantinoupolis. Right after the depiction, Attaleiates mentions Aristotelian theory on earthquakes (i.e. earthquakes are the result of the motion of vapours and flows inside the Earth’s hollows), which as we have stated above Leon Diakonos also gave a place in his work. Attaleiates’ thoughts on the theory are as follows:
Attal. 88-89: καθ' ὃν δὴ λόγον καὶ τοῖς φυσιολογοῦσι περὶ σεισμῶν ὡς εἰκῇ καὶ ἀναισθήτως διὰ τῆς τοῦ ὕδατος ἐν τοῖς κοίλοις τῆς γῆς κινήσεως καὶ τῆς τῶν ἀνέμων ἐν τούτοις δινήσεως ὁ κλόνος προσγίνεται, ἀνατέτραπται τὸ ἐννόημα. εἰ γὰρ ἐκ μόνης τῆς βίας αὐτῶν, ὁπόταν ἐν τοῖς κοιλώμασι τῆς γῆς περιελιχθεῖεν καὶ διάπνοιαν συμπεπιλημένην λάβοιεν, καθὼς οὗτοι φασίν, ἡ συγκίνησις ἐκτελοῖτο, κἂν ἀταξίαν εἶχεν ὁ κλόνος καὶ οὐχὶ μέχρι πτώσεως ἀκαταπτώτου τὴν ἄπλετον ἔληγεν ὁρμήν, ἵνα μὴ τὸ πᾶν αὐτίκα καταποθῇ. νῦν δὲ διὰ τῆς τοσαύτης καὶ συμμέτρου παρακινήσεως δείκνυται θεοσημίας ἔργον ὁ κλόνος, εἰς ἀναστολὴν καὶ παίδευσιν τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων ὁρμῶν, καὶ τῆς θείας
137
ἀνεξικακίας ἡ ἐπιτίμησις, ἐφ' ᾧ μὴ ἄρδην ἀπολέσθαι τὸ γένος, ἀλλ' ἐπιστρέψαι πρὸς τὰ βελτίονα. τὸ δ' ἐξ ἐπιπνοίας ἀνεμιαίας εἴτε μὴν ὑδάτων κινήσεως γίνεσθαι τὸν σεισμὸν οὐκ ἄκαιρον οὐδ' αὐτὸ πρὸς φυσικὴν συγκατασκευήν. ἐνδέχεται γὰρ τοῦτο καὶ πάνυ· ἀλλ' οὐκ αὐτομάτως ἡ ἐπισκίρτησις101 (τοῦτο γάρ ἐστι τὸ ἀνατρε πόμενον παρ' ἡμῶν), ἀλλ' ἐκ θείου βουλήματος, ὅτι μὴ ἀμέσως τὸ θεῖον τὰ περὶ τὴν γηίνην φύσιν οἰκονομεῖ. οὕτω γὰρ καὶ ὑετοῦ ἡ νεφῶν συμπίλησις καὶ βροντῆς ἡ τούτων σύγκρουσις καὶ ἀστραπῆς ἐπὶ ταύτῃ παραίτιοι καταφαίνονται· ἀλλὰ τὸ πᾶν τῆς θείας γνώμης κατὰ τοὺς εὐσεβοῦντας ἐξήρτηται.
For this reason, one theory about earthquakes as natural phenomena was refuted, that is the tremors are caused randomly/senselessly by the flow of water in the hollows of the earth and the turbulence of the winds there. For if the motion was caused only by the violence of those [elements] as they twist around in the hollows of the earth and create flows of compressed air, as they say, then the tremors (or turbulence) would be disorderly and the immense force would not end at the point of collapse, lest the whole universe (or earth) destroyed in a moment. Now on this case, since the turbulent motion was so large and orderly, the tremor was regarded as a sign sent by God and its purpose was to restrain and curb human urges. This castigation is the work of divine forbearance whose purpose is not to completely destroy race [of men] but to turn it to a better path. [The theory] that earthquakes are caused by air streams or the motion of the waters is not wrong considering the solid [structure of] nature, for it is quite acceptable. However, the vibration does not happen randomly, this is what is being refuted by us, rather, it is caused by divine will, for God does not govern the things of this world directly. Thus, the immediate cause of rain appears to be the compression of clouds and the cause of thunder and lightning from their collusion, but according to those who think or live piously, everything depends on divine will.
101 ἐπισκίρτησις: vibration (Ger.Erschütterung: Attal. 89,15 (LBG) (In whole Ancient Greek-Byzantine corpus, only reference to this word is from Attaleiates himself. Again he invented a new “term” rather than using usual ones.
138
Like Leon, Attaleiates too might excerpt this from Agathias, rather than Aristoteles himself. As we have presented above, Leon repeats the same theory as well, yet he clearly states that the theory is Hellenic (pagan) rubbish and prefers to acknowledge it as God’s will. Attaleiates is no different either, yet his approach is more moderate and he at least he tried to argue it on a “scientific” ground. Still, his explanation lies with God. After this argument Attaleiates returns to the destruction of the earthquake, he claims that the coastal cities of Macedonian Theme, e.g. Raidestos, Panion, Myriophyton (i.e. seriatim Tekirdağ, Barbaros in Tekirdağ, Mürefte in Şarköy) and Kyzikos in Hellespontos suffered the worst. The author continues to write about the earthquake. He claims that after the earthquake, tremors continued to occur occasionally for two years and states that in history there was no other earthquake that occurred and continued for two years and gave reference to Agathias, who mentions the earthquake during the reign of Iustinianus that lasted for 40 days. This citation strengthens our point that Attaleiates source for the theory was Agathias.
In p. 91, Attaleiates mentions another earthquake that occurred in Nikaia, Bithynia. According to him, this was stronger than the aftershocks but inferior to the first earthquake. Consequently, the author claims these events were the result of their sins and caused by the Divine Wrath. He also regards this as a foretelling sign about the invasion of that particular nation, the Seljuks. This earthquake probably occurred on September 1065 or 1066 (Guidoboni, Comastri, & Traina, 2005, p. 47).
As a man with a strong belief in omens, Attaleiates provides us with another phenomenon, along with their interpretations. His earthquake narrative in p. 91 continues with a bright comet that occurred after the sunset on May 1065, however, the date should be May 1066, for the aforementioned comet is the Halley’s Comet. He describes the comet as, as big as it is carrying the Moon when it is the Full-Moon and looks like as it is spewing smoke and mist. In addition, it began sending out some tendrils/thunders (or began to show something like hair). Further, they spread out, the smaller becomes the comet (lit. greatness of the comet ceased). These rays stretched to the east, the way the comet advanced, and it lasted for 40 days (92: τὸ μέγεθος σεληναῖον φέρων, ὅταν ἡ σελήνη πλησιφαὴς γένηται. καὶ ἐῴκει μὲν τηνικαῦτα καπνόν τινα καὶ ὁμίχλην ἐκπέμπειν, ἐν δὲ τῇ ἐπιούσῃ ἤρξατο παραδεικνύειν βοστρύχους τινάς· καὶ ὅσον οὗτοι προεπετάννυντο, τοσοῦτον τὸ μέγεθος τοῦ ἀστέρος ὑπέληγεν. ἀπέτεινε δὲ τὰς ἀκτῖνας ὡς πρὸς ἑώαν, καὶ ὡς πρὸς ἐκείνην προήρχετο. καὶ ἦν ἐπικρατῶν ἄχρις
139
ἡμερῶν τεσσαράκοντα). After this, he mentions the death of Emperor Konstantinos X. However, it seems that he makes no connection between the events. Yet, in 211.20, along with a three-legged chicken; a baby with an eye on its forehead and having feet of a goat, and two soldiers from Immortals (the famous Athanatoi brigade) struck by lighting, Attaleiates also mentions a comet and interprets it (with previous examples) as an ill omen.
In 1080, a ray of lightning struck the Helios statue on the Column of Konstantinos (present-day Çemberlitaş Sütunu, Istanbul). In the following, the author lists the theories about lightning: As for the causes of lightning, each person offered a different explanation, all different from each other. Those who study these matters suggest, on the basis of the science of nature, that it is a river of fire generated by the collision and disruption of clouds. The lightning is extremely fine and strikes objects in its path with incredible force and thrust, bursting through them violently and suddenly. And they say that the lightning fire is so naturally found that it can’t harm objects of loose texture or any porous body or with small pores, like veils among fabrics and other similar things. Thus if it happens that lightning falls upon a strip of linen, cotton, or some other material under which is layered gold, it melts the gold and turns it into a metal blob, as if in a fiery furnace, but leaves the material of the fabric unharmed. The same is true with people, for lightning enters the body through its invisible pores and burns up the interior organs because of their greater solidity and the fact that they have no pores, while often the exterior of the body is not burned and is found hollow, left behind without its entrails. This is the theory of Aristoteles, which can be found in Meteorologikon 2.9. Attaleiates also mentions that laymen counter this theory by saying that the cause of the damage is a huge dragonlike serpent which is seized by some invisible force and tears apart anything that it encounters with its claws and the strength of its roughness and coiling motions when it happens, that is, that its resistance and spasms thrust violently and drag against those who attract it. Attaleiates makes no further comment or accepts any of these theories. However, he was clearly well-educated in these matters. The earthquake theory he presented must be borrowed from Agathias. However, this suggests that he read Aristoteles.
To sum up, Attaleiates’ eye-witness records are valuable coming from a man who was present with the Emperor in his expeditions. Not only valuable but also very accurate. Yet, his knowledge of geography on lands that he had never been (e.g. Persia, France)
140
is very erroneous. His explanations for natural phenomena were, typically, explained through Christian God. The same attitude can be seen in his depictions of Persia. From moistened sarcophaguses to suddenly destroyed tents of pretenders to the throne, Attaleiates was a man who had deep regard for omens, and especially for comets. His account is also valuable for providing us with examples of some kind of divination based on toponyms. Ioannes Skylitzes and Skylitzes Continuatus
The Greek texts we have used for Skylitzes’ chronicle and Skylitzes Continuatus, are Thurn’s Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae edition (1973) and Eudoxos Tsolakis’ edition (1968) respectively. During the analysis of these texts we have also benefited from their modern translations, which are John Wortley’s “John Skylitzes' A Synopsis of Byzantine History, 811-1057” (2012), and Eric McGeer’s “Byzantium in the Time of Troubles, The Continuation of the Chronicle of John Skylitzes (1057-1079)” (2020).
As in the work of other Byzantine authors, in the text of Ioannes too, the plain called Diabasis is the first topos to be depicted. Skylitzes suggests that the location is naturally rich with pastures and flowing streams (III.12.36-40: εὐφυῶς ἔχον πρός τε νομὰς καὶ ὑδάτων ἐπιρροάς). Also, from this location, Thomas the Slav102 can easily pillage the rich suburbs/estates (προάστειος) of Konstantinoupolis. Later on XI.2.55-57, the author tells us that the plain is large and well-suited for accommodating an army. This statement emphasises the argument that Diabasis was an aplekton. In the earlier part, in III.12.14, Skylitzes mentions that Khan Omurtag (King Mortegon in the text) of Bulgaria camps near Κηδούκτος. It is a plain near Herakleia in Thrace, between River Halmyros and Daneion (today Kınalıköprü) and the name Κηδούκτος probably derives from Latin aquaeductus (Kulzer, 2008, p. 422). Yet, Skylitzes does not depict the place.
In III.16 we see the same “Head and Tail” metaphor mentioned in Theophanes Continuatus (Th. Cont. II.20bis). In fact, the very account is almost identical. Along with this; the account on Diabasis, Hagarenes of Iberia and the fortress at Sarkel,
102 Ninth century Byzantine rebel commander who revolted against the Emperor Mikhael II,
141
Skylitzes narration order is similar to that of Theophanes Continuatus. Yet, despite his source had accurate depictions Skylitzes omitted these.
III.16: “Καὶ οὕτω μὲν τὰ τῆς ἀποστασίας ἀπέσβη τελέως καὶ ᾤχετο, οὐκ ἔμελλε δὲ ἄχρι τούτων στήσεσθαι ἡ φορὰ τῶν κακῶν, ἀλλὰ τῶν δύο ἠπείρων, Ἀσίας φαμὲν καὶ Εὐρώπης, ἐν θυμῷ κυρίου οἷόν τινος κεφαλῆς καὶ οὐρᾶς, εἰ καὶ μὴ συνίεσαν, παιδευθεισῶν φόνοις, ἐμπρησμοῖς, σεισμοῖς, ἁρπαγαῖς, ἐμφυλίοις καταδρομαῖς, πόλεων ἀνελπίστοις μεταναστάσεσι, σημείοις ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, σημείοις ἐξ ἀέρος, τέλος καὶ ταῖς ταλαιπώροις νήσοις, οἷόν τινα μέσην, ἵν' ὁλόσωμος εἴη ἡ πληγή, ἐπέδραμε τὰ δεινά. ἀλλ' οὐκ ἦν παιδευθῆναι τοὺς τὴν θεάνθρωπον ἐξηρνημένους μορφὴν προσκυνεῖν.”
Thus the revolt was completely extinguished and quenched, but the series of calamities was not going to end. For after the two mainlands/continents (I mean Asia and Europe, like the head and tail possessing the same soul) -even though they did not understand- chastised by massacres, fires, earthquakes, banditry/rapes, civil war, hopeless migration of cities, signs in the Heaven, signs from the sky/air. As result, the disasters overran the wretched islands, located as they were in the middle [of two continents], in order to afflict the entire body. But there was no correcting those who refused to worship the likeness of the God-man/God-human form.
The narrative sequence is also the same. Theophanes mentions this after the earthquake at Panion. Again after this, Ioannes continues to describe the Iberian Peninsula just like in Theopohanes Continuatus. Description and sequence are again the same. Therefore, we can assume that the depictions he gave -even though they are few- are not his own, but borrowed from his sources (in that case Theophanes Continuatus).
III.16.10-15: οἱ τὸν ἑσπέριον κόλπον τῆς Ἰβηρίας οἰκοῦντες Ἀγαρηνοί, πρόσχωροι τῷ Ὠκεανῷ ὄντες (Ἱσπάνους τούτους κατονομάζουσιν), εἰς εὐανδρίαν ἐληλακότες καὶ ἣν ᾤκουν γῆν λυπρὰν οὖσαν καὶ μετρίως εὐδαίμονα ὁρῶντε.
The Hagarenes dwelling in the western gulf of Iberia neighbouring the Ocean -the ones called Spaniards- had become too crowded and they realised that the land they dwell in is poor, barely sustaining them.
142
Again we see an account similar to that of Theophanes Continuatus (cf. Th. Cont. II.21.2-11). Comparing both authors, Ioannes gives a more brief depiction of Iberia, even though his source contained the very details. We see the same influence in IV.19: Ioannes narrates the request of Khagan of Khazars regarding the fortress Sarkel that was to be built on the River Tanais. However, he gives no geographical depiction like other authors (Th. Cont. III.28.3-8.; Kons. Porp. De Adm Imp. 42.29-39), Theophanes Continuatus was clearly one of Ioannis’ sources. Despite this, when it comes to geographical details, Ioannes omits the details given in it. It is clear Skylitzes was not interested in geographical details.
In V.18.2-3, Skylitzes makes a grave error regarding the location of the Rhos people. He claims that the Rhos are savage and wild Scythian people who dwell around the north of Taurus Mountains (V.18.2-3: ἔθνος δὲ οἱ Ῥῶς Σκυθικόν, περὶ τὸν ἀρκτῷον Ταῦρον κατῳκημένον, ἀνήμερόν τε καὶ ἄγριον). The Rhos had nothing to do with Taurus Mountains. It seems that Skylitzes is in a grave geographical mistake.103
In VI, once again we see Skylitzes “borrowing” from Theophanes Continuatus. He tells us that “Emperor Basileios), sent a group of chosen warriors to the place called Zapetra and they took Samosata too, by falling on the city in a sudden attack after the host passed through a narrow defile (VI.18.26-29: ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐκπέμψας κατὰ τῆς λεγομένης Ζαπέτρας ἐπιλέκτων πολεμιστῶν, καὶ τῶν Σαμοσάτων εὐτύχησεν, ἐξ ἐφόδου τὰ στενὰ τοῦ στρατοῦ διελθόντος αὐτῇ τε τῇ πόλει ἐξαίφνης ἐπεισπεσόντος.). From depiction to style, narration is the same. Moreover, as in Theophanes Continuatus Stylitzes, too names the place as Zapetra, rather than Sozopetra (cf. Th. Cont. IV.35).
In VI.19.11-12, Skylitzes tells us that Khrysokheir, the leader of the Paulicians, encamped at Bathyrryax, at the foot of the mountain. Again it comes from Theophanes Continatus (cf. Th. Cont. V.42.1-5). However, the following part is different from Continatus’ account. It appears that Emperor Basileios I, personally pillages Kama, the capital city of Manichaeans, i.e. Paulicians, (VI.22.3-4: ἐξεπόρθησε δὲ καὶ τὴν τῶν Μανιχαίων μητρόπολιν τὴν Κάμαν δι' ἑαυτοῦ). Ioannes makes a geographical error, for the place mentioned should be Katabalata/Katavatala (Hild, 1981, p. 82) instead of
103 In a way he is right, if we are to accept that Turkey lies at the north of the Red Sea.
143
Kama. Again Ramsay suggests that Katabalata can’t be Kastabala and he can’t locate the exact location but suggests that is close to Tephrike (Ramsay, 1890, p. 342). Hild does not give the exact location either and also adds that Kama is at 80 km southwest of modern Erzincan. Along with the Tarsos-Rhos example, which we have presented above, it appears that whenever Skylitzes makes his own depiction he makes an error. That shows his ill geographical knowledge. In VI.23.18-20 and VI.23.20-23, his narrative once again follows Continuatus, along with Continuatus’ depictions on Koukousos,104 Padasia and Kalipolis.105
In XIV.10, there is another depiction we might accept as “genuine.” The Emperor Konstantinos IX sends an army under the command of Ioannes Pilatos against Sayf al-Dawla, the amir of Aleppo. He joined battle in Adana with Arabs from all over Kilikia. The Arabs gave great losses and retreated to a nearby mountain, the narration is as follows:
XIV.10.7-15: ὄντες φεύγουσιν εἴς τινα λόφον δύσβατον καὶ ἀπόκρημνον, πεζοί, τοὺς ἵππους ἀποβάντες, καὶ τῇ τοῦ τόπου θαρρήσαντες εὐκαιρίᾳ εὐρώστως τοὺς ἐπιόντας ἠμύνοντο. οὓς καὶ περιστοιχίσας ὁ Ἰωάννης, ὅτι μὴ μεθ' ἵππων οἷός τε ἧν αὐτοῖς συμβαλεῖν, πεζεῦσαι προστάξας τοὺς στρατιώτας ἄνεισι μετ' αὐτῶν πεζὸς καὶ αὐτός. καὶ καταγωνισάμενος πάντας ἀπέσφαξε, νῶτα μηδενὸς δεδωκότος, ὡς ῥεῦσαι διὰ τοῦ πρανοῦς εἰς τὸ πεδίον τὸ αἷμα ποταμηδόν, καὶ ἀπὸ τούτου τοῦ συμπτώματος κληθῆναι τὸν βουνὸν βουνὸν αἵματος.
[Arabs] were dismounted and retreated on foot to an impassable and precipitous hill ridge. Confident in the opportunity given by their location they
104 VI.23.18-20: Emperor reaches Koukousos and cleans the thicket out there. Also turned the impassable [area] into an accessible road. (εἰς Κουκουσόν, καὶ τὰς ἐκεῖ λόχμας ἀποκαθάρας καὶ τὴν ἄβατον εὐπόρευτον πεποιηκὼς).
105 VI.23.20-23: πρὸς δὲ τὴν Καλίπολιν καὶ Παδασίαν φθάσας δυσβάτοις τε περιτυχὼν καὶ ἀποκρήμνοις ὁδοῖς τοὺς ὑπὸ χεῖρα παραμυθούμενος πεζῇ καὶ βάδην αὐτὸς προεπορεύετο τοῦ στρατοῦ. ὑπερβὰς δὲ τὰ στενὰ τοῦ Ταύρου τῇ Γερμανικείᾳ προσβάλλει. When he reached to Kalipolis and Padasia, finding impssable and precipitous roads, he himself went at the vanguard of the army, walking on foot to encourage his men. When he had passed through the passes of the Taurus Mountains he attacked Germanikeia.
144
stoutly drove away their attackers. Ioannes surrounded them and since there was no way to advance with horses he ordered his soldiers to advance on foot. He himself went on foot with them. He prevailed and slew all. Not even a single man got away, blood ran down the hill onto the plain like a river. From this incident, the hill was called Blood Hill.
The exact passage can be also found in Kedrenos vol 2. p. 361. These are the only references to the so-called Blood Hill. Its exact location is unknown, but it is in the vicinity of modern Adana. Kedrenos himself was a copyist and his source can be Ioannes’ chronicle.
Later in the same chapter the author narrates the return of Nikephoros from Antiokheia to Konstantinoupolis. During his march through Taurus, Skylitzes mentions Black Amanos, which he describes as an impregnable hilltop:
XIV.17.1-4: Ὑποστρέφων δ' ὁ Νικηφόρος ἐξ Ἀντιοχείας πρὸς τὴν βασιλίδα, ἐν τῷ διέρχεσθαι τὸν Ταῦρον, ὃ Μαῦρον ὄρος ἐπιχωρίως λέγεται, φρούριον κατὰ τὸ μέσον τοῦ ὄρους δομησάμενος ἔν τινι λόφῳ ἐρυμνοτάτῳ,
When Nikephoros was returning from Antiokheia to the Imperial Capital, as he was crossing the Taurus, at a place in the middle of the mountains locals called the Black Mountain, he built a fortress on an impregnable hilltop.
The aforementioned Black Mountain is Nur Dağları, which is still known as Amanos Mountains (Fig. 3.7). Μαυρός or ἀμαυρός means dark, gloomy, black, hardly seen, shadowy, having no light is clearly related to the geomorphology of the mountain, which is very accurate in terms of modern geology, for this mountain is Kizildag ophiolite (Şengör, 2021, personal communication). The pass Nikephoros used must be the Belen Pass, however the author does not mention it. Nor do we see any “Syrian Gates” in the contemporary accounts accounts; seemingly the nomenclature is lost. Amanos as a boundary between Kilikia and Syria accords with Ptolemaic geography, which also describes Amanos as a terminus between the provinces (Ptol. V.6). Earlier, in XI.9.34-35, Skylitzes, without mentioning the exact location describes a certain pass as “narrow and steep entry between cliffs” (περί τινα τόπον εἴσοδον ἔχοντα στενὴν καὶ κρημνώδη). Skylitzes does not directly mention that this pass is at Taurus Mountains. However, from his narrative of the battle that occurred in October 950 between Leon
145
Phokas (son of Bardas Phokas) and Sayf al-Dawla, we deduce that the location must be one of the passes of Taurus.
Figure 3.7 Amanos Mountains. The Belen Pass can also be seen in the south.
In XVI, Skylitzes gives us a good example of a toponym based on topographical features, “and in three days Sakhakios Brachamios reached Lapara, a district of Kappadokia, now call Lykandos. It used to be called [Lapara] because of its fertility and abundance.” (XVI.4.11-14: καὶ διὰ τριῶν ἡμερῶν καταλαμβάνει τὴν Λάπαραν. τόπος δὲ οὗτος μέρος τῆς Καππαδοκίας, τὸ νῦν λεγόμενον Λικανδόν, διὰ τὸ λιπαρὸν καὶ πάμφορον οὕτω κατονομασθείς.) Lapara is present day Kız Kalesi in the western slopes of Mt. Sar, Elbistan (Hild, 1981, p. 224; Fig. 3.8). Notice the relation between Lapara (Λάπαρα) and liparon (λιπαρὸν: fertility, abundance). The former toponym clearly was based on geographical features. That being said, the change of toponym from Lapara to Lykandos might suggest that the topos mentioned was not “that” fertile anymore. However, Skylitzes makes no direct comment on this.
146
Figure 3.8 The location of Lapara.
In XVI, Ioannes depicts Tzamandos as a city that lies on a precipitous rock and and as a very populated and wealthy city. (XVI.4.32-33: πόλις δὲ ἡ Τζαμανδὸς ἐν ἀποκρήμνῳ πέτρᾳ κειμένη, πολυάνθρωπος καὶ πλούτῳ περιβριθής.) Tzamandos is modern Kuşkalesi (Zamantı is more common) in Melikgazi, 64 km east of Kayseri (Hild, 1981, p. 300; Fig. 3.9).
Figure 3.9 Tzamandos.
In XVIII Skylitzes mentions another fortress called Argyrokastron that was built on a precipitous rock. (XVIII.7.30-31: καὶ ἕτερον φρούριον ἐπί τινος ἀποτόμου κείμενον πέτρας, τὸ λεγό- μενον Ἀργυρόκαστρον.) Argyrokastron literally means ‘silver
147
fortress. Presently called Aleika Castle, it is located in Syria, at the south of Maniqa and the east of Baniyas (Fig. 3.10).
Figure 3.10 Argyrokastron
Another fortress described by Skylitzes is Fort Pemolissa.
XXIII.7.69-70: ἐκπέμπει πρὸς τὸ φρούριον τὴν Πημόλισσαν (πέτρα δὲ ἡ Πημόλισσα παρὰ τὸ χεῖλοςκειμένη τοῦ Ἅλυος ποταμοῦ),
[Isaakios Komnenos] sent them to the fortress of Pemolissa, a rocky point on the banks of the River Halys.
This should be the fort in Osmancık, Çorum, which lies in the north of River Halys (mod. Kızılırmak) and guards the crossing (Fig. 3.11). In that case, his depiction is accurate.
148
Figure 3.11 Pemolissa
Like all other Byzantine authors of his time Skylitzes is also in a great error when it comes to Persian-Turkish geography. He identifies Turks as people who are Hunnic, living to the north of the Caucasus Mountains, populous and autonomous, never enslaved by any nation (XXI.9.2-4: τὸ τῶν Τούρκων ἔθνος γένος μέν ἐστιν Οὐννικόν, οἰκεῖ δὲ τὰ προσάρκτια τῶν Καυκασίων ὀρῶν πολυάνθρωπόν τε ὂν καὶ αὐτόνομον καὶ ὑπ' οὐδενὸς ἔθνους ποτὲ δουλωθέν.). Even though he is right in “never enslaved by any nation” he is certainly wrong about “living in the north of the Caucasus mountains.” His mistakes continue in the following part:
XXI.9.20-26: ἅμα καὶ ἐλπίσας, ὡς εἴπερ οὗτοι δυνηθεῖεν ἀποκρούσασθαι τοὺς ἐπεμβαίνοντας τοῖς Σαρακηνοῖς, ῥᾷστά τε τὴν τοῦ Ἀράξιδος ποταμοῦ γέφυραν τὴν κωλύουσαν Τούρκους ἐς Περσίδα ἰέναι, ἅτε πεπυργωμένην οὖσαν ἔνθεν κἀκεῖθεν καὶ φρουροῖς πάντοτε φυλαττομένην βατὴν θήσουσι περιελόντες τὰς φρουράς, καὶ ὑποχείριον αὐτῷ ποιήσουσι τὴν τῶν Περσῶν χώραν.
Tangrolipex Moukalet (= Tughrul Beg) hoping at the same time that if they succeeded in repelling those that take advantage of the Saracens, they would quite easily render passable the bridge on the river Araxes, which was preventing the Turks from entering Persia since it had guard towers at both end and it was always watched by guards.
The author is in error there. He probably thinks that Seljuks are launching an assault over the Caucasus to Iran. Because according to his -and it appears to other Byzantines as well- Turks were living in the north of Caucasus. Hence, he gave us Araxes (Aras) instead of Oxus, Ceyhun or Amu Darya, (Fig. 3.12). In XXI.8.35 he places Araxes in
149
Persarmenia that is the modern Azerbaijan (τῆς περὶ τὸν Ἀράξην ποταμὸν Περσαρμενίας). Turkey (Τουρκία) means the land that Turks dwell in, and Ioannes -in the case of Seljuks- uses this to identify the North of Caucasus Mountains, but in truth it was Turkistan. However, our author didn’t know this. He also mentioned the relation between Seljuks and Ghaznavids and earlier tells us that Mahmud of Ghaznavids sends envoys to the ruler of Turkey (XXI.9.16: πρὸς τὸν ἄρχοντα Τουρκίας διαπρεσβεύσασθαι). It doesn’t make sense if Tughrul marched over Araxes against Ghaznavids. He makes the same Araxes mistake on XXI.9.72. As a result, it is impossible to accept Skylitzes’ narrative. As typical, Byzantines, like Herodotos, were ill-informed about the east. Some Byzantine scholars even used Biblical narratives to describe the east of Iran and Indus. For Araxes see. Str, 435, 437, 440. Again his reference to Karbonites in XXI.9.34-35 (καὶ τὴν Καρβωνῖτιν ὑποδύντες ἔρημον...) confusing. This might be Karakum. The origin of the name is strange, he uses κάρβων (Hellenised version of Latin carbo, which means charcoal, black or something of little value). Also might be Karmanitis Desert mentioned by Leon Diakonos (see above, Leo. Diak. X, 29.15).
Figure 3.12 Araxes-Oxus Confusion.
As we have stated above the land Seljuks live in was described as Τουρκία, Turkey. However, Skylitzes nomenclatures are in clear contradiction. For in XIX.23.6, he
150
refers to the King of Hungary as the Kral106 of Turkey (τῷ κράλῃ Τουρκίας) which would confuse the reader. The cause of this problem probably originates from separate sources Skylitzes used, and it appears that he used without any critical approach. As we have presented above, in one chapter he gives us a very accurate depiction and in another, he puts the Rhos at the north of Taurus Mountains.
In XXI, Skylitzes depicts the city of Mantzikert and comments that due its location Sultan Alparslan thought that he could easily force the city. The depiction is as follows:
XXI.19.12-17: πόλις δὲ τὸ Μανζικίερτε ἐν τῇ ὁμαλῇ μὲν κειμένη, τείχεσι δὲ τρισὶ στεφανουμένη καὶ ὕδασι πολλοῖς ἔνδον κατάρρυτος πηγιμαίοις· τότε δὲ καὶ ἔτυχεν ἀφθόνως εἰσκομίσασα τὰ ἀναγκαῖα. ταύτην οἰηθεὶς ὁ σουλτάνος ῥᾳδίως ἐκπολιορκῆσαι τῷ ἐν ἐπιβουλεύτῳ ἱδρύσθαι τόπῳ...
The city of Manzikert was built on an even ground, surrounded by a triple wall and within has plentiful water from a flowing spring. At that time it was importing plentiful necessities of life. The Sultan [Alparslan] thought he could easily force the city to surrender because of the position city was built.
It is odd that Skylitzes does not use “πεδίον” (which is the most common expression for plain) when he was referring to the topos Mantzikert was built on (Fig. 3.13), instead, he uses “ὁμαλῇ” (which means even, level, equal) like trying to put emphasis on the physical geography.
106 Same “kral” can be seen in XVI.35.48: εἶχε δὲ γυναῖκα ὁ Ῥοδομηρὸς τὴν θυγατέρα τοῦ κράλλη Οὐγγρίας. Rodomir had the daughter of the Kral of Hungary as his wife. Kral, a Slavic word derives from Latin Carolus. The author uses kral in case of Hungarian monarch, instead of another title e.g. ἄρχων.
151
Figure 3.13 Mantzikert.
Skylitzes portrayal of Bulgaria and the Balkans, in general, is no different than any other Byzantine historian of his era. In XV.10, Emperor Ioannes Tzimiskes crosses Haemos Mountains (Balkan Mountains) and advances into Bulgaria, where he confronts the Rhos and saves Bulgarians under their yoke. Typical Byzantine narrative regarding the Bulgarian landscape shows itself in the author’s work:
XV.11.18-20.: ἐκκλίναντες ἐς τὰ πλησίον σκεδάννυνται ὄρη καὶ τὰς ἐκεῖσε νάπας βαθείας καὶ ἀμφιλαφεῖς τυγχανούσας, καὶ διὰ τῆς ὀρεινῆς ἐπὶ τὴν Δρίστραν ἐπανασῴζονται.
scattered into the neighbouring mountains and the thick and wide-spread woodlands that covered them, by way of the mountains they reached safety in Dristra.
Dristra or Dristolon/Dorostolon, modern Silistra. The author does not mention the vast plains near Silistra.
XVI.35.18-23: περιοδεύσας τὸ πρὸς μεσημβρίαν τοῦ Κλειδίου κείμενον ὑψηλότερον ὄρος, ὃ Βαλασίτζαν κατονομάζουσι, καὶ τραχυπορίαις καὶ ἀνοδίαις χρησάμενος, εἰκοστῇ ἐννάτῃ τοῦ Ἰουλίου μηνός, ἰνδικτιῶνος δωδεκάτης, ἄνωθεν ἐξαίφνης μετ' ἀλαλαγμοῦ καὶ δούπου κατὰ νώτου γίνεται τῶν Βουλγάρων.
152
[Nikephoros Xiphias] went around the very high mountain that lies to the South of Kleidion and that called Balasitza/Valasitza. Then passing by rough-footed and roadless terrain, on 29 July 1014 with warcries and loud treads he suddenly appeared on high ground and came down on the Bulgarian rear.
Kleidion is the pass between the valleys of the Strymon and the Vardar, a.k.a. Kiava Longos (Fig. 3.14). Byzantine assault on Bulgarians usually launched through this route. It was a kleisoura. This is why Xiphias went around the usual route, for the Bulgarians knew the Byzantines would come that way and therefore had already fortified the pass. For the element of surprise, Xiphias went through an unusual path. If the imperial army went around Mt. Belasica/Balasitza then they should have used Demir Kapu/Iron Gates in Macedonia. If so then it is the same place of the incident which occurred between Greece and Bulgaria on 26 October 1925 according to British reports (Drenkov, 2021, p. 55).
Figure 3.14 Stroumbitza and Mt. Balasitza
In the following lines, Skylitzes depicts Stroumbitza, according to him (XVI.36.12-19) General Theophylaktos Botaneiates was ordered to pass the “hills” in Stroumbitza, during his march he was ambushed in a long defile (ἔν τινι ἐπιμήκει στενοχωρίᾳ). Stroumbitza is modern Ustrumca, at the south of the modern Republic of Macedonia. Stroumbitza controls the access roads to Skopje. “The hills” mentioned should be the continuation of Mt. Balasitza. The ambush at a long defile emphasises this argument. However, Skylitzes used βουνός, rather than ὄρος (which above he used it to identify Balasitza). It appears Skylitzes has no distinction between the two. Wortley too translates βουνός as a mountain (2012, p. 332).
153
XVI.36.25-27: ὑποστρέψας ἦλθεν εἰς τὰ Ζαγόρια, ἔνθα τὸ λίαν ὀχυρώτατον ἵδρυται φρούριον ὁ Μελνῖκος, ἐπί τινος πέτρας ἱδρυμένον κρημνοῖς καὶ φάραγξι βαθυτάταις πάντοθεν ἐστεφανωμένης.
[Emperor Basileios II] turned back and set out to Zagoria, at there stands the impregnable fortress of Melnikos, which was built on a rock surrounded by beetling crags and deep chasms on all sides.
The exact location is unknown, however, the emperor turned back (ὑποστρέψας) from Prilapon (modern Prilep) and went to Zagoria. After he took the fortress he marched on Mosynopolis, which Basileios II used as a military HQ against Bulgarians. (Soustal, 1991, p. 369) The fort should be somewhere in upper Strymon valley. Even though we can’t locate the exact location, Skylitzes description accords with the region.
XVI.43.31-33: τὰ δὲ Βελάγραδα φρούριον δύσβατον καὶ τοῖς ἐχθροῖς ἀνεπίβατον. πρὸς μεσημβρίαν γὰρ κρημνοῖς στεφανοῦται, ἐν οἷς καὶ ποταμὸς ῥεῖ· Ἀσῶνα κλῆσις αὐτῷ. καὶ μία εἴσοδός ἐστι τῷ φρουρίῳ.
The fortress of Belagrada is impregnable and inaccessible to enemies, surrounded by beetling cliffs to the south with a flowing river named Ason. There is only one entrance to the fortress.
This is another Belgrad (White city) in Berat, Albania (Fig. 3.15), not the Belgrad in Serbia. The river Skylitzes named Ason is the River Osum/Osumit. Its classical name was Apsos (Ἄψος) yet Skylitzes gives its contemporary name. The depiction he presented is very accurate.
Figure 3.15 Albanian Belagrada.
154
XXI.21.1-6: Οἱ Πατζινάκαι δὲ τὸν Αἷμον, ὡς εἴπομεν, διαβάντες, καὶ τὴν μεταξὺ τούτου καὶ τοῦ ποταμοῦ Ἴστρου κατασκοπήσαντες πεδιάδα τὴν διήκουσαν μέχρι θαλάσσης, καὶ τόπον εὑρόντες νάπας καὶ ἄλση ἔχοντα καὶ λόχμας παντοδαπὰς καὶ ὕδωρ καὶ νομάς (Ἑκατὸν βουνοὺς τὸν τόπον ὀνομάζουσιν οἱ ἐγχώριοι), ἐκεῖσε ἐγκαθιδρύονται,
As we said, the Pechenegs crossed the Haemos and reconnoitred the plain between Haemos and the River Istros (= Danube), stretching as far as the sea. They found a place with vales and groves, variegated thickets, springs and pasture (the locals called this place as Hundred Hills) and settled there.
An unknown location. The same place is also mentioned by Anna Komnene, when she was describing Lake Ozolimne (cf. Alexias VII.5.2-3). The clues Skylitzes gave are not enough, however, thanks to Anna’s description of Ozolimne, we believe this so-called “Hundred Hills” are a few km west of Lake Razim. The detailed description along with the map will be provided in the respective chapter of Anna Komnene.
Skylitzes’ opus is rich in accounts of natural phenomena. Some of the disasters Skylitzes had recorded were also directly copied from the same sources he used. If we are to start with earthquakes, the very first mention is the February 824 earthquake, which destroyed the walls of rebel cities, Panion and Heraekleia. Skylitzes’ narrative order is the same with Theophanes Continuatus (cf. Th. Cont. II.20.5-7). However, Skylitzes gives no further details and simply states that Panion fell when its walls were destroyed by an earthquake (III.13.43-44: τὸ μὲν Πάνιον ἑάλω τοῦ τείχους καταβληθέντος ἀπό τινος ἐπιγενομένου σεισμοῦ), and like Continuatus, Skylitzes too gives no explanation or interpretation for this earthquake. On the other hand, as we have stated above, Genesios too recorded the same earthquake along with the σεισμοσκόποι accompanying the imperial army and advised the Emperor (Io. Gen. II.9.1-8). Skylitzes does not mention this. This confirms that his source for this was Continuatus. Again we see the earthquake mentioned in Th. Cont. IV.34.6-15, which is the 28 May 862 Earthquake. Skylitzes account is almost identical. From the damages of the earthquake to Leon Mathematikos interpretation it is the same. Like Continuatus, Skylitzes too refrains from making his own interpretation.
V.18.8-16: “ἐγένοντο δὲ καὶ κλόνοι γῆς φρικωδέστατοι. εἷς δὲ ὁ μέγιστος, καθ' ἣν ἡμέραν ἡ τοῦ κυρίου ἀνάληψις ἑορτάζεται, τὴν γῆν κατασείσας τό τε κατὰ
155
τὸ Ἑξακιόνιον πρὸς γῆν ἠδάφισε τεῖχος καὶ ναοὺς εὐπρεπεῖς καὶ οἴκους λαμπροὺς καὶ τὴν κατὰ τὴν Χρυσῆν πύλην τῆς πόλεως ἱδρυμένην Νίκην καὶ τὰς ἐν τῷ Δευτέρῳ κατὰ τὴν ἁγίαν Ἄνναν παγίας ἱσταμένας κατέσεισεν, ἧς τὴν πτῶσιν ὁ φιλόσοφος Λέων προσημαίνειν ἀνεῖπε φανερῶς τὴν τοῦ μετὰ βασιλέα δυνάστου καταστροφήν. ἐγένοντο δὲ καὶ ποταμῶν ἀφάνειαι καὶ πηγῶν, καὶ ἄλλ' ἄττα παθήματα κατὰ πᾶσαν χώραν.”
There were also horrible earthquakes. The biggest [of them] shook the earth on the day the Lord’s ascension was being celebrated. The wall by the Hexakionion was razed to the ground and it dislocated some fine churches, splendid dwellings. [The statue of] Nike is located at the Golden Gate of the City and the statues stand near Hagia Anna in the Second District. Leon the Philosopher openly declared that the fall of [Nike] foretold the overthrow of one who would hold power after the emperor. Rivers and springs ran dry and there were other calamities in every land.”
Ioannes Skylitzes also gives us an account of how Leon Mathematikos resolved the famine in Thessalonike by using astronomy-astrology. He calculated the best season for planting seeds according to the movements of celestial objects. However contrary to Theophanes Continuatus’ account (Th. Cont. IV.29). Ioannes omits God’s role in this. Neither he accredits his success to God. He states that Leon was a learned man in many subjects. Therefore, we can rightly assume that Skylitzes thinks that the success was the result of Leon’s talent rather than God’s intervention (V.15.103-105).
The next earthquake Skylitzes mentioned is the September 967 earthquake which shook Honorias and Paphlagonia. He also states that scorching May winds destroyed crops, vines and trees. The result was famine. Neither divine nor natural, the author gives no further information about the sources of these phenomena. The earthquake is the one mentioned by Leon Diakonos in IV.9.1-22, the one which shook Klaudiopolis. Rather than giving the exact name of the city, Skylitzes writes as Honorias, which was a Byzantine Theme centred around modern Bolu and Paphlagonia was also a theme centred around modern Çankırı.
In XVI.13, the author mentions the 26 October 986 earthquake that shook Istanbul. According to him, along with many manors and churches, part of Hagia Sophia’s dome was also damaged (cf. Leo. Diak. X.10.16-32). However, like most of his natural
156
phenomena descriptions, the authors give no further detail. The 17 February 1034 earthquake, which damaged cities of Syria greatly, is described in XVIII.17.1-2. In the same chapter, Skylitzes mentions locust invasion in the eastern themes. He states that thanks to powerful wind, locusts were thrown to Hellespontos, and the inhabitants of themes could return to their homes. However, he makes no connections between these two phenomena, and once again there is no explanation for the earthquake mentioned. Later, in XIX.4, the locusts aforementioned return and devastate Hellespontos’ coastal regions, the Thrakesion theme and as far as to Pergamon for three whole years. This time Skylitzes claims this was the act of God, his retribution for the previous Emperor Romanos III and his desecrated marriage bed.
In XIX, Skylitzes mentions the earthquake that damaged Jerusalem severely. According to him, many people died along with collapsed buildings, churches, and it shooked the earth for 40 days (XIX.6.1-3: σειομένης τῆς γῆς ἄχρι τεσσαράκοντα ἡμερῶν). Following: τῷ δὲ Σεπτεμβρίῳ μηνὶ τοῦ ͵ϛφμγʹ ἔτους, στῦλος πυρὸς ἐφαίνετο κατὰ τὴν ῴαν, τὴν κορυφὴν κεκλιμένην φέρων πρὸς μεσημβρίαν). He mentions another phenomenon right after his account on earthquakes. According to him, in September 1034, a pillar of fire shined in the east, its top inclined towards the south. The author gives no further detail about this phenomenon and despite recording it after the earthquake he suggests no connection between the two. Following accounts are also similar, in XIX.10, he states that “18 December 1036 at the fourth hour of the night three earthquakes shook the earth, two small and one large.” Yet again he gives no details, and right after that, he mentions a drought that lasted for 6 months and a hailstorm that destroyed trees and roof tiles. Again no explanations no interpretations, but he records that the church made a procession as a result of this hailstorm.
Similarly after recording the 2 November 1037 earthquake, which according to him occurred around the tenth hour of the day, and the earth continued to tremble throughout January (XIX.13.1-4: καὶ διετέλεσεν ἡ γῆ σειομένη ἄχρι ὅλου τοῦ Ἰαννουαρίου μηνός), he records a famine in Thrace, Macedonia, Strymon and Thessalonike, Thessaly. Once again he makes no connection between these.
His statement in XIX.18 is no different. According to him, in 1039 there were continuous earthquakes and excessive heavy rainfalls. In some of the themes, there was such a disease of sore throat that the living were unable to carry away the dead ((XIX.18.24-26: κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον καὶ σεισμοὶ γεγόνασι συνεχεῖς καὶ ὄμβρων
157
ἐπίκλυσις σφοδρά. ἐπεκράτησε δὲ καὶ ἔν τισι τῶν θεμάτων τὸ τῆς κυνάγχης νόσημα, ὡς ἀδυνατεῖν τοὺς ζῶντας ἐκφέρειν τοὺς τεθνεῶτας.). Skylitzes simply records the disasters without giving any details, explanations or interpretations. The word κυνάγχη, which is used to identify disease, means sore throat, an inflammation of the larynx, quinsy. His depiction fits a peritonsillar abscess, however, his statement that “the living were unable to carry away the dead” suggests another disease.
In XIX.19, Skylitzes mentions the 2 February 1040 earthquake, which destroyed many buildings in Smyrna along with their residents, and in XIX.28, he simply states that an earthquake occurred on 10 June 1041. No further details are given.
Above all these earthquake narrations, the one in XIX.21.9-13 is different.
XIX.21.9-13 ἔσειε δὲ καὶ συνεχῶς ὁ θεός, καὶ δείματα καὶ φόβητρα κατεῖχον τὴν οἰκουμένην, ἐν οὐρανῷ κομητῶν ἐπιτολαί, ἐν ἀέρι ἄνεμοι καὶ ὄμβροι ῥαγδαῖοι, ἐν γῇ δὲ βρασμοὶ καὶ κλόνοι. ταῦτα δὲ προεμήνυον, οἶμαι, τὴν μέλλουσαν ὅσον οὐδέπω γενέσθαι καταστροφὴν τῶν τυράννων.
God continuously shook the earth and brought terrifying and fearful [disasters/messages] to the inhabited world: Comets appearing in the sky, violent winds and storms in the air, eruptions and tremblings on earth. In my opinion, these things forebode the forthcoming fall of the tyrants.
This time Skylitzes gives his own opinion and his opinion are that all these phenomena were sent by God. Moreover, Skylitzes interprets these as the heralds of tyrants’ falls.
XVIII.12: Τῇ δὲ τρισκαιδεκάτῃ τοῦ Αὐγούστου μηνός, ἡμέρᾳ κυριακῇ, ὥρᾳ πρώτῃ τῆς νυκτός, ἐν ἔτει τῷ ἑξακισχιλιοστῷ πεντακοσιοστῷ σαρακοστῷ, γέγονε σεισμὸς μέγας. εἰσῆλθε δὲ καὶ ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐν τῇ βασιλίδι, καὶ τῆς προτέρας αὐτοῦ γυναικὸς Ἑλένης ἀποθανούσης μεγάλας διαδόσεις ὑπὲρ αὐτῆς ἐποιήσατο. τούτῳ τῷ ἔτει κατὰ τὴν εἰκοστὴν τοῦ Φεβρουαρίου μηνὸς καὶ ἀστὴρ διῆξεν ἀπὸ βορρᾶ πρὸς μεσημβρίαν μετ' ἤχου καὶ κτύπου. ἐφαίνετο δὲ ἄχρι τῆς πεντεκαιδεκάτης Μαρτίου, τόξον ὕπερθεν ἔχων. Μαρτίου δὲ ἕκτῃ, ἡμέρᾳ τρίτῃ, γέγονε σεισμός.
On the 13th day of month August on the day of the Lord (= Sunday) at the first hour of the night, AM 6540 (= 1032) there was a great earthquake. The
158
Emperor (i.e. Romanos III) came into the imperial capital and because Helena, his former wife died, he distributed many alms on her behalf. In that year on the 20th day of the month February a star traversed from north to south with noise and a rattling sound. It was visible until 15 March and there was a bow above it. On 6 March, that is the third day (= Tuesday)107 there was an earthquake.
Skylitzes’ account is not clear whether the earthquakes are related to star-fall or not. On comets, eclipses and other astronomical phenomena, Skylitzes is no different.
VII.8.1-5: Κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν καιρὸν ἐγένετο καὶ ἡλίου ἔκλειψις περὶ ὥραν τῆς ἡμέρας ἕκτην, ὥστε καὶ ἀστέρας φανῆναι, ἀνέμων τε βιαία πνοὴ καὶ ἀστραπαὶ καὶ βρονταὶ φρικώδεις καὶ σκηπτοὶ καυσώδεις, ὑφ' ὧν καὶ ἄνδρες ἑπτὰ ἐν τοῖς ἀναβαθμοῖς τοῦ ἁγίου Κωνσταντίνου ἐν τῷ φόρῳ ἐκεραυνώθησαν.
At that time there was an eclipse of the sun about the sixth hour of the day. The stars appeared. There were both violently blowing winds, horrifying and flashing lightings, and scorching thunderbolts, by them seven men were burned on the steps of Hagios Konstantinos in the forum.
Neither natural nor divine, the author gives no explanation or reason for these phenomena. In VII.32.29-35, he describes the Moon eclipse (ἔκλειψις σελήνης μεγίστη) that occurred on 20 March 908. He states that Emperor Leon VI summons the Metropolites Synades Pantaleon, who is adept in astronomy (τῆς ἀστρονομικῆς παιδείας ἐν μυήσει τυγχάνοντα). He along with other members of nobility interprets this eclipse as misfortune. Skylitzes has no opinion on this eclipse. Even in the passing of the Halley ’s Comet on 9 July 912, he made no comment. He simply said that under Leon VI’s reign a comet appeared in the west, and those who are skilled in such things likened it to a swordfish. They also said it foretells the bloodshed in the imperial capital (VIII.3.1: Ἐπὶ τούτου βασιλεύσαντος ἐφάνη κομήτης ἐκ δύσεως, ὃν ξιφίαν καλοῦσιν οἱ περὶ ταῦτα δεινοί. τοῦτον δὲ ἔλεγον αἱμάτων χύσιν προσημαίνειν ἐν τῇ βασιλίδι.).
However, on the “bearded” comet that appeared in August 975, Skylitzes do comments.
107 ἡμέρᾳ τρίτῃ: third day. Wortley’s translation “in the third hour” is in error there. (2012, p. 365)
159
XV.20: Αὐγούστῳ δὲ μηνί, ἰνδικτιῶνος τρίτης, ἐφάνη καὶ κομήτης ὁ λεγόμενος πωγωνίας, καὶ ἐφαίνετο ἕως Ὀκτωβρίου μηνὸς τῆς τετάρ της ἰνδικτιῶνος. προεμήνυε δ' οὗτος τὸν τοῦ βασιλέως θάνατον καὶ τὰς μελλούσας κατασχεῖν τὴν Ῥωμαίων γῆν ἐκ τῶν ἐμφυλίων πολέμων ἀπαραμυθήτους τύχας
In the month of August, the third year of the indiction, a comet called “bearded” appeared and it remained visible until the month of October, the fourth year of the indiction. It foretold the death of the emperor himself and the inconsolable misfortune which was destined to spread over Roman lands through civil war.
Mentioned dates are August-October 975. The same comet was also seen by Anglo-Saxons in England and interpreted as the harbinger of the death of King Edgar of Wessex and famine, which was seen as God’s vengeance on land.
In XXI.2.10-14, Skylitzes records a comet travelling from east to west in 6 October 1042, which according to him can be seen shining during the whole month and heralded the forthcoming universal disasters (κατὰ δὲ τὴν ἕκτην τοῦ Ὀκτωβρίου μηνός, τῆς ἑνδεκάτης ἰνδικτιῶνος, τοῦ, ϛφναʹ ἔτους, ἐφάνη κομήτης ἀπὸ τῆς ἕω πρὸς δύσιν ποιούμενος τὴν πορείαν, καὶ ὡρᾶτο λάμπων παρ' ὅλον τοῦτον τὸν μῆνα. προεμήνυε δ' οὗτος τὰς μελλούσας ἐπισυμβῆναι κοσμικὰς συμφοράς.). Despite his statement, Skylitzes gives no details about these “universal disasters.” The following sentence starts with “Στεφάνου γὰρ τοῦ καὶ Βοϊσθλάβου” (note that γὰρ used as causalis coniunctivum) narrates how Stephen Boisthlav, the ruler of Diokleia, escaped from Byzantine lands and started to pillage Serbian lands (subjects of Byzantium). However, in his narrative, there is nothing universal (κοσμικὰς).
The fall of a star occurred on 31 October 1029, which is recorded as follows:
XVIII.3.18-26: Ὀκτωβρίῳ δὲ μηνὶ κατὰ τὴν τριακοστὴν πρώτην ἡμέραν τοῦ μηνὸς χύσις ἀστέρος ἐγένετο, ἐκ δυσμῶν πρὸς ἀνατολὴν τὴν πορείαν ποιοῦντος. καὶ κατ' αὐτὴν τὴν ἡμέραν πτῶσις οὐ μικρὰ γέγονε τοῦ Ῥωμαϊκοῦ στρατοῦ ἐν Συρίᾳ, στρατηγοῦντος τῆς μεγάλης Ἀντιοχείας Μιχαὴλ τοῦ Σπονδύλη. ἐγένετο δὲ καὶ ὄμβρων ἐπίκλυσις, ἐπικρατήσασα ἕως τοῦ Μαρτίου μηνός, τῶν ποταμῶν ὑπερχυθέντων καὶ τῶν κοίλων πελαγισάντων, ὡς ἀποπνιῆναι σχεδὸν πάντα τὰ ζῷα καὶ τοὺς καταβληθέντας καρποὺς τῇ γῇ καὶ διὰ τοῦτο λιμὸν κατὰ τὸν ἐπιόντα χρόνον ἐπακολουθῆσαι δεινόν.
160
In October, the thirty-first of that month, the fall of a star occurred, followed a path from west to east, and on that day the Roman army suffered not a small defeat in Syria. Mikhael Spondyles was the general of the great [city] of Antiokheia. Rain showers poured down and continued until March. The rivers overflowed and hollows turned into lakes, consequently, nearly all the animals [or livestock] was drowned and the crops were levelled to the ground. Because of this, a terrible famine occurred in the following year.
Another account on a fall of a star can be found in XVIII. According to Skylitzes, on 28 July 1032, a star fell from south to north, which lighted the whole world. (ἀστέρος ἐγένετο χύσις ἐκ μεσημβρίας πρὸς ἄρκτον, πᾶσαν περιαστράψαντος τὴν γῆν). Shortly afterwards many reports arrived about the misfortunes afflicting Byzantines, like attacks of Arabs, Pechenegs etc. Apart from these, the account below seems to be related to this “star-fall”:
XVIII.11.1-3: Τούτῳ τῷ ἔτει καὶ λιμὸς καὶ λοιμὸς ἐπέδραμε Καππαδοκίαν, Παφλαγονίαν, Ἀρμενιακόν, καὶ Ὁνωριάδα, ὡς καὶ αὐτοὺς τοὺς τῶν θεμάτων ἐποίκους τὰς πατρίδας καταλιπόντας μετοικίαν ζητεῖν.
In that year both the famine and plague overran Kappadokia, Paphlagonia, the Armeniakon and Honorias, it was so grave that the inhabitants of the themes abandoned their native homes in search of settling somewhere else.
Another star-fall that occurred in 1034 is recorded by Skylitzes in XIX.
XIX.2.33-42: ὅτι δὲ μὴ ἀρεστὰ τὰ γεγονότα ἦν τῷ θεῷ, διεδείχθη τρανῶς ἐκ προοιμίων αὐτῶν. κατὰ γὰρ τὴν ἑνδεκάτην ὥραν τῆς ἁγίας καὶ μεγάλης κυριακῆς χάλαζα κατηνέχθη ἀφόρητος καὶ ῥαγδαία, ὡς συντριβῆναι μὴ μόνον τὰ δένδρα κάρπιμά τε καὶ ἄκαρπα, ἀλλὰ δῆτα καὶ οἰκίας πεσεῖν καὶ ναοὺς καὶ τὰ λήϊα καὶ τὰς ἀμπέλους μέχρις ἐδάφους, ὡς ἐπισυμβῆναι κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον παντοίων καρπῶν ἀφορίαν γενέσθαι. γέγονε δὲ καὶ χύσις ἀστέρος κατὰ τὴν κυριακὴν τὴν μετὰ τὸ πάσχα, περὶ ὥραν τρίτην τῆς νυκτός, τῇ μαρμαρυγῇ τῆς λαμπρότητος τοὺς ἀστέρας πάντας ἀποκαλύψαντος, ὡς καὶ δόκησιν παρασχεῖν τοῖς πολλοῖς ἡλίου ἀνατολῆς. ἐλήφθη δὲ καὶ ὁ βασιλεὺς δαιμονίῳ.
But it was clearly shown from the beginning that what had happened was not pleasing to God. For at the eleventh hour of Lord’s holy and great day (= Easter) there was an unendurable and violent hailstorm started, such that not
161
only the trees (fruit-bearing and fruitless) were shattered down, but also houses and churches collapsed. Crops and vines were laid flat to the ground. As a result at that time, there was a great shortage of all kinds of crops. There was a falling star about the third hour of the night on the Lord’s Day (= Sunday) after Easter; the brilliance of its splendour revealed all-stars. For many, it looked like the rising Sun. And the emperor possessed by a demon.
Whether this star-fall is related to mentioned phenomena is not clear. But it is clear that hailstorm is related to God’s anger.
On the Sun eclipse occurred on 22 December 967, the author gave no details, but only reported that the stars could be seen (XIV.20.9-10: ὡς καὶ ἄστρα φανῆναι.). About another eclipse he mentioned in XVI.11, Skylitzes gives nothing. No dates no details. All we can say, and that is from the narrative, is that it occurred between 976-1025. Apart from the astronomical phenomena he recorded, Skylitzes’ view on astronomy-astrology can also be seen in his narrative. Exempli gratia, in IX.2.55-57, a certain tax collector named Nikholaos fled to Syria, where he renounced his faith and adopted astrology instead (ἐξομοσάμενος τὴν καθ' ἡμᾶς εὐσεβῆ θρησκείαν ἀστρολογίας ἀντεποιεῖτο). From his narrative, we can assume that Skylitzes regards astrology as a faith equivalent of religion. The same attitude can be also seen in some of the other authors examined in this thesis. The following lines tell us that Nikholaos send an encrypted message in a black sheet, which can only be read when the sheet is washed up. In XVI.19.10-11, he portrays astronomers, sky-gazers, as oracles who prophesies. According to him, there was a popular saying started by some of those “sky-gazers”: “B will chase B, and B will reign.” (XVI.19.10-11: ἐλέγετο γὰρ λόγος δημώδης ὑπό τινων τῶν τὰ μετέωρα ἐστοχασμένων· ‘βῆτα βῆτα διώξει, καὶ βῆτα βασιλεύσει.).
In general, Skylitzes does not give details, explanations or interpretations on natural phenomena.. Apart from those above presented, a few other examples can be given. As a man who recorded phenomena most, Skylitzes’ work is full of these. In VII.28, Skylitzes describes a strong wind, blowing from the southwest, shooking many buildings, terrified the people of Konstantinoupolis. It appears that this καταιγίς (hurricane) only ends by a thunder-storm. The wind is called lips (λίψ). It was known and called the same in antiquity too (see. Arist. Mete. 364b2). Skylitzes simply records it without giving any details or personal thoughts.
162
Skylitzes describes the famine that occurred in 927-928 winter.
X.22: Τῷ αὐτῷ δὲ μηνὶ γέγονε χειμὼν ἀφόρητος, ὡς κρυσταλλωθῆναι τὴν γῆν ἐπὶ ἡμέρας ἑκατὸν εἴκοσιν. ἐπηκολούθησε δὲ τῷ χειμῶνι καὶ ὁ μέγας λιμός, τοὺς πώποτε γενομένους ὑπερβαλλόμενος, καὶ θάνατος ἀπὸ τούτου, ὡς μὴ δύνασθαι τοὺς ζῶντας ἐκκομίζειν τοὺς τεθνεῶτας, τοῦ βασιλέως πολλὴν πρόνοιαν ποιησαμένου κατὰ τὸ δυνατὸν καὶ τοῦ χειμῶνος καὶ τοῦ λιμοῦ δι' εὐποιϊῶν καὶ ἄλλων βοηθημάτων παντοδαπῶν.
At that month an unendurable winter, that freeze the earth for one hundred and twenty days, suddenly came. A great famine followed the winter. It was the worst of all. So many died from the famine that the living were not able to bury the dead. [This happened] despite the emperor, with good works and every other aid, taking every possible precaution for the winter and the famine.
For the reason of this unendurable winter, Skylitzes has no explanation nor an interpretation. But it is clear that according to him, the famine was the result of the winter.
In XIX.9, Skylitzes states that in 1036 an unbearable cold froze the Danube, where Pechenegs crossed the frozen ground. Another swarm of locusts hit Thrakesion theme and destroyed the crops, yet, again he has no explanation or interpretation. In XXI.30.1-5, after a certain plague, a great hailstorm ravages Konstantinoupolis on July-September 1054, killing animals and men. Again Skylitzes has nothing provided, no details, no explanations. He simply records events. Contrary to these, Skylitzes has an explanation for the severe famine that afflicts the land of the Bulgars, which is narrated in n V.7.91. The famine abated, only when Bogoris (i.e. Boris) converted to Christianity. According to Skylitzes, this occurred so that Boris could convert to “true faith.” So, in this chapter, Skylitzes gives us a divine explanation. A similar approach can be seen on the account of the Battle with the Rhos in 1043. According to Skylitzes, a storm that arose in the south blew towards the enemy helping the Byzantine army. The author interprets this as a divine help (θειοτέρας...ἐπικουρίας). Besides that, there was a man on a white horse, who led the charge. No one in the Byzantine camp knew the man. According to the author, this was Hagios Theodoros, for Emperor Tzimiskes always carried his icons (XV.17.1-6).
163
In XVIII.2.1-2, it appears according to Skylitzes, God was the one who rained enough rain and made the crops abundant, especially the olives (Κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον ὗσεν ὁ θεὸς ὑετὸν σύμμετρον καὶ εὐφορία γέγονε τῶν καρπῶν, κατ' ἐξαίρετον δὲ τῆς ἐλαίας.)
In XII.8, the author mentions a cattle disease called krabra or kravra (κράβρα) ravages the Byzantine lands. According to him, the origin of this disease was supernatural. When the workers dug for the foundation of Romanos I’s new palace they found a marble ox head. They smashed it and threw it into the lime kiln. Hence the origin of the destruction of bovine race (τὰ τῶν βοῶν διαφθείρεσθαι γένη).
In short, Ioannes Skylitzes has no interest in details whether they are related to geography or natural phenomena. His depictions clearly belong to the sources he used, and almost in every case, he omitted the details his sources had. It is true he has accurate geographical depictions, especially in the case of some fortresses. However grave errors like “the Rhos living at the north of Taurus Mountains” indicates Skylitzes knowledge of geography was lousy. Most probably, he was copying information without any critical approach. His work is rich in records of phenomena, in fact, the richest Byzantine text in this thesis. However, he simply recorded the events, without details and explanations. Very few explanations and interpretations he presented, as if he had no opinion of his own, are based on divine knowledge. In that regard, comets and falling stars have a special place.
Skylitzes Continuatus is not different. His source was most likely Attaleiates. His narrative bears similarities with Attaleiates. On p. 127 the author describes Romanos IV’s pass-through Tephrike region.
127: Αὐτὸς δὲ μετὰ τῶν εὐζωνοτέρων ὄπισθεν ἐδίωκε τῶν ἐχθρῶν διὰ πολλῶν ὑψηλοτάτων βουνῶν τῆς Τεφρικῆς καὶ τῆς Ἀργαοῦ καὶ τοῖς ἐχθροῖς ἐπιτεθῆναι ἐκ τοῦ ἐγκαρσίου ἠπείγετο. (…) Φόνος μὲν οὖν αὐτῶν οὐκ ἐγένετο πολὺς προκατειργασμένων τῶν τοῦ βασιλέως ταῖς ἀνοδίαις, ζωγρίαι δὲ πολλοὶ ἑάλωσαν·
[Romanos IV] with his lightly equipped troops pursued the enemy and pressed on through the many highest hills of Tephrike and Argaoun to hit the enemy from the flank. (…) There was not a great massacre of them (i.e. the Turks)
164
since the emperor’s soldiers were worn out from their march through rugged terrain, but many were taken, prisoner.
Argaoun is modern Arguvan, Malatya (Hild, 1981, p. 150; Fig. 3.16). Anderson suggests Argaoun (he translit. as Argaous) is Arga, Malatya but accepts that Arguvan would be the more probable choice (Anderson, 1897, p. 27). Kedrenos tells us that Argaoun was among the first cities built by Paulicians. Note usage of superlativus ὑψηλοτάτων cf. Attal. 106: “καὶ διὰ πολλῶν ὑψηλοτάτων βουνῶν τῶν τῆς Τεφρικῆς διερχόμενος, καὶ τοῖς ἐχθροῖς ἐπιτεθῆναι κατὰ τὸ ἐγκάρσιον ἐπειγόμενος,” It is clear that this was taken from Attaleiates, however Argaoun is not depicted in Attaleiates.
Figure 3.16 The vicinity of Tephrike and Argaoun.
We see the influence of Attaleiates in the account on Syrian Hierapolis too. In p. 129, Skylitzes Continuatus states that there are vast plains around Hierapolis (mod. Menbij, Syria) where some Saracen horsemen had passed through, and apart from some hills there is nothing that has risen to the height of a great mountain. The place is searingly hot, while the water is warm, it changed after the heat and the scorch of the air. (Εἰσὶ δὲ περὶ τὴν Ἱεράπολιν πεδία μέγιστα, ἐν οἷς τινες τῶν Σαρακηνῶν διεφάνησαν ἱππαζόμενοι, καὶ πλὴν γηλόφων οὐδέν ἐστι τὸ ὑπερανεστηκὸς εἰς ὄρος μέγα, καυσώδης δὲ ὁ τόπος καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ χλιαρόν, μεταλαμβάνον τῆς τοῦ ἀέρος φλεγμονῆς τε καὶ καύσεως.) This is almost identical with Attaleiates’ portrayal, (cf. 117.1-10).
Again in pp. 136-137, we saw Attaleiates lines in the case of Anthia:
Τῶν δὲ βορειοτέρων μερῶν ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐπελάβετο δι’ εὕρεσιν χιόνος καὶ ὑδάτων ψυχρῶν· ἀκρατῶς γὰρ εἶχε τούτων τὸ σῶμα κατὰ πολὺ
165
διαθερμαινόμενος. Διελθὼν δὲ διὰ τραχεινῶν καὶ δυσβάτων τόπων εἴς τινα τόπον λεγόμενον Ἀνθίας κατήντησε· ποηφόρος δὲ ὁ τόπος καὶ σιτοφόρος καὶ ψυχαγωγία οὐ μικρὰ τοῖς ἐν τούτῳ καταίρουσι καὶ οἷον ὀμφαλὸς ἐκεῖνος τῆς γῆς. Ἐκεῖθεν δὲ τὸν Ταῦρον τὸ ὄρος, τὸ ἐπιχωρίως καλούμενον Μούνζαρον, ὑπερβὰς εἰς τὴν Κελτζηνὴν λεγομένην χώραν κατήντησε, τὸ δεύτερον διαβὰς τὸν Εὐφράτην ποταμόν, παραρρέοντα καὶ διαιροῦντα τό τε ὄρος καὶ τὴν Κελτζηνὴν ὥσπερ μεθόριον.
The emperor arrived at the northern regions in search of snow and cold waters, for he had an uncontrollable need of these since his body was extremely overheated. He passed through rough and impassable terrain he came to a place called Anthia. It is a fertile place that yields good harvests and greatly rises the spirits of those who put in there, as it were the navel of the world. From there he crossed a mountain in the Taurus, the one called Mounzaros by the locals, and came to the region known as Keltzene after a second crossing of the Euphrates which flows by and divides the mountain from Keltzene like a boundary.
In Skylitzes Continatus, it appears, Mounzouros become Mounzaros and Kelesine become Keltzene. However, the account remains the same. Bryer and Winfield too confirm that Kelesine-Keltzene is modern Erzincan (1985, p. 33).
In pp. 142-143, Skylitzes Continuatus mentions the fire broke out in the Romanos Diogenes’ encampment. However, he places the encampment in Anatolikon Theme. The fire burned the emperor’s quarters and sadly his horses died. The pitiful sight of the half-burnt horses demoralized the imperial army. Like Attaleiates, Skylitzes Continuatus too interpreted this as an ill-omen (cf. Attal. pp. 144.18-145.4). In the following, after the imperial army crossed the River Halys, they reached a place called Krya Pege (lit. Cold Spring). As we have stated above the exact location is unknown, and it probably is identical with Bathysryax. Description of the region is similar to Attaleiates’ (cf. Attal. 146.11-18.), a country town or a rural city known for the variety and abundance of its bounty, the place was well suited to accommodate an army since it overflowed with every resource (143 ἦν γὰρ ὁ τόπος πρὸς ὑποδοχὴν στρατοῦ εὔθετος πᾶσι βρίθων τοῖς χρησίμοις, ἀστυκώμη καὶ ἀγρόπολις διὰ τῆς συμμιγοῦς ποριμότητος γνωριζόμενος.).
166
p. 134: εἰάκει γὰρ τοὺς ἄλλους ἐν τῷ τοῦ Μαυροκάστρου πολίσματι, οὗ τὴν κατάσχεσιν ἐποιήσατο, ἐν τῷ Ἀρμενιακῷ ἐπὶ λόφου κειμένῳ ὑψηλοῦ.
He (i.e. Robert Crépin, a.k.a. Frankopoulos) had left the others in the town of Maurokastron, of which he had become to possess, that sits on a high hill in the Armeniakon [Theme].
Despite the author used the term πόλισμα (city, town, or the building in them), Maurokastron (lit. Black Fortress/Castle Black) was a fortress. Available TIB volumes do not mention it (for it will be in the Pontos volume, which is still in progress). Ramsay gives no exact location but suggests Koloneia (1890, p. 267). Bryer suggests Şebinkarahisar Kalesi which the Turkish name might be derived from Maurokastron itself. (Bryer & Winfield, 1985, p. 146). In fact, the town’s name was Koloneia and the name of the castle was Maurokastron, but by the eleventh-century castle’s name had begun to replace Koloneia. This suggests a nomenclature problem here, and this problem raises new questions: 1. Did the author know this place’ classical name? 2. If he knew was he aware that these two places were in fact the same? 3. If he knew, did he have a problem with positioning such as the one we see in Apsos/Oson River? 4. Did he prefer the contemporary name for the sake of the reader? The depiction, on the other hand, is very accurate, Şebinkarahisar Kalesi is situated on a basalt rock.
The disaster at Khonai that occurred in the spring of 1070, which Attaleiates mentions can also be found in Skylitzes Continuatus. He might have copied this from Attaleiates, however, his account has differences.
pp. 140-141: Τῆς φήμης δὲ καταλαβούσης τὸν βασιλέα πολλή τις ἀνία κατέσχεν αὐτόν. Μήπω δὲ σχεδὸν ταύτης ἠκουσμένης ἑτέρα ἐπῆλθεν ὀξυτέρα φήμη καὶ τομωτέρα πολλῷ, τοὺς Τούρκους ἀπαγγέλλουσα τὴν ἐν Χώναις πολιτείαν καὶ αὐτὸν τὸν περιβόητον ἐν θαύμασι καὶ ἀναθήμασι τοῦ Ἀρχιστρατήγου ναὸν καταλαβεῖν ἐν μαχαίρᾳ, καὶ φόνου μὲν ἅπαντα τὰ ἐκεῖσε πληρῶσαι καὶ λύθρου, πολλὰς δὲ ὕβρεις τῷ ἱερῷ ἐμπαροινηθῆναι, ἱππῶνα τὸν πάνσεπτον ἐργασαμένους ναόν, καὶ τὸ δὴ σχετλιώτερον μηδὲ τὰς τοῦ χάσματος σήραγγας, ἐν ᾧπερ οἱ παραρρέοντες ποταμοὶ ἐκεῖσε χωνευόμενοι διὰ τῆς τοῦ Ἀρχιστρατήγου παλαιᾶς ἐπιδημίας καὶ θεοσημίας ὡς διὰ πρανοῦς ἀστατοῦν τὸ ῥεῦμα καὶ λίαν εὐδρομοῦν ἔχουσι, τοὺς καταφυγόντας διατηρῆσαι καὶ ὑπαλύξαι τὸν κίνδυνον ἰσχῦσαι, ἀλλ’, ὅπερ οὐ γέγονέ ποτε, πλημμυρῆσαι
167
τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ οἷονἀναρροιβδῆσαι καὶ ἀνερεύξασθαι καὶ πάντας ἄρδην τοὺς καταπεφευγότας κατακλύσαι καὶ διὰ ξηρᾶς ὑποβρυχίους ποιήσασθαι. Ταῦτα τοιγαροῦν ἐπιδιηγηθέντα πολλὴν ἐνῆκαν τὴν ἀθυμίαν ἡμῖν λογιζομένοις θεοσημίαν εἶναι τὸ γεγονὸς καὶ μῆνιν καὶ χόλον Θεοῦ, ὡς μὴ μόνον τῶν πολεμίων, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν στοιχείων ἀντιμαχομένων ἡμῖν. Πρότερον μὲν γὰρ ἡ τοσαύτη τῶν ἐθνῶν ὁρμὴ καὶ ἔπαρσις καὶ τῶν ὑπὸ Ῥωμαίους τελούντων κατακοπὴ ὀργὴ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐδόκει, κατὰ τῶν αἱρετικῶν δὲ οἳ τὴν Ἰβηρίαν καὶ Μεσοποταμίαν ἄχρι Λυκανδοῦ καὶ Μελιτηνῆς καὶ τὴν παρακειμένην οἰκοῦσιν Ἀρμενίαν καὶ οἳ τὴν ἰουδαϊκὴν τοῦ Νεστορίου καὶ τὴν τῶν Ἀκεφάλων θρησκεύουσιν αἵρεσιν·
When the news came to the emperor, a great sorrow came over him. Hardly had this report reached his ears when another, far more painful and troubling, arrived to inform him that the Turks had taken the city of Khonai by assault and with it the shrine of the Arkhstrategos (i.e. St. Michael the Prince-General of the Heavenly Hosts) renowned for its miracles and votive offerings. They had filled the whole place with slaughter and gore and desecrated the sanctuary with many insolences. They had turned the most sacred church into a stable, but what was even more shocking was that the channels in the cavern, in which the rivers that flow through there were mixed by the visitation and divine sign of the Arkhstrategos long ago have a precipitous and turbulent current that runs downwards,108 could not protect the refugees there and save them from the danger. Instead (and this had never happened before) the water flooded, then was swallowed back and then disgorged again. It overwhelmed the fugitives all at once and drowned them on dry land. This news was greatly demoralising to us as we regarded the event as the sign from God, as of the anger and wrath of God, since it was not just the enemy but the elements [of nature] were fighting with us. For in earlier times, so great an invasion and onslaught of barbarians and the slaughter of the those who live under Romans were taken to be the wrath of God, but it was directed against those heretics who inhabit Iberia and Mesopotamia as far as Lykandos and Melitene, as well as those who
108 πρανοῦς: with the face downwards, lying on the front, falling forwards, bottoms up (LSJ).
168
lie beside Armenia, or the ones who practise the Jewish heresy of Nestorios and the Akephaloi.
The narrative is the same as Attaleiates’ (Attal. 140.14-141-8). Skylitzes Continuatus too explains this “karstic flood” with the wrath of God. Moreover, Skylitzes gives further details that it was due to Akephaloi (lit. “the headless ones”), which refers to heretical groups who reject the doctrines on Christ’s nature decided at the Council of Chalcedon. In this context, it is mainly Jacobite Syrians.
In 107 Skylitzes Continuatus repeats the storm at Lobitzos (Loveč, Bulgaria), which occurred on 24 September 1059.109 According to him, Isaakios Komnenos encamped at the slopes of Lobitzos Hill. Then a sudden violent storm and an unseasonable snowstorm poured down on the encampment. Almost all of the cavalry and most of the other troops died due to this storm, and cold and wet. For they are were lightly armoured and ill-prepared. Skylitzes Continuatus gives no explanations and he has no interpretations for this phenomenon.
Skylitzes Continuatus gives a detailed account of the 23 September 1063 earthquake in 116-117:
The year before, in the month of September, in the second indiction, on the twenty-third day of that month, during the second hour of the night, there was a tremendous earthquake, more terrible than any that had ever occurred before, that began in the western regions. So great was its magnitude that it brought down many houses and churches and columns. Raidestos and Panion and Myriophyton suffered effects similar to the ones mentioned, as parts of the walls were brought down to the very foundation, as were many houses, and there was a great loss of life. Then there is the case of Kyzikos, where the
109 Ὁ δὲ βασιλεὺς μετὰ τὸ τοῦτον τροπώσασθαι καὶ ἀφανίσαι ἄρδην, ἀναζεύξας ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν τῷ Λοβιτζῷ περὶ τοὺς αὐτοῦ πρόποδας. Ῥαγδαῖος δὲ ὄμβρος τῇ παρεμβολῇ ἐπικαταρραγεὶς καὶ νιφετὸς ἔξωρος—Σεπτέμβριος γὰρ ἦν μὴν ἡμέραν ἄγων κδʹ, καθ’ ἣν ἡ τῆς ἁγίας καὶ πρωτομάρτυρος Θέκλας ἑορτὴ τελεῖται χριστιανοῖς—πολλῆς κακώσεως καὶ λύμης ἐνέπλησε τὸ στρατιωτικόν· ἥ τε γὰρ ἵππος σχεδὸν ἅπασα καὶ τῶν παρόντων οἱ πλείους τῷ κρύει καὶ τῷ ὄμβρῳ, γυμνοὶ καὶ ἀπαράσκευοι τυγχάνοντες, τὸ ζῆν ἐναπέρρηξαν. Ἐπιλελοίπασι δὲ παρὰ πᾶσαν ἐλπίδα καὶ τὰ ἐπιτήδεια ποταμίων ῥευμάτων φορᾶς καὶ χειμῶνος γενόμενα πάρεργον.
169
Hellenic Temple was shaken and fell down for the most part. It had been a most impressive sight to behold because of its solid construction, the arrangement and placement of the very large and beautiful stone blocks, and the proportion of its height and size. For two years thereafter earthquakes recurred from time to time, something that not even the very old could recall happening. Nikaia suffered the same effects. The church built in the name of the Holy Wisdom and the shrine named for the Holy Fathers were shaken and the walls collapsed, along with many private dwellings. Then the quakes finally came to an end. They were the price exacted for our sins and doubtless an expression of divine wrath, and they foreshadowed the arrival and destruction of the nation of which we spoke above (i.e. Turks). For in God’s signs not only the present but also the future can be discerned and foretold.
This narrative is odd, Skylitzes always mentioned earthquakes briefly, without details and without any conclusion. However, this narrative of Skylitzes Continuatus is detailed and he clearly attributes it to God’s wrath due to their sins. Yet, it seems this passage is the combination of two accounts presented by Attaleiates, the one in pp. 88-89 and in 91. However, the earthquake mentioned in p. 91 is a different earthquake that occurred in September 1065 or 1066. It seems Skylitzes Continuatus combined these two, along with their explanations and interpretations. So we can conclude that there is nothing genuine in here.
Like Attaleiates’ account, the following lines are about Halley’s Comet. The description is very similar.
p. 117: Καὶ Μαΐῳ δὲ μηνὶ τῆς δʹ ἰνδικτιῶνος ἐφάνη κομήτης κατόπιν τοῦ ἡλίου δύνοντος τὸ μέγεθος σεληναῖον φέρων, ὅταν ἥδε πλησιφαὴς γένηται. Καὶ ἐῴκει μὲν τηνικαῦτα ἐκπέμπειν καπνὸν καὶ ὀμίχλην, ἐν δὲ τῇ ἐπιούσῃ ἤρξατο παραδεικνύειν βοστρύχους τινάς, καὶ ὅσον οὗτοι προεπετάννυντο τὸ μέγεθος τοῦ ἀστέρος ὑπέληγεν. Ἀπέτεινε δὲ τὰς ἀκτῖνας ὡς πρὸς ἑῴαν καὶ πρὸς ἐκείνην προήρχετο καὶ ἦν ἐπικρατῶν ἄχρις ἡμερῶν τεσσαράκοντα.
In the month of May, in the fourth indiction, a comet appeared after sunset. It was the size of the full moon. It seemed at first to be giving out smoke and mist, and on the following night, it began to display some hair locks. The longer they
170
extended the more the comet’s size diminished. It stretched its rays to the east, the direction in which it was heading, and it lasted for forty days.
The last phenomenon Skylitzes Continuatus mentions is the lightning bolt that struck the column of Constantine the Great in October 1079. According to Continuatus, the lightning bolt struck the Apollo statue on the top of the column of Constantine the Great (Ἀπόλλωνος οὖσα ἀφίδρυμα πρότερον, εἰς ὄνομα δὲ αὐτοῦ μετονομασθεῖσα). The blot damaged part of the column and burned through its three iron belts, which were covered with bronze on the outside. Despite these details of the damage lighting bold made, the author provides no explanation or interpretation.
To sum up, a few accounts given by Skylitzes Continuatus and related to our thesis, are in fact taken from Attaleiates’ Historia, along with the explanations of natural phenomena. His own comments are almost non-existent, which makes it impossible to analyse his own knowledge. However, the depiction of Maurokastron seems to belong to the author himself. His depiction also creates further questions on the problem of nomenclature, which we also see in this period’s other authors. As Skylitzes based his account on the others works, Skylitzes Continuatus based his on Attaleiates’. This also emphasises the argument that the two authors were actually the same person. Georgios Kedrenos and Mikhael Glykas
For Kedrenos the Greek texts used are Bekker’s CSHB edition (1839) and Luigi Tartaglia’s edition. (2016) For Glykas, we have used Bekker’s CSHB edition (1836). These texts have no modern translations. Mostly due to fact that they are mere copies of other works, offers nothing new. Nevertheless, we have tried to analyse them. In general, short chronicles such as these ones tend to omit any geographical detail. Kedrenos’ and Glykas’ works are no different. Even in the Genesis part, Kedrenos omitted the details.
Typically, Kedrenos’ chronicle begins with the creation as was narrated in Genesis (vol. I, p. 6, Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν.). He also mentions how did the Hebrews, Romans and Egyptians name the first month of the year; Nisan, Mars, Phameno respectively.
The head and tail metaphor we saw in Theophanes Contuniatus -and also in those who copied from here- can also be found in Kedrenos.
171
vol 2. p. 91: “Καὶ οὕτω μὲν τὰ τῆς ἀποστασίας ἀπέσβη τελέως καὶ ᾤχετο, οὐκ ἔμελλε δὲ ἄχρι τούτων στήσεσθαι ἡ φορὰ τῶν κακῶν, ἀλλὰ τῶν δύο ἠπείρων, Ἀσίας φαμὲν καὶ Εὐρώπης, ἐν θυμῷ κυρίου οἷόν τινος κεφαλῆς καὶ οὐρᾶς, εἰ καὶ μὴ συνίεσαν, παιδευθεισῶν φόνοις, ἐμπρησμοῖς, σεισμοῖς, ἁρπαγαῖς, ἐμφυλίοις καταδρομαῖς, πόλεων ἀνελπίστοις μετα- ναστάσεσι, σημείοις ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, σημείοις ἐξ ἀέρος, τέλος καὶ ταῖς ταλαιπώροις νήσοις, οἷόν τινα μέσην, ἵν' ὁλόσωμος εἴη ἡ πληγή, ἐπέδραμε τὰ δεινά. ἀλλ' οὐκ ἦν παιδευθῆναι τοὺς τὴν θεάνθρωπον ἐξηρνημένους μορφὴν προσκυνεῖν.”
Thus, the revolt was completely extinguished and quenched, but the series of calamities was not going to end. For after the two mainlands/continents (I mean Asia and Europe, like the head and tail possessing the same soul) -even though they did not understand- chastised by massacres, fires, earthquakes, banditry/rapes, civil war, hopeless migration of cities, signs in the Heaven, signs from the sky/air. As result, the disasters overran the wretched islands, located as they were in the middle [of two continents], in order to afflict the entire body. But there was no correcting those who refused to worship the likeness of the God-man/God-human form.
This narrative is the same as Skylitzes’ (Skylitzes, III.16), which had also been copied from Theophanes Continuatus (Th. Cont. II.20bis.). The narrative sequence is also the same. Theophanes and Skylitzes too mention this after the earthquake at Panion.
The same erroneous depiction of Turkish-Persian geography can be found in Kedrenos as well.
vol 2. pp 567: ἀρχηγὸς Περσίδος καὶ Χωρασμίων καὶ Ὠρητανῶν καὶ Μηδίας ὑπάρχων Μουχοῦμετ κατὰ τοὺς χρόνους Βασιλείου τοῦ βασιλέως, ὁ τοῦ Ἰμβραήλ,..
Then the ruler of Persia, of the Khorasmians, of the Oretani and of Media was Moukhoumet, son of Ibrail, who lived at the time of Emperor Basileios.
Khorasmians are the people of Khwarizm. These people are also mentioned by Strabon in his Geographica, (XI. 8). Oretani is unknown, Skylitzes (XXI.9.13) also mentions them. There is no doubt that Kedrenos copied it from Skylitzes along with the following error below regarding the Oxus. The word “Ὠρητανῶν” can be found in Strabon (III.4.1.10; II.4.2.2). However, in Strabon this term was used to identify the
172
Celt-Iberian people of Oretani. Hence, despite the Byzantines used the Strabonic nomenclature, in this particular example they were wrong. However, Kedrenos’ source was Skylitzes, in that case, this goes to him.
In vol 2. p. 567 we see the same Araxes-Oxus error. According to Kedrenos the Seljuks’ entrance to Iran was prevented by the bridge on Araxes, which was guarded by towers on all sides (ῥᾷστά τε τὴν τοῦ Ἀράξιδος ποταμοῦ γέφυραν τὴν κωλύουσαν Τούρκους ἐς Περσίδα ἰέναι ἅτε πεπυργωμένην οὖσαν). The passage is identical with Skylitzes’ XXI.8.35. Like Skylitzes, Kedrenos too refrains from a critical approach and simply copies everything he used.
That being said Gylkas was no different, this is why we decided to examine these two “copyists” in the same chapter. Naturally, Gylkas begin his chronicle with the Genesis: “In the beginning, God created the sky and the earth.” (p. 5-6: Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆ). His account is full of references to Church fathers, but he quotes Aristoteles as well (14: ἄνεμον δὲ παρ' Ὁμήρῳ καλούμενον θύελλαν ὁ Ἀριστοτέλης τυφῶνα καλεῖ,). His narration continues with Jewish History.
His geographical depictions are not detailed, as should be expected from a chronicle and his earthquake narratives are like Skylitzes’ and Kedrenos’, brief and without any explanation. Simply copied from other sources, e.g. the account of December 557 earthquake that shook Konstantinoupolis and her vicinity is either from Malalas or from Agathias (Glyk. 269).
The same approach can be seen in the account of September 1034, August 1035 earthquakes. Both Kedrenos (II, p.514) and Glykas (588.1-2) copied this from Skylitzes. (XIX.8.9-10: κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον σεισμοῦ γεγονότος χάσματα γέγονεν ἐν Βουκελλαρίοις, καὶ κατεπόθησαν ὁλόκληρα χωρία πέντε.)
Glyk. 588.1-2: Κατ' ἐκεῖνο δὲ καιροῦ καὶ σεισμοῦ γεγονότος χάσματα γεγόνασιν ἐν Βουκελλαρίοις, καὶ κατεπόθησαν χωρία πέντε.
At that time an earthquake occurred in Boukellarion [Theme], creating a chasm/subsidence, swallowed five villages/towns.
In short, the two authors above, Kedrenos and Glykas respectively, simply copied other sources, thus offer nothing new. Copied parts related to this study, are already analysed in the respective chapters.
173
Nikephoros Bryennios
The Greek text used for Nikephoros Bryennios is Paul Gautier’s bilingual CFSH edition (1975). The analysis presented below is based on the Greek edition, still, we have tried to compare our translation with Gautier’s French translation and Despoina Tsouklidou’s Modern Greek translation (1996).
Bryennios, like his wife Anna, uses ancient counterparts of the toponyms. In I.7, the author describes the geography Arabs dwell:
I.7.13-26: Τῆς γοῦν Περσῶν ἀρχῆς εἰς τοὺς τῆς Ἄγαρ διαλυθείσης καὶ τῆς μὲν Σαρακηνῶν ἐπικρατείας μὴ μόνον Περσίδος καὶ Μηδίας καὶ Βαβυλῶνος καὶ Ἀσσυρίων κυριευούσης,ἐπικρατείας μὴ μόνον Περσίδος καὶ Μηδίας καὶ Βαβυλῶνος καὶ Ἀσσυρίων κυριευούσης,ἀλλ' ἤδη καὶ Αἰγύπτου καὶ Λιβύης καὶ μέρους οὐκ ἐλαχίστου τῆς Εὐρώπης, ἐπείπερ ἀλλήλων καταστασιάσαντες οἱ ἐξ Ἄγαρ τὴν μεγίστην ἀρχὴν εἰς πολλὰς ἐμερίσαντο, ἄλλος ἄλλης κατάρχων, καὶ εἰς ἐμφυλίους πολέμους τὸ ἔθνος ἐχώρησεν, ἀρχηγὸς Περσίδος καὶ Χωρασμίων καὶ Ἀβριτανῶν καὶ Μηδίας ὑπάρχων τότε Μουχούμετ ὁ τοῦ Ἰμβραὴλ κατὰ τοὺς χρόνους Βασιλείου τοῦ αὐτοκράτορος καὶ πολεμῶν Ἰνδοῖς καὶ Βαβυλωνίοις,
When the Persian Empire had fallen into the hands of the sons of Hagar and the domination of the Saracens extended not only over Persia and Media, Babylon and Assyria, but also over Egypt, Libya and a considerable part of Europe, the sons of Hagar, set against each other, divided this great empire, each one ruling a part of it, and these people gave themselves up to the civil war. Then the ruler of Persia, of the Khorasmians, of the Avritanians and of Media was Moukhoumet, (= Sultan Mahmud of Ghaznavids) son of Ibrail, who lived at the time of the Emperor Basileios.
As we have stated Khorasmians are the people of Khwarizm, which was also mentioned by Strabon (XI. 8). It is not clear who he is referring to, by Avritanians. In whole -known- Greek and Byzantine literature this is the only reference. As we have stated above in Skylitzes (XXI.9.13) and Kedrenos (vol. II, p. 567) same passage can be found as “Χωρασμίων καὶ Ὠρητανῶν” (Khōrasmiōn kai Ōrētanōn). The word “Ὠρητανῶν” can be found in Strabon (III.4.1.10; III.4.2.2). However, in Strabon this term was used to identify the Celt-Iberian people of Oretani. Hence, despite the
174
Byzantines used the Strabonic nomenclature, in this particular example they were wrong. On the other hand in an extremely similar passage, Zonaras writes as Χορασμίων καὶ Μηδίας (Khorasmiōn kai Mēdias) instead of Avritanians or Ortenai (Zon. XVII.25).
The same classicist attitude can be seen in II.8. According to Bryennios, Isaakios Komnenos was released and went to Ankyra, the capital city of the Galatians. (II.8.24-25:...τῶν δεσμῶν ἀπολέλυτο καὶ τὴν τῶν Γαλατῶν μητρόπολιν κατέλαβεν Ἄγκυραν.) In this particular example, the author mentions Ankyra as the capital of Galatians. Normally in Byzantine sources, this area was referred to as Βουκελλάριον (Boukellarion), after the name of the theme. Moreover, in III.2 he names Thrace as the [land] of Odryssians (III.2.11: ...ἐξ Ὀδρυσῶν μετεπέμπετο). It is clear that Nikephoros, like his wife Anna, prefers ancient nomenclature over contemporary ones. Yet, this does not mean that he did not use contemporary toponyms, which can be clearly seen in the example below:
IV.19.10-14: Καταλιπὼν δὲ τὴν εὐθεῖαν ὁδόν, ἵν' οὕτως λάθῃ τὸν μικροῦ δεῖν ἀλάθητον, διὰ τῆς λεγομένης Λιτῆς διελθών, ἐπεὶ πρὸς τὸν ποταμὸν γέγονεν ὃν Γαλικὸν καλοῦσιν ἐγχώριοι, διαπεράσας τοῦτον ἐγγύς που τοῦ φρουρίου τοῦ Ἀετοῦ καλουμένου καὶ τὸν ἐκεῖσε ὑπερβὰς αὔλακα ἐχώρει διὰ τῆς πεδιάδος.
Abandoning the direct route in order not to get noticed, he passed by the place called Lete, arrived at the edge of the river which the locals call Galikos, passed it near the fortress called Aetos, crossed the ditch/furrow lies at this place and advanced through the plain.
Lete (Λήτη, note the iotakismos), Modern Lete (aka Aivati) is situated at 12 km north of Thessaloniki. The River Gallikos or Galikos is still known by the same name. The river rises in Krousia Mountain and disembogues in Thermaikos Gulf near Thessalonike. This time Bryennios give us the contemporary toponym, rather than the ancient one called Εχέδωρος (Ekhedōros). In this case, it raises the questions on nomenclatures, which were stated above.
The location of the fortress called Aetos is somewhat problematic. The Greek word ἀετός means eagle and was a common name among forts, e.g. Aydos, Sultanbeyli. There is an Aetos Fortress on the southern slopes of Mt. Haimos and also another one
175
(i.e. Ajtos) further north in Burgas, Bulgaria. There is also a village known as Aetos in the west of Macedonia, Greece. Yet, there is no fortress in that village. Besides this place doesn’t fit the emperor’s route. The following battle occurred between Alexios Komnenos and Nikephoros Basilakes near Vardar River. Before the battle we know that Basilakes moved into Thessalonike, ἐγγύς indicates that the fortress should be close to River Galikos. Either the location of the fort is unknown or Bryennios is in error.
IV.18.10-22: ὁ Κομνηνὸς δὲ διὰ Μακεδονίας καὶ Βολεροῦ διελθὼν τὸν Στρύμονα καταλαμβάνει καὶ τοῦτον διαπεράσας καὶ τὰ μεταξὺ Στρουμπίτζης καὶ τοῦ λεγομένου Μαύρου ὄρους στενὰ διελθὼν εἰς χωρίον πρός τινα ποταμὸν κείμενον γέγονεν, ὃν ἐγχωρίως καλοῦσι Βαρδάριον. Ὁ δὲ Βαρδάριος καταρρεῖ μὲν ἐκ τῶν τῆς νέας Μυσίας ὀρῶν καὶ διιὼν διὰ Σκούπων κάτεισι μεταξὺ Στρουμπίτζης καὶ Στυπίου, δίχα τέμνων τὰ ὄρη· βραχὺ δὲ ἐκεῖθεν προϊὼν διίστησιν ἀλλήλων τά τε Βερροίας καὶ Θεσσαλονίκης χωρία δι' αὐτῶν ῥέων καὶ πρὸς τὴν θάλασσαν δίεισι· χρόνοις δὲ πρότερον βραχύ τι τῆς ἰδίας ἀπονεύσας πορείας ἑτέρωσε ἐτράπετο οὐ πάνυ τι δυοῖν <ἢ> τριῶν σταδίων τῆς προτέρας διόδου ἀπέχουσαν, ὥστε ξυμβῆναι τὴν πρώην ἐκείνου πάροδον διώρυχα εἶναι αὐτοφυῆ. Μεταξὺ οὖν ἀμφοῖν ὁ Κομνηνὸς Ἀλέξιος κατεστρατοπέδευσε...
Komnenos, crossing Macedonia and Boleron, reached the Strymon; passing it and crossing the defiles which separate Strumica from what is called Black Mountain, he arrived at a place situated on a river which the natives call the Varvarion. (= River Vardar) The Varvarion descends from the mountains of New Mysia (=Bulgaria), flows through Skoupi (= Üsküp), passes between Strumica (= Ustrumca) and Stypion (= Štip) and cuts through the mountains; a little lower down, it marks the boundary between the territories of Verrhoia and Thessalonica, flowing through these and reaches the sea. In the past, when it turned slightly away from its course, it found another, two or three stadia110 away from its previous course, so that its first course formed a natural
110 Roughly 377-566 meters.
176
channel/self-grown trench. It is thus between these two, Alexios Komnenos set his camp...
The same narration can be found in Anna too (Alexias, I.7.4). Boleron was the name of a region and an administrative unit in southwest Thrace. (Soustal, 1991, p. 232) Even though the author claims that the River Vardar flows through Üsküp, Ustrumca and Štip, in reality, it flows at the west of Ustrumca and Štip, not between them (Fig. 3.17). Therefore, Bryennios is in error. Also, note that the author did not give Vardar’s Ancient Greek name “Ἀξιός”.
Figure 3.17 The comparison of the River Vardar (Orange) and the River Vardar according to Anna and Bryennios (Yellow).
In III.3, Bryennios depicts the Dalmatian coast and its hinterland, during his lord father Bryennios campaign against Diocleans and Croats. The depiction he provided is as follows:
III.3.19-22: ...ἐστράτευσε κατὰ Διοκλέων καὶ Χωροβάτων. Ἐν ὀχυρωτάτοις δὲ τούτων χωρίοις στρατοπεδευομένων, τὰς δυσχωρίας αὐτὸς καθαίρειν ἔσπευδεν. Ὁπλίσας γὰρ πρότερον τοὺς στρατιώτας διέβαινε τοὺς στενωπούς· δεδιότος δὲ τοῦ στρατεύματος ἐν τῷ ὑποστρέφειν τὰ δυσδιόδευτα, ἐκέλευε τοὺς ἐγχωρίους συχνὰς ἀξίνας ἐπιφερομένους ὄπισθεν ἕπεσθαι καὶ καθαίρειν τὰ δύσβατα καὶ τὰςὁδοὺς εὐρύνειν·
[Bryennios] campaigned against the Diokleans and Croats. As the Croats had encamped in very strong positions, he hastened to clear the difficult passages/rough grounds. He, ready to lead his soldiers through the defiles, but
177
as the army was afraid to face these difficult steps on their return, he ordered the locals to follow the troops, equipped with a large number of axes, to clear the difficult passages and widen the paths/roads.
In his work Bryennios provides with few depictions on the vicinity of Mt. Sophon, which we identified as Samanli Mountains. The first depiction comes in II.9, when Alexios, on the road to Konstantinoupolis, crosses River Sangarios (Sakarya River) and continues towards Nikomedia (mod. İzmit). According to Bryennios, Alexios and his retinue passed through a village, which the locals call Dekte (II.9.4-5: δὲ τὸν Σαγγάριον, τὴν Νικομήδους καταλαβεῖν ἠπείγοντο. Διιοῦσι δὲ τούτοις τὸ χωρίον ὃ Δέκτη καλεῖται). In Dekte, a friend of Alexios invites him to his manor for the dinner. Later, the manor is attacked by marauding Turks, Alexios decides to make a stand at nearby narrow defiles (25-26: ἐγγὺς δὲ ὄντων τῶν στενωπῶν). The location of Dekte village is not known. If Alexios crossed Sangarios through Pentegephyra111 (which is most likely), Dekte must be at the north coast of Sapanca Gölü (Fig. 3.18), which would also explain the “nearby narrow defiles.”
Figure 3.18 The possible location of Dekte at the northern coast of Lake Boane.
II.18.1-14: Οἱ δὲ περὶ τὸν καίσαρά τε καὶ τὸν Οὐρσέλιον πυθόμενοι τῶν Τούρκων τὴν ἔφοδον καὶ ὡς ὁ Ἀρτοὺχ πλῆθος ἀμύθητον ἐπιφερόμενον Τούρκων κατ' αὐτῶν ἔπεισιν, ὑπερβάντες τὸν λόφον, ἵναπερ τὸ φρούριον
111 The famous bridge built by Emperor Iustinianos over the River Sangarios. Today Beşköprü, 5 km SSW of Adapazarı (Belke, 2020, p. 905).
178
ἵδρυται τὸ ἀγχοῦ που τῶν βασιλείων τοῦ καίσαρος ὄν -Μετα βολὴ τῷ φρουρίῳ τὸ ὄνομα- , πρὸς τοὺς τοῦ Σόφωνος πρόποδας πεδίον ἐφηπλωμένον ἐπίμηκες εὑρόντες ἐν τούτῳ στρατοπεδεύουσι. Δεί- σαντες γὰρ μὴ κυκλωθῶσιν ὑπὸ τῶν πολεμίων, ὀλίγοι ὄντες ὑπὸ πολλῶν, καὶ διαφθαρεῖεν, πεδίον στενὸν ἐξελέξαντο, τὸν ἐκ τοῦ Σόφωνος κατιόντα ποταμὸν ἀντὶ χάρακος προβαλλόμενοι. Ὁ δὲ Ἀρτοὺχ περαιωθεὶς τὸν Σαγγάριον καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν Μεταβολὴν φθάσας, ἐπεὶ μὴ εὗρε τὸν καίσαρά τε καὶ τὸν Οὐρσέλιον, διέβαινε καὶ αὐτὸς τὰ ἐκεῖσε στενὰ καὶ πρὸς τῇ κεφαλῇ τοῦ ὄρους γενόμενος, ὃ Μαροξὸς καλεῖται, ἐστρατοπέδευσε κἀκεῖθεν τοὺς πολεμίους περιεσκόπει ἐγγύς που τοῦ χωρίου ὃ Τρισέα καλεῖται στρατοπεδεύοντας.
The soldiers of the Caesar (i.e. Ioannes Doukas) and Roussel,112 informed that the Turks were approaching and that Artoukh, at the head of an innumerable horde of Turks, was marching against them, crossed the hill113 on which stood the fortress close to Caesar’s palace -a fortress called Metabole- and reached at the foot of Mount Sophon a vast plain, where they encamped. For fear of being flanked by the enemy -for they were numerically inferior to them- and annihilated, they chose a narrow plain and put stakes/entrenched themselves behind (or opposite of) the river which descends from Sophon. Artoukh crossed the Sangarios and reached Metabole. Not finding there neither the Caesar nor Roussel, he passed in his turn the defiles of the place and, arrived at the top of the mountain called Maroxos, he camped there. From that place he watched his enemies camped near the village called Trisea.
It is clear that Mt. Sophon is Samanlı Dağları, which TIB located as Sapanca Dağı. (Belke, 2020, p. 759). The same mountain is also called wooded mountain (II.16.56-60: ὄρος συνηρεφὲς) in II.16. The fortress called Metabole is located in the ruins 1 km north-east of Paşalar, Pamukova, Sakarya. Pamukova used to be called Akhisar, which might be related to Metabole. However, the Greek name has nothing to do with a
112 Roussel de Bailleul, also known as Ourselios or Phrangopoulos in Byzantine sources, was a tenth century Norman or Frank adventurer in Byzantium.
113 The participium used is ὑπερβάντες. That means they might climbed the mountain or just passed by.
179
“white castle” (Foss, 1990, p. 171). However, with the evidence at hand, it is impossible to locate Maroxos and the village called Trisea.
In Bryennios’ work, once again we see the Oxus-Araxes error.
I.7.33-36: οἳ διαπεραιωσάμενοι τὸν Ἄραξιν κατὰ τὴν ἐν αὐτῷ γέφυραν πεπυργωμένην ἑκατέρωθεν οὖσαν ἐς τὴν Περσίδα φοιτῶσι.
They (i.e. Tughrul and the Seljuks), using the bridge, protected in both ends, crossed the Araxes River, and thus arrived in Persia.
The following lines mention the retreat to karbonites desert (I.7.44-45: τὴν Καρβωνῖτιν ἔρημο) again. This suggests that Bryennios copied this from one of the sources we have presented above. In that case, like others, Bryennios too approach his sources without a critical approach, and his knowledge of the eastern geography was erroneous as well.
Bryennios mentions the famous Varangian Guards of the emperors. In his narration he also mentions their homeland:
I.20.5-7: τοῦτο δὲ τὸ γένος ὥρμητο ἐκ τῆς βαρβάρου χώρας τῆς πλησίον ὠκεανοῦ, πιστὸν δὲ βασιλεῦσι Ῥωμαίων ἀρχῆθεν, ἀσπιδηφόρον ξύμπαν καὶ πέλεκύν τινα ἐπὶ ὤμων φέρον.
These people (i.e. Varangians) came from the barbarous land near the ocean, had been loyal to the Emperor of the Romans from the beginning; all of them carried a shield and a type of axe on their shoulders.
Traditionally it is accepted that the Varangians came from the southeast of Sweden. Therefore, by this expression Bryennios might intend to point to Scandinavia. However, we know that after the victory of Duke William of Normandy at the Battle of Hastings (1066), which started Norman dominance of Britain, most of the Anglo-Saxons, adventures and exiles alike, came to Konstantinoupolis to join the Varangian Guards. This passage is right after the disaster at Mantzikert (1071). Therefore, it is also possible that the land mentioned could be Britain. From the passage, it is certain that Bryennios makes no connections between Varangians and Kievian Rhos, for the land mentioned is an island near the ocean. Bryennios’ wife Anna mentions, with a classicist touch, that they come from Thule. (Alexias, II.9.4.4-6) The axe above-mentioned is the famous Dane-axe of the Varangians.
180
In short, Nikephoros Bryennios’ short treatise on contemporary events has few geographical details and no records on natural phenomena. From the text, it is clearly seen that Bryennios has a classicising attitude. The toponyms he uses are from ancient sources and unlike previous examples, he uses them correctly, besides, he also uses contemporary ones, whereas he should have known their classical equivalents. The questions raised by this approach cannot be answered with the current evidence at hand. Bryennios’ geographical accuracy on the other hand is not as accurate as his knowledge of toponyms. The examples of Vardar and Oxus confirms this. It is certain he copied Oxus from a previous source, which we have already analysed. His depiction of Vardar could be obtained from his wife Anna’s Alexias. In that case, Bryennios was a man without a critical approach in terms of geography, a sloppy one at best. Anna Komnene
The Greek text used is the CFHB edition prepared by Diether Reinsch and Athanasios Kambylis (2001). We have also benefited from Sewter’s (1969) and Elizabeth Dawes’ (2000) English translations.
The first depiction we have encountered is as follows:
I.4.4.5-11: Τά τε γὰρ ἑῷα τῶν στρατευμάτων ἄλλο ἀλλαχοῦ διεσκέδαστο τῶν Τούρκων ὑφαπλωθέντων καὶ πάντα σχεδὸν περισχόντων, ὅσα Εὐξείνου πόντου ἐστὶ μεταξὺ καὶ Ἑλλησπόντου καὶ Αἰγαίου τε καὶ Συριακοῦ πελάγους [καὶ] Σάρου τε καὶ τῶν ἄλλων καὶ μάλιστα ὁπόσοι Παμφυλίαν τε καὶ Κίλικας παραμείβοντες ἐς τὸ πέλαγος ἐκπίπτουσι τὸ Αἰγύπτιον.
For the armies of the East were scattered everywhere, because the Turks had overspread, and gained control of almost all the regions between the Pontos Euxeinos and the Hellespontos, and the Aegean and Syrian Seas, both the Saros and the other [rivers,] especially those which wash Pamphylia, Kilikia and empty themselves into the Egyptian Sea.
The Egyptian Sea, Αἰγύπτιον πέλαγος (Mare Aegyptium or Aegyptius Sinus as the Romans named) is, in fact, the eastern part of the Mediterranean Sea. However, in classical geography, the so-called Egyptian Sea is the north of Egypt, which the Nile empties itself. According to Strabon, the eastern part of the Mediterranean Sea has three sea, which are Pamphylian, Issosian and Egyptian (Str. II. 5. 18-20: τὸν δ᾽ ἕτερον
181
τὸν συγκείμενον ἔκ τε τοῦ Αἰγυπτίου πελάγους καὶ τοῦ Παμφυλίου καὶ τοῦ Ἰσσικοῦ). Issosian Sea matches Anna’s Syrian Sea. Therefore, Anna makes a mistake here. She names Saros and other rivers, but despite she mentions the Syrian Sea, still she claims that these rivers and the ones that wash Pampyhlia and Kilikia empty themselves to the Egyptian Sea. It is clear that Saros (Seyhan) flows into Anna’s Syrian Sea, and any river that washes Pamphylia or Kilikia cannot flow into the Egyptian Sea. Moreover, Anna also makes a historical error, for at that time Egypt was under the rule of Fatimids, not Turks. Note that Dawes’ translation omits Saros (2000, p. 10) and continues as “various bays”, however, the Greek text clearly mentions Saros and the rivers.
Later, Anna depicts Saros again and even though she is correct about the sea Saros flows into, this time she is incorrect about its course.
XII.2.4.5-8: Ῥεῖ δὲ ἄνωθεν οὗτος ἀπὸ τῶν τοῦ Ταύρου ὀρῶν καὶ διὰ μέσου παραρρέων τῶν δυεῖν πόλεων Μόψου, τῆς τε καταλελυμένης καὶ τῆς ἱσταμένης, ἐς τὸ συριακὸν ἐκδίδωσι πέλαγος.
This river (i.e. Saron, Σάρων) runs down from the Taurus Mountains and flows between the two cities of Mopsos, the one destroyed and the one stands, and empties itself into the Syrian Sea.
Anna is incorrect here. Mopsos (or Mopsuestia) stands not on Saron (Seyhan), but on Pyramos (Ceyhan). Therefore, in this particular chapter, Tancrede de Hauteville114 enters through the mouth of Pyramos, not of Saron with his ships. In addition, her statement here contradicts her statement above, for in this example Anna clearly suggests that Saron flows into the Syrian Sea. In fact, Anna’s knowledge of the region’s geography is very erroneous. The following example superbly proves this point.
XII.2.1.4-11: ἀλλὰ τοὺς περὶ τὴν Κοίλην Συρίαν μετεπέμπετο, τὸν Καντακουζηνόν φημι καὶ τὸν Μοναστρᾶν· ὁ μὲν γὰρ τὴν Λαοδίκειαν ἐφρούρει, ὁ δὲ τὴν Ταρσόν.
114 Tancrede de Hauteville (1075-1112) was a Norman leader of the First Crusade and the Prince of Galilee.
182
…but [Alexios] sent for those around Koile-Syria that is to say Kantakouzenos and Monastras. For the former was guarding Laodikeia and the latter Tarsos.
It seems Anna is in error defining Koile Syria. She makes the same mistake in XIII.12.18.3-5, putting Antiokheia and her holdings in Koile Syria (ἡ κατὰ τὴν Κοίλην Συρίαν Ἀντιόχου πόλις μετὰ τῆς περιοχῆς αὐτῆς καὶ τῆς διακρατήσεως). In Byzantium, the location of Antiokheia can sometimes change from author to author. The authors of the Middle Byzantine Period clearly locate it in Koile Syria, even though they contradict classical geography. However, about Tarsos she clearly is in error. These examples we have provided confirms our point of view that Anna did not know the eastern geography.
The same Vardar error we saw in Bryennios can also be found in Alexias. In a long chapter, which begins with a reference to mythical Typhon (clearly a reference to Hesiodos’ Theogonia (Hes. Th. 306), Anna depicts the River Vardar as follows:
I.7.3.9-21: Καὶ καταλαμβάνει δῆτα τὸν ποταμὸν Βαρδάριον· οὕτω γὰρ ἐγχωρίως αὐτὸν ὀνομάζουσι. Ῥεῖ μὲν γὰρ ἄνωθεν ἀπὸ τῶν ἐγγύθεν τῆς Μυσίας ὀρῶν, παραμείβων δὲ πολλοὺς μεταξὺ τόπους καὶ διορίζων πρός τε τὴν ἕω καὶ τὴν ἑσπέραν τά τε Βερροίᾳ καὶ τὰ Θεσσαλονίκῃ προσήκοντα ἐκδίδωσιν εἰς τὴν καθ' ἡμᾶς καὶ νοτίαν θάλασσαν. Πάσχουσι δὲ οἱ μέγιστοι τῶν ποταμῶν τοιοῦτόν τι. Ἐπειδὰν διὰ τῆς προσχώσεως ἀνάστημά τι ἀξιόλογον ἐπιφορήσωσι γῆς, τότε δὴ ἐπὶ τὰ κατάρροπα ῥέουσιν ὥσπερ δὴ μεταμείβοντες τὰς πρώτας κοίτας αὐτῶν, καὶ τὴν μὲν παλαιὰν καταλείπουσι πάροδον διάκενον ὑγροῦ καὶ χηρεύουσαν ὕδατος, ἣν δὲ νῦν διοδεύουσιν, ἐμπιπλῶσι ῥευμάτων πολλῶν.
I.7.4: Τούτων οὖν τῶν δυεῖν παρόδων, τῆς τε παλαιᾶς χαράδρας καὶ τῆς ἄρτι γενομένης πορείας, τὸ μεταξὺ θεασάμενος ὁ στρατηγικώτατος οὗτος Ἀλέξιος καὶ ἐμὸς πατήρ, καὶ τὸν μὲν ὁλκὸν τοῦ ποταμοῦ ὡς ἀσφάλειαν θέμενος ἐκ θατέρου, τῇ δὲ παλαιᾷ διόδῳ ἤδη φάραγγι γεγονυίᾳ ἐκ τῆς τοῦ ῥεύματος ἐπιρροίας καθάπερ αὐτοφυεῖ ἀποχρησάμενος διώρυχι ἐστρατοπέδευσεν, οὐ πλεῖον τῶν δυεῖν ἢ τριῶν σταδίων ἀλλήλων ἀποδιεστηκότων.
Soon [Alexios] reached the River Vardar, for that is its local name. Because it flows from the mountains near Mysia, and after flowing through many places it divides the districts around Berrhoia and Thessalonike in two, as eastern and
183
western, and finally empties/flows into our Southern Sea. This is what happens in every large river: whenever a considerable height of earth (embankment) rise through the deposit they bring down, they flow to a lower level and leaving as it were their former bed, leave it without moist and waterless, and fill [the new bed] they now traverse with many streams.
Between two such channels, one the old ravine/gully, the other the newly-formed passage, lay a piece of ground, and when that clever strategist, my lord father Alexios, saw it, he encamped there, for the two channels were not more than three stadia distant from one another. The running river he considered, would be a bulwark on the one side, and the old riverbed, which had become a deep ravine from the river’s strong current, he used it as a natural trench.
As we have stated above Anna is in error about the course of Vardar. However, her case about “every large river” (Πάσχουσι δὲ οἱ μέγιστοι τῶν ποταμῶν τοιοῦτόν τι) is accurate. Bryennios depiction above is not as detailed as Anna’s. It is possible that Bryennios copied it from Anna, his wife. Moreover, Anna’s very accurate depiction of Vardar’s delta (Fig. 3.19) seems to have parallels with Herodotos’ depiction of Nile’s delta.
184
Figure 3.19 Vardar's Delta.
The following example is a good one to see Anna’s knowledge of astronomy. Like the other learned authors of her era, she too gives dates according to astronomical motions. In fact, in her opus, Anna mentions her relation with astronomy. In VI.7.1-4, Anna cuts her main narration to talk about the art of star-divination. She claims that a certain learned man or a mathematician called Seth (μαθηματικός τις Σὴθ) accurately foretold the death of Robert Guiscard.115 He sometimes used an astrolabe and sometimes used by lot (διά τινος ψηφηφορία).116 She claims that this knowledge along with horoscopus
115 Robert Guiscard (ca. 1020-17 July 1085), aka “the Fox”, was an ambitous Norman adventurer who carved himself a dukedom in the Southern Italy and Sicily.
116 ψηφηφορία: This also means calculation, but in context Anna probably means lecanomancy.
185
making did not exist in the time of Eudoxos, Platon, Manetho, and recently discovered. The tradition comes from Alexandrians, she claims. However, it is strange that she doesn’t mention Ptolemaios. Her narrative is ambiguous in that point, she both admires star-divination and accepts that she also dabbled in this “Science”, (ποτε ὀλίγον τι “τῆς ἐπιστήμης” ταύτης ἡψάμεθα) and on the other hand she finds it vain study and unchristian. She even says “God forbids” (μὴ γένοιτο). We also know that Emperor Alexios I, her lord father, consulted to Symeon Seth,117 and after consulting exiled him to Rhadiastos (Tekirdağ).
XV.3.5.10-13: Τοῦ ἡλίου δὲ τῶν μειζόνων ἀφισταμένου κύκλων καὶ παραμείψαντος μὲν τὴν φθινοπωρινὴν ἰσημερίαν, ἐπικύπτοντος δὲ ἤδη πρὸς τοὺς νοτιωτέ- ρους κύκλους,...
But the Sun was now returning from its large circuits, and as the autumnal equinox was passed, it was already inclining to the more southern circuits, this seemed a season suitable for an expedition,...
It seems Anna thought that the Sun draws a bigger circle in the summer, and smaller in the winter, but the account Anna provided raises a new question, why would a Medieval commander find winter suitable for a military expedition? Nevertheless, a similar dating style can also be seen in the following example:
I.16.1.19-26: Καὶ γὰρ χειμέριος ἦν ἡ ὥρα καὶ ὁ ἥλιος πρὸς τοὺς νοτίους κύκλους ἀπελαυνόμενος καὶ τῷ αἰγοκέρωτι πλησιάζων ὑπετέμνετο τὰ ἡμερήσια διαστήματα. Ἵν' οὖν μὴ ἐξ Ὑδροῦντος ἀφεὶς ἀρχομένης ἡμέρας νυκτοπλοήσειε καὶ κλύδωσί τισι προςπελάσειεν, ἐπὶ τὸ Δυρράχιον ἐκ Βρεντησίου ὅλοις ἱστίοις ἀπενεχθῆναι ἐβουλεύσατο. Τὰ μήκη γὰρ τοῦ διαστήματος τῆς ὁδοῦ συνετέμνετο ἐπιστενουμένου τοῦ Ἀδριαντικοῦ πελάγους ἐκεῖθι.
For the season was stormy,118 and as the Sun was turning to the southern hemisphere, and approaching Capricorn, the days were shortened. Rather than leave Hydrounton (i.e. Otranto) at daybreak and set sail by night and perhaps
117 Eleventh century Byzantine scholar and translator.
118 Might be read as “for it was the winter season.”
186
meet with billows, he (i.e. Robert Guiscard/de Hauteville) decided to proceed from Brundisium (today Brindisi) to Dyrrakhion (today Dürres) with full sails. The Adriatic is not so wide at this point so the sea distance is correspondingly shorter.
We believe in this example Anna confuses Brundusium with Otranto and Dyrrakhion with Aulonia. The distance between Otranto and Aulonia, according to our calculations, is around 85 km, and therefore the narrowest part of Adriatic. On the other hand, the distance between Brundusium and Dyrrakhion is around 146 km. The following example confirms our argument on confusion.
XIII.7.2.14-24: Οἱ γὰρ ἀπὸ Λογγιβαρδίας πρὸ μικροῦ πρὸς τὸν Βαϊμοῦντον τὸν ἀπόπλουν ποιησάμενοι, τὸν ἐπιπνέοντα τούτοις εὔθετον ἐπιτηρήσαντες ἄνεμον (καὶ γὰρ νότοι μὲν εὐρεῖς εὔθετοι τοῖς ἀπὸ Λογγιβαρδίας πρὸς τὸ Ἰλλυρικὸν δια- πλέουσίν εἰσιν, οἱ δέ γε βορεῖς ἀνάπαλιν), πτερώσαντες τὰς ναῦς τοῖς λαίφεσι τὸν πρὸς τὸ Ἰλλυρικὸν ἀπόπλουν τότε ἐθάρρησαν. Σφοδρῶς δὲ ὁ νότος ἐπιπνέων προσορμίσαι μὲν εἰς τὸ Δυρράχιον οὐδαμῶς παρεχώρει, παραπλεῦσαι δὲ τὴν ᾐόνα Δυρραχίου καὶ τὸν Αὐλῶνα καταλαβεῖν ἠνάγκασε.
For a short time ago, those who prepare to sail across from Lombardy to Bohémund119 waited for a favourable wind to blow (for a strong south wind is most useful for crossing from Lombardy to Illyria, whereas the north wind is unfavourable). Then they winged their ships with their sails and boldly sailed over to Illyria. But as the south wind was blowing very strongly it prevented their landing at Dyrrakhion, and forced them to sail by the coast of Dyrrakhion and run into Aulona (i.e. Vlorë).
Dyrrakhion is in the north of Aulona (Fig. 3.20). If the south wind blows strongly, it should help Normans to arrive Dyrrakhion quickly, not otherwise. Also note that Lombardy here does not mean Italy, but the South of Italy under the rule of Bohemond de Tarente. In that case, Normans probably set sail from Otranto. It is certain Anna has a problem with the location of these topoi above-mentioned.
119 Bohémond de Tarente (ca. 1054-1111) was the Norman leader of the First Crusade who became the Prince of Antioch. Note that in this passage Bohémund was at Dyrrakhion.
187
Figure 3.20 Hydrounton-Aulonia, Brundisium-Dyrrakhion controversy.
Anna’s depictions of the region continue later.
XII.9.5.1-8: Οὗτος δὲ ὁ Ἐλισσός, εἴτε ἀπό τινος ποταμοῦ Ἐλισσοῦ ὀνομαζομένου συμμιγνυμένου τῷ Δρυμόνι μεγίστῳ ποταμῷ, εἴτε οὕτως ἁπλῶς τὸ πολίχνιον ὠνόμαστο, οὐκ ἔχω σαφῶς εἰπεῖν. Ὁ δὲ Ἐλισσὸς μετέωρόν ἐστι πολίχνιον καὶ πάντη δυσάλωτον, κάτω καὶ περὶ τὰς πεδιάδας ὁρῶν τὸ Δυρράχιον, ὡς λέγουσι, τοιοῦτον δὲ ἀσφαλές, ὥστε καὶ ἠπειρόθεν καὶ ἐκ θαλάττης πολλὴν ἀρωγὴν ποιεῖν Δυρραχίῳ.
This Elissos is either named after some river called Elissos, a tributary of the great river Drymon, or the fortress was named thus, I cannot tell. Now Elissos is a fort built on a hill and quite impregnable, and looks down upon Dyrrakhion in the plains, as the saying is; and it is so secure that both by land and sea it can afford great assistance to Dyrrakhion.
Elissos should be Lezhe in Albania (Fig. 3.21). Its name in antiquity was Lissus-Lissos. (Plin. 3, 22,) The fort mentioned should be the same as fort Akrolissos, which was mentioned by Polybios (Hist. VIII.13.4), and the river is Drymon, today identified as Drin. Classical sources are clear in this matter Anna should have known this. However, her depiction is correct. Moreover, in every Byzantine author examined in this thesis, it can clearly be seen that even though their geography is erroneous, their descriptions of the fortress’ are remarkably correct. This probably comes from the general reception that most of the fortresses built on precipitous topoi. Same with Anna, despite her knowledge of eastern geography has serious problems she accurately depicts the Citadel of Raymond de Saint-Gilles (aka Mons Peregrinus in Latin sources)
188
situated on the summit of a hill, which lies at the opposite of Tripolis and is a part of Lebanon (XI.7.6.1-6: Ἄνεισι γοῦν κατευθὺ καὶ προκαταλαμβάνει τὴν ἀκρολοφίαν τοῦ ἀντικρὺ Τριπόλεως διακειμένου βουνοῦ, μέρους ὄντος τοῦ Λιβάνου, ἐφ' ᾧ καὶ ὡς ὀχύρωμα τοῦτον ἔχειν καὶ τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Λιβάνου καταρρέον ὕδωρ εἰς Τρίπολιν διὰ τοῦ πρανοῦς τοῦ τοιούτου βουνοῦ ἐπισχεῖν).
Figure 3.21 Elissos.
Anna’s following depiction of the River Drymon is worthy of mention.
XII.9.6: Ὁ δὲ Δρυμὼν οὗτος ὁ ποταμός, ἵνα τι καὶ περὶ τοῦ ῥεύματος τούτου προσιστορήσαιμι, ῥεῖ μὲν ἄνωθεν ἀπὸ τῆς Λυχνίτιδος λίμνης, ἣν ἡ νῦν γλῶττα ἐκβαρβαρώσασα Ἀχρίδα προσηγόρευσεν, ἀπὸ [δὲ] Μόκρου διά τινων τάφρων ἑκατόν, ἃς γεφύρας ἐπονομάζομεν. Καὶ γὰρ ἀπορρέουσιν ὥσπερ ἀπό τινων ἀρχῶν διαφόρων τῆς λίμνης διῃρημένοι ποταμοὶ καὶ εἰς ἑκατὸν ἥκοντες οὐ λήγουσι, κᾆθ' οὕτως τῷ ποταμῷ τῷ κατὰ τὴν Δεύρην ἑνούμενοι, ἐξ οὗ καὶ Δρυμὼν ἐπονομάζεται, καὶ συνεχεῖς αὐτῷ γινόμενοι πλατύνουσί τε αὐτὸν καὶ μέγιστον ἐξεργάζονται. Ὃς τοὺς ἐσχάτους τῶν Δαλματῶν παραμείβων καὶ πρὸς βορρᾶν ἀνιὼν ἔπειτα ἐπικάμπτει πρὸς νότο ν καί, περὶ τὰς ῥίζας τοῦ Ἐλισσοῦ γινόμενος, εἰς τὸν Ἀδριαντικὸν ἐκδίδωσι κόλπον. Ταῦτα μὲν περί τε τῆς θέσεως Δυρραχίου καὶ Ἐλισσοῦ καὶ τῆς ἀσφαλείας ἑκατέρων τῶν τόπων γεγράφθω·
This river Drymon, for I must tell something about its current, flows/rises above from Lake Lykhnis (the name has now been barbarised as Akhrida) and from Mokros it flows by some hundred channels or dykes as we call them. The streams, about a hundred in number, flow separately from the lake as they are
189
from different sources and continue thus until they unite in the river near Deure, from that point it’s called Drymon. The addition of these streams makes it broad, indeed it becomes a very great river. It skirts the borders of Dalmatia, turns northward, and then bends to the south, washes the foothills of Elissos and finally empties itself into the Adriatic Sea.
The river Anna names Drymon, is the River Drin. However, Anna makes no distinction between White Drin and Black Drin. Although the nomen is singularis (ὁ ποταμός) it seems like Anna mentions two different rivers one which rises from Lake Ohrid, which is the Black Drin, and the one which rises from Mt. Mokros, which is the White Drin. In that case Mt. Mokros should be Mokra Gora. However, White Drin rises from Mt. Zljeb. In that case, Anna is slightly wrong. Note that ἄνωθεν indicates that Lake Ohrida is on the higher ground. It is also used to indicate that the place is in North, but in this context, it is about height. In the case of Mokros, it can be both. Deure, Anna mentioned is today Debar or Debre, which was known as Doberos Δήβορος in the antiquity (Thouk. II.98). However, Anna is wrong about that as well, for Black and White Drins unite near modern Kukës, about 43 km north of Debre (Fig. 3.21). On toponym, Anna correctly assumes that the classical name Lykhnis become barbarised and turned to Akhrida that is Ohrid. Moreover, despite the Greek word γέφῡρα means bridge, in this context, it does not make sense. The first meaning of γέφυρα is, in fact, dyke or dam (See. Hom. Il. V. 88).
Figure 3.22 Black Drin (Red), White Drin (Dark Blue) and Drin (Purple).
Another river depicted by Anna is the Danube. Her description is as follows:
190
VII.2.7.3-12: (ὁ δὲ ποταμὸς οὗτος ῥεῖ μὲν ἄνωθεν ἀπὸ τῶν δυτικῶν ὀρῶν, ἐκδίδοται δὲ διὰ τῶν καταρρακτῶν καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα διὰ πέντε τινῶν στομάτων εἰς τὸν Πόντον τὸν Εὔξεινον, μέγας τε καὶ πολὺς διὰ πολλῆς πεδιάδος ἐρχόμενος καὶ ναυσίπορος ὤν, ὡς καὶ τῶν πλοίων τὰ μέγιστά τε καὶ φορτηγότατα τούτῳ τῷ ποταμῷ ἐπινήχεσθαι· οὐ μίαν δὲ προσηγορίαν λαμβάνει, ἀλλὰ τὰ ἀνωτέρω μὲν καὶ πρὸς τὰς πηγὰς Δάνουβις τούτῳ τὸ ὄνομα, τὰ κάτω δὲ καὶ πρὸς τὰς ἐκβολὰς Ἴστρος ἐπονομάζεται)
(This river flows from high ground in the western mountains and after a series of cataracts issues into the Black Sea through five mouths; it is vast and wide,120 traversing through vast plains, and it is navigable so that even the biggest vessels or very heavy-laden merchant vessels can sail on it. It has not only one name, for in its upper reaches and near its source it is called the Danube, whilst in the lower and at its mouths, the Ister.)
The western mountains Anna describes could be Serbian Carpathians, Romanian Western Carpathians. The depiction Anna provided is roughly accurate.
VII.3.1.5-13: ἀλλ' ἀναζέσας πρὸς μάχην τὴν Σιδηρᾶν μετὰ τῶν ταγμάτων διελθὼν τὸν χάρακα περὶ Βιτζίναν ἐπήξατο· ποταμὸς δὲ οὗτος ἀπὸ τῶν παρακειμένων ὀρῶν ῥέων. Πολλοὶ δὲ τηνικαῦτα χορταγωγίας χάριν τοῦ χάρακος πορρωτέρω γενόμενοι ἀνῃρέθησαν, πολλοὶ δὲ καὶ κατεσχέθησαν. Ὁ δὲ αὐτοκράτωρ κατὰ τὸ περίορθρον ταχὺ καταλαμβάνει τὴν Πλίσκοβαν κἀκεῖθεν εἰς ἀκρολοφίαν τινὰ τοῦ Συμεῶνος καλουμένην ἄνεισιν, ἣ καὶ Βουλευτήριον τῶν Σκυθῶν ἐγχωρίως ὠνομάζετο.
With his troops, he crossed Sidera (i.e. Iron Gates) for battle and set up camp near the Bitzina, a river that flows down from the neighbouring hills. Many Romans (= Byzantines) who left the encampment there in search of food went too far and were massacred, many others were captured. In haste, the Emperor left for Pliscoba about first light and from there climbed a mountain ridge called Symeon’s (the local name for it was “Boule of the Scyths”).
120 These adjectives might be also about the current. So we can read as great and strong current.
191
Sidera is the passage between Prilep (south) Rish (north) directions, formerly known as Beregaba (Soustal, 1991, p. 441). In that case, River Bitzina must be River Ticha/Kamchia, which gather waters from hills in Gerlovo in the north (Fig. 3.23). This also suits Anna’s narrative. The so-called Boule of Scyths or Mt. Symeon is unknown. It might the mountain ridge at the south of modern Pliska.
Figure 3.23 Sidera and the River Bitzina.
The “Hundred Hills” Skylitzes mentioned in XXI.21.1-6 can also be found in Alexias. Anna’s description helps us to locate Hundred Hills, yet what she provides is more than that.
VII.5.2-3: Ἡ δὲ νῦν παρ' ἡμῖν Ὀζολίμνη κατονομαζομένη μεγίστη μέν ἐστι καὶ τὴν διάμετρόν τε καὶ περίμετρον καὶ τῶν ὅπου δήποτε φημιζομένων παρὰ τοῖς γεωγράφοις λιμνῶν μηδεμιᾶς εἰς μεγέθους λόγον ἐλλείπουσα. Κεῖται δὲ τῶν Ἑκατὸν Βουνῶν ὕπερθεν καὶ εἰς αὐτὴν μέγιστοί τε καὶ κάλλιστοι συρρέουσι ποταμοί· καὶ κατὰ νώτου πολλάς τε καὶ μεγάλας καὶ φορτηγούς ἐστιν ἀνέχουσα νῆας, ὡς εἶναι κἀντεῦθεν δῆλον τὸ βάθος τῆς λίμνης ὁπόσον τί ἐστιν. Ὀζολίμνη δὲ κατωνόμασται, οὐχ ὅτι κακοῦ τινος καὶ βαρυόδμου ἀναδίδωσιν ἀποφοράν, ἀλλ' ὅτι Οὐννικῆς ποτε στρατιᾶς ἐπιφοιτησάσης τῇ λίμνῃ (τούτους δὲ τοὺς Οὔννους Οὔζους ἀπεκάλεσεν ἡ ἰδιῶτις γλῶσσα) καὶ περὶ τοὺς ὄχθους τῆς λίμνης αὐλισαμένης Οὐζολίμνην τὴν τοιαύτην προσηγορεύκασι λίμνην μετὰ προςθήκης οἶμαι καὶ τοῦ υ φωνήεντος. Καὶ ἀπὸ μὲν τῶν παλαιῶν συγγραμμάτων οὐχ εὕρηταί πω συνελαθὲν ἐνταῦθα Οὐννικὸν στράτευμα, ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ αὐτοκράτορος Ἀλεξίου τότε πάντες ἁπανταχόθεν ἐκεῖσε συνερρωγότες τῷ τόπῳ δεδώκασι τοὔνομα. Τὰ μὲν οὖν περὶ τῆς λίμνης ὧδέ πη ἐχέτω, [ὥσπερ]
192
παρ' ἡμῶν νῦν πρώτως ἱστορούμενα, ἵν' ἐνδειξαίμεθα ὅτι τοῦ αὐτοκράτορος Ἀλεξίου ταῖς πολλαῖς καὶ πανταχοῦ στρατηγίαις νῦν μὲν ἀφ' ἑαυτοῦ Τὰ μὲν οὖν περὶ τῆς λίμνης ὧδέ πη ἐχέτω, [ὥσπερ] παρ' ἡμῶν νῦν πρώτως ἱστορούμενα
[The lake] now called by us Ozolimne is very big/biggest in diameter and circumference, by lengths/stature it is not inferior to any other lake described by geographers. It lies beyond/above the ‘Hundred Hills’ and into it flow very great and beautiful rivers; many big ships and heavy-laden merchant [ships] sail on its waters, from which shows how deep the lake. It has been called Ozolimne, not because it emits an evil or unpleasant odour, but because a Hunnic army once visited the lake (the local language calls Huns as ‘Ouzoi’.) The Huns encamped in the banks of this lake and named it Ouzolimne, with the addition of the vowel ‘u’. The ancient writers have not mentioned the migration of the Hunnic army in that area, but during the reign of Emperor Alexios, the whole nation congregated there from all quarters and gave the place its name. I now mention these probable facts about the lake for the first time in order to prove that owing to the Emperor Alexios’s many expeditions in many directions, many places obtained their names either directly from him or from his enemies who collected there
The lake Anna mentioned is unknown. Anna might be honest about her being the first person to mention this lake. Note that the passage is after the Pecheneg retreat around Ister, opposing Byzantine-Cuman army arrived from the North, from Silistra. Also nota that and the description of the river accords with Anna’s description on Danube/Ister. Anna’s comment “not because it emits an evil or unpleasant odour” is due to fact that the Greek root Ὀζ means smell. Ὀζόλαι were a tribe of the Locrians, (Hdt. 8.32) their name might be derived from the strong-smelling sulphur-springs in their country, (Str. IX.4.8) or from their wearing goat-skins (Plu. 2.294f). However, Anna rejects the Greek origin for the toponym of the lake.121 Du Cange’s note in
121 Similar anecdote can be see in the eleventh book. In XI.11.5.10-13, Anna tells us about the how Kantakouzenos siezed the harbour and the towncenter of Laodicea ad Mare that is modern Latakia in Syria. According to her, nowadays it is custom to call town’s citadel as Kula (Ἀλλ' ὁ Καντακουζηνὸς
193
Alexias’ 1729 edition suggests that he locates this lake “in the region which in his days called Wallachia”,122 that is modern Romania, but gives no exact location (1729, p. 72). In Byzantine Greek, Ouzoi is the name for the Oghuz tribe, which Anna also points to. Note that, at that time the region was under the rule of Pechenegs-Cumans. We believe this lake is Lake Razim, south of the Danube Delta, and the so-called Hundred Hills should be the hills at the west of it (Fig. 3.24). This passage is also important, for Anna plainly tells us that her source was his lord father’s military expeditions, which would also describe the fortress descriptions.
Figure 3.24 The possible location of the Hundred Hills and the Lake Ozolimne.
In XIV Anna provides us with a very accurate depiction of the River Euros (i.e. Meriç).
XIV.8.1.11-18: ...αὐτὸς δὲ κατὰ τὴν Φιλιππούπολιν ἐνδιατρίβει. Πόλις δὲ αὕτη περὶ τὴν τῆς Θρᾴκης μεσόγειαν. Εὖρος τῇ πόλει παραρρεῖ πρὸς βορρᾶν ἄνεμον πνέοντα· ῥεῖ μὲν γὰρ οὗτος ἀπὸ τῶν περάτων αὐτῶν τῆς Ῥοδόπης καὶ πολλὰς ποιούμενος ἕλικας καὶ καμπὰς παρα- μείβει τε τὴν Ἀδριανοῦ· πολλῶν καὶ ἄλλων ἐς ταὐτὸ ποταμῶν συνεμβεβληκότων καὶ περὶ τὴν Αἶνον πόλιν ἐκδίδωσιν εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν.
...he spends time in Philippopolis (modern Plovdiv/Filibe). This city lies in the heart of Thrace. Euros (= Meriç), flows by the city from the side of northwind
πρὸ τοῦ τὸν Μοναστρᾶν ἐφθακέναι τὸν λιμένα καὶ τὸ κάστρον αὐτὸ κατέσχε· τὴν μέντοι ἀκρόπολιν, ὅπερ κουλᾶ νῦν ἡ συνήθεια καλεῖν εἴωθεν, ἔτι Κελτοὶ κατεῖχον πεζοὶ πεντακόσιοι καὶ ἱππεῖς ἑκατόν).
122 “Exstitit palus illa ultra Istrum, in ea regione, quam Valachiam hodie vocant.”
194
blows. This river flows down from the extreme ends of Rhodope, making many twists and windings, flows past [the city] of Hadrian (= Edirne). After many tributaries have joined it, empties itself into the sea near the city of Ainos (= Enez).
Yet, in the following chapter in the case of Krenides Anna is wrong. Anna suggest that “Before Philippos’ time this was a small place called Krenides, though some people knew it as Trimous.” (XIV.8.2.5-6: Πολίχνιον δὲ ἦν τὰ πρῶτα καὶ πρὸ Φιλίππου Κρηνίδες ὀνομαζόμενον, παρ' ἐνίων δὲ Τριμοῦς.). In this sentence, Anna mistakes Philippoi (Krenides) with Philippopolis. Her second error is about the founder of the cities, for both cities were founded by Philippos of Macedonia. Yet, Anna says that the city was named not after Philippos of Macedonia, but after “the Roman Philippus” probably Emperor Philippus Arabus (r. 244-249 AD). (Φίλιππον δὲ ὅταν εἴπω, οὐ τὸν Μακεδόνα λέγω, τὸν τοῦ Ἀμύντου, νεωτέρα γὰρ ἡ πόλις τοῦ Φιλίππου τούτου, ἀλλὰ τὸν Ῥωμαῖον Φίλιππον) So she mistakes Philippopolis (or Philippoi) in Thrace with Philippopolis in Arabia (modern Shahba, Syria), which was the birth city of Philippus Arabs, and thus later renamed as Philippopolis.
In Book V, Chapter 7, Anna depicts Larissa and its vicinity. Besides she provides us with the meaning of the term “kleisoura.”
V.7.1.3-8: Τῇ δὲ μετ' αὐτὴν αὐγαζούσης ἤδη τῆς ἡμέρας παραδραμὼν τὸν ἤδη ῥηθέντα ποταμὸν μετὰ τῶν συνεφεπομένων αὐτῷ κομήτων καὶ αὐτοῦ δὴ τοῦ Βρυεννίου, ἐπεὶ ἑλώδη τόπον ἐν τοῖς τῆς Λαρίσσης μέρεσιν ἐθεάσατο, ἀναμεταξὺ δύο βουνῶν πεδιάδα ἀλσώδη εὑρὼν ἀποτελευτῶσαν εἰς στενωπὸν ὀξύν (κλεισούραν τοῦτον καλοῦσι), τὴν λεγομένην Δομενίκου παλάτιον, διὰ τούτου εἰσελθὼν ἐκεῖ τὸν χάρακα ἐπήξατο.
As dawn broke on the following day [Bohemund] crossed the River [Salabria] we have mentioned with his attendant Counts, Bryennios himself among them, and when he found a swampy place in the neighbourhood of Larissa and a wooded plain between two hills which ran out into a sharp defiles/mountain-pass (this is called a kleisoura), the plain was named the palace of Domenicus, he entered by the pass and fixed his palisades there.
Anna explains the meaning of kleisoura as a geographical term. Note that kleisoura is also used as a term to identify military frontier districts (because of the forts built in
195
the mountain-passes) especially the ones in the Taurus and Anti-Taurus. The River Salabria is modern Pinios (Πηνειός), the name Σαλαβρία etymologically relates to Silivri. The place Anna described as the palace of Domenicus is today the village of Domenikon (Fig. 3.25), which is the place of the Domenikon massacre that was committed by the Italian Royal Army against Greek villagers in February 1943, during the Axis Occupation of Greece. Anna’s portrayal here is accurate.
Figure 3.25 Domenikon, the River Peneios, Larissa.
In the Book VIII, Chapter 4, Anna narrates the Battle of Lebounion (aka Levounion) that was fought between Byzantine-Cuman forces and Pechenegs in April 1091. The battle is named after the hill called Lebounion, which according to Anna is a hill overlooking the plain. Emperor (i.e. Alexios) climbed it. When he found that the top could not accommodate all the army, he had a trench dug around the lower slopes (VIII.4.6.14-19: καταλαμβάνουσι τόπον τινὰ καλούμενον τοῦ Λεβούνη· βουνὸς δὲ τῆς πεδιάδος ὑπερκείμενος. Ἄνεισι μὲν οὖν ἐκεῖσε ὁ αὐτοκράτωρ. Ἐπεὶ δὲ μὴ τὸ πᾶν τοῦ στρατεύματος ὁὑπερκείμενος ἐχώρει τόπος, περὶ τοὺς πρόποδας αὐτοῦ διώρυχα ποιήσας καὶ τάφρον ἀποχρῶσαν τῷ παντὶ στρατεύματι ἐκεῖ τούτους κατατίθησι). Soustal (1991, p. 334) gives no exact location but suggests that it was at the lower valley of Maritza (Meriç), somewhere between Kypsela (Ipsala) and Karpuzlu. We have located this topos as Hisarli Daği, which fits Anna’s description.
Anna’s description of the Balkan Mountains is very strange.
XIV.8.2.5-6: ὑπερβαίνοντες γὰρ τὰ τέμπη τοῦ Αἵμου τὰς ὑπὸ τοῦτον πεδιάδας κατέτρεχον. Ὁ δ' Αἷμος οὗτος ὄρος ἐστὶ μακρότατον κατὰ γραμμὴν παράλληλον τῇ Ῥοδόπῃ κείμενον. Ἄρχεται μὲν ἀπὸ τοῦ Εὐξείνου Πόντου τὸ
196
ὄρος καὶ μικρὸν παραμείβων τοὺς καταρράκτας μέχρις αὐτῶν Ἰλλυρικῶν διήκει· οἶμαι δ' ὅτι καὶ διακοπτόμενον τῷ Ἀδριαντικῷ πελάγει, πάλιν εἰς ἀντιπέραν ἤπειρον ἀναλαμβάνει καὶ μέχρις αὐτῶν Ἑρκυνίων δρυμῶν ἀποτελευτᾷ. Ἑκατέρωθεν δὲ τῶν καταρρύτων αὐτοῦ πολλὰ καὶ πλουσιώτατα ἔθνη νέμεται, Δακῶν μὲν ὄντων βορειοτέρων καὶ τῶν Θρᾳκῶν, νοτιωτέρων δὲ Θρᾳκῶν τε αὐτῶν καὶ Μακεδόνων.
For they (i.e. Pechenegs) traversed the passes of the Haimos and pillaged the plains below. This Haemus is a very long mountain range that lies along a line parallel to [Mount] Rhodope. The mountain begins at the Pontos Euxeinos, turn aside cataracts a little and continues as far as the Illyria. I think, there it is cut through/interrupted by the Adriatic Sea and emerges again in the opposite land (= Italia) and ends right away in the Hercynian Forests. Many very wealthy tribes dwell on both sides of its slopes, the Dacians and the Thracians on the northern side, and on the southern, Thracians and the Macedonians.
The word Anna used for the mountain pass is τέμπη or τέμπος is a Byzantine word for mountain valley, ravine or canyon (Ger. Gebirgstal, Schlucht LBG), which probably derived from classical Tempe (Τέμπη), the valley between Mounts Olympus and Ossa, through which the Peneios escapes into the sea according to Herodotos (Hdt. 7.173). Anna uses pluralis μέχρις αὐτῶν Ἰλλυρικῶν, which means as far as that of those Illyrians. Probably means the land Illyrikon, however, this can include Macedonia along with Albania. According to Anna’s depiction, Balkan Mountain range begins from the Black Sea and continues to Illyria until it reaches the Adriatic Sea. From this point, the Greek text is grammatically unclear. Either Anna suggests that the mountain range cuts in two, one side emerges in Italy and the other ends in Hercynia Silva; or that the range ends in Adriatic, emerges again in Italy, and this range from there extends and ends in Hercynia Silva.123 Despite the latter being grammatically correct, it makes no sense. Ἑρκύνιος δρυμός (Hercynian Silva) actually
123 The mountain range in Italia, Anna mentions could be the Apennines. However, Po Valley cuts the Apennines in the north, so the Apennines do not continue towards “Hercynia Silva, or the Alps in that regard. The other mountain range that continues toward the north along the eastern coast of Adriatic can be Dinarides, however, that would be an erroneous description as well.
197
means Hercynian Forests which points to the forests of Southern Germany and of Ancient Pannonia. Yet, in this context, we believe it is Ἑρκύνιον ὄρος, a mountain range in Germany and Pannonia. However, its definition changed from author to author even in antiquity. Exempli gratia, Aristoteles (Meteor. 1.13: Ἀρκύνια ὄρη) speaks of it generally as a range of mountains in the north of Europe, while Ptolemaios (II.11.7) applies the name only to the range connecting the Sudetes with the Carpathian Mountains. Plinius refers to a mountain range in Pannonia and Dacia (Plin. Nat. 4.28) and Caesar (Caes. De Bel. Gal. VI.24) directly refers to forests of Germania with a reference to Eratosthenes and some other Greeks (quibusdam Graecis), Strabon in a way agrees with this “forests” yet his description continues towards the east, to Ister (Str. IV. 6. 9, for the discussion see also Şengör, 2018, p. 82, fn. 2). Despite her interesting narrative, Anna’s description is obviously very erroneous.
In Alexias, on a few occasions, we see Adriatic as a boundary that Anna repeats. In the tenth book of Alexias Anna narrates the beginning of the First Crusade. According to her, upon the Pope’s call “the whole of the west and all the barbarian race who dwell between the far side of Adriatic and the Pillars of Herakles migrated in a body to Asia, marching across Europe country by country with all their households.” (X.5.4.15-18: Πᾶσα γὰρ ἡ ἑσπέρα καὶ ὁπόσον γένος βαρβάρων τὴν πέραθεν Ἀδρίου μέχρις Ἡρακλείων στηλῶν κατῴκει γῆν, ἅπαν ἀθρόον μεταναστεῦσαν ἐπὶ τὴν Ἀσίαν διὰ τῆς ἑξῆς Εὐρώπης ἐβάδιζε πανοικὶ τὴν πορείαν ποιούμενον.) From this line, we understand that Adriatic is the eastern boundary of the Catholic West, which she restricts between Gibraltar and the west coast of Adriatic. However, that is wrong in the case of the Kingdom of Hungary, which was a Catholic kingdom under a Catholic King.
Again in the Book XIII, Chapter 12, when Bohémond swears fealty to Emperor Alexios I, she exaggeratively describes Byzantine domain as “from this Adriatic Sea to the farthest East and throughout the length of great Asia, wherever the Roman boundaries are.” (XIII.12.6.12-15: ...ἐξ αὐτοῦ δήπουθεν τοῦ Ἀδριαντικοῦ πελάγους καὶ ἄχρι πάσης ἀνατολῆς καὶ κατὰ μῆκος τῆς μεγάλης Ἀσίας, ἔνθα τὰ τῶν Ῥωμαίων ὁρίσματα ἦν.) In that context, the term Asia Maior (τῆς μεγάλης Ἀσίας) is also interesting.
Another exaggerated account of the old borders of the Byzantine Empire can be found in the sixth book of Alexias. Anna’s depiction is as follows:
198
VI.11.3.1-11: Ἦν μὲν γὰρ ὅτε οἱ ὅροι τῆς τῶν Ῥωμαίων ἡγεμονίας αἱ ἀμφότεραι στῆλαι ἦσαν ἀνατολὴν καὶ δύσιν περιορίζουσαι, ἐξ ἑσπέρας μὲν αἱ τοῦ Ἡρακλέους ὀνομαζόμεναι, ἐξ ἕω δὲ αἱ ἀγχοῦ που ἱστάμεναι τοῦ Ἰνδικοῦ πέρατος αἱ τοῦ Διονύσου. Κατὰ γὰρ πλάτος οὐκ ἔστιν εἰπεῖν ὅσον ἦν τῆς τῶν Ῥωμαίων βασιλείας τὸ κράτος Αἴγυπτος καὶ Μερόη καὶ Τρωγλοδυτικὴ πᾶσα καὶ τὰ ἐγγύθεν τῆς διακεκαυμένης καὶ τὰ ἐξ ἑτέρου μέρους ἡ περιθρύλλητος Θούλη καὶ ὅσα ἔθνη βόσκει τὸ κλίμα τὸ Βόρειον, οἷς κατὰ κορυφὴν ὁ Βόρειος ἵσταται πόλος.
For there was a time when the border of the Roman rule were the two pillars at the limits of east and west, the so called Pillars of Herakles in the west and those of Dionysos that stands not far from the Indian border in the east. As far as its extent was concerned, it is impossible to say how great was the power of Rome: It included Egypt, Meroe (i.e. Nubia), all [the land of the] Troglodytes, the lands near the Torrid Zone; on the other side, the famous Thule and all the peoples who live in the region of the North, over them stands the pole-star.
Anna gives us a highly exaggerated version of the borders of the Roman Empire. However, what is more, from Torrid Zone to Pole-Star her depiction of the Earth is accurate and Anna’s education in Classical texts shows itself. “The land of the Troglodytes” (Τρωγλοδυτικὴ) is Ethiopia, and the term itself is Herodotian, which we have stated above (Hdt. IV. 183). Yet, even in 117 CE, during the reign of Emperor Traianus Roman Empire was not that wide. Surely, Ethiopia was not among the imperial provinces. The Northern regions and the famous Thule suggests a delicate approach. Northern regions can’t be Germany that is for certain, and as we have stated above the location of the mythical Thule cannot be known (even though Thule was no Atlantis).
The discussion on Thule brings us to the identity of Thule. In the second book, Anna narrates the Komnenian siege at the imperial capital. She narrates that on the walls there was “the barbarians from Thule”, she explains further, “by these I mean the axe-bearing barbarians” (II.9.4.4-6: ...ἐκεῖσε δὲ τοὺς ἐκ τῆς Θούλης Βαράγγους (τούτους δὴ λέγω τοὺς πελεκυφόρους βαρβάρους). It is clear that these barbarians are the famous Varangians. As we have stated before, traditionally they were from Scandinavia, but in fact, they arrived through Rurikids. Also, with the Norman victory at the Battle of Hasting in 1066, fleeing Anglo-Saxons came into the service. Thule
199
was the northernmost island according to some ancient authors. It was first founded by Pytheas of Massalia (tragically his work about the voyage is lost). Ancient authors were at the stakes about the location and the identity of the island. It might be Britain, might also be an interpretation of Scandinavia, it might be another island at the North of Britain, e.g Orkney (Str. I.4.2-3; Ptol. II.6.32; Plin. Nat. 4.16. 30; Tac. Agr. 10). In Medieval Latin, Thule is used to identify Iceland in general. Moreover, Anna, in II.11.7.5 describes Thule as island (οἱ τοὺς ἀπὸ τῆς Θούλης νήσου βαρβάρους). When we link this narrative with the one above, we believe Anna’s Thule was Britain.
Before the above-mentioned Komnenian siege, Anna mentions a place called Aretai and depicts it. In fact, the Komnenoi encamps there and from there they prepare the siege. Anna’s account is as follows:
II.8.5.1-14: Ἀπάραντες δ' ἐκεῖθεν οἱ Κομνηνοὶ καταλαμβάνουσι ταχὺ τὰς καλουμένας Ἀρετάς. Τόπος δὲ οὗτος ἀγχοῦ τῆς πόλεως διακείμενος, ὑπερκείμενος μὲν τῆς πεδιάδος καὶ τοῖς κάτωθεν ἱσταμένοις καὶ πρὸς τοῦτον ὁρῶσιν εἰς λοφιὰν ἀνατεινόμενος καὶ τὴν ἑτέραν μὲν πλευρὰν πρὸς θάλατταν ἀπονεύων, κατὰ δὲ τὴν ἑτέραν πρὸς τὸ Βυζάντιον, ταῖς δέ γε λοι- παῖς δυσὶ πρὸς ἄρκτον καὶ δύσιν, παντὶ ἀνέμῳ καταπνεό- μενος, διειδὲς ὕδωρ καὶ πότιμον ἔχων ῥέον ἀεί, φυτῶν δὲ καὶ δένδρων παντάπασιν ἀμοιρῶν· εἶπες ἂν ὑπό τινων δρυτόμων ἐκπεφαλακρῶσθαι τὸν λόφον. Διὰ γοῦν τὸ τοῦ τόπου ἐπιτερπὲς καὶ εὔκρατον καὶ Ῥωμανὸς Διογένης ὁ αὐτοκράτωρ ῥᾳστώνης μικρᾶς χάριν οἰκήματα λαμπρὰ καὶ ἀποχρῶντα βασιλεῦσιν ἀνήγειρεν.
Leaving there (Schiza) the Komnenoi swiftly seized [the place] called Aretai. This region lies close to the City (= Konstantinoupolis), overlooking the plain; and for people standing below and looking up to it, it looks like a hill, with one side it slopes down to the sea and on the other to Byzantion, but on the north and west sides it is exposed to all the winds. It has clear and freshwater, which always flows, but it completely lacks plants and trees that you would have said that some woodcutters bared the hill. Because of its pleasant position and mild [climate] Emperor Romanos Diogenes built some fine dwellings worthy of emperors for short periods of rest.
Komnenian army crosses Meriç and approaches from the west. The place they left must be Schiza, an East Thracian village in 1,5 km north of Küçükçekmece Gölü,
200
modern Altınşehir, Yarımburgaz (Kulzer, 2008, p. 632). Aretai is identified as a place in Thracian hinterland of Konstantinoupolis, very probably the hill at Topçular (ibid. p. 262; Fig. 3.26). Aretai was searched at various locations in the hinterland of Konstantinoupolis. A hill near Haznedar (modern Bahçelievler-Güngören?) was one of the candidates, however, there was no archaeological evidence to support this claim. Davutpaşa Kışlası in the south-east of Esenler (Byzantine Litres) was another candidate, however, it contradicts with Anna’s account. Kazlıçeşme was another candidate and a more possible one. The location at Topçular was based also on the archaeological evidence found there, which belongs to a larger Byzantine building, a palace maybe. Note that the name Aretai itself describes the region’s excellence.
Figure 3.26 Aretai and the other candidates.
The description of the River Sangarios in the tenth book seems erroneous.
X.5.2.1-4: Ὁ γὰρ Σάγγαρις ποταμὸς καὶ ἡ παραλία ἡ μέχρι τοῦ χωρίου Χηλῆς ἰθυτενῶς καταφερομένη καὶ ἡ πρὸς βορρᾶν ἀνακάμπτουσα πολλὴν ἔνδον περικλείουσι χώραν.
The River Sangaris (Sangarios) and the coastline, which runs straight as far as the town of Khele and then bends toward the north and encloses a large piece of land within.
Khele or Khili is modern Şile. The coastline Anna depicts is the coast of the Kocaeli Peninsula. In that case, the depiction for the River Sakarya is incorrect, for the river runs further south to Eskisehir. Moreover, according to Anna “their malicious neighbours the Ishmaelites” (X.5.2.6-7: πονηροὶ γείτονες γεγονότες ἡμῖν...οἱ τοῦ
201
Ἰσμαὴλ) cross the River Sangarios and raid the lands and especially Nikomedia (καὶ τῶν πέραν Σαγγάρεως ῥᾳδίως κατελῄζοντο καὶ μᾶλλον τὴν Νικομήδους ἐπέθλιβον τὸν ποταμὸν διαπεραιούμενοι). In that case, Anna is wrong again, the mentioned Ishmaelites must be the Turks, Seljuks of Rum to be more precise, and Anna’s account is before the events of the First Crusade. At that time, the city of Nikaia was held by the Turks, it was their capital in fact. In that case, there was no need for Seljuks to cross the River Sangarios to attack Nikomedia.
Another river depiction can be found in the fourteenth book, in that case, the river depicted is Maender.
XIV.1.7.15-17: οἱ δέ γε καταλειφθέντες ὀλίγοι πάνυ φεύγοντες ταῖς δίναις τοῦ Μαιάνδρου ἐμπεσόντες εὐθὺς ἀπεπνίγησαν. Ποταμὸς δὲ οὗτος περὶ Φρυγίαν, σκολιώτατος ποταμῶν ἁπάντων καὶ καμπὰς συνεχεῖς ποιούμενος.
The few (i.e. the Turks of Chaka Beg) that were left behind, fell altogether and fell into eddy [streams] of Maeander and immediately drowned. This river (i.e. Meander) is around Phrygia, the curviest river among all rivers and continuously bends.
Ancient geographers thought the same. In fact, the very word Μαίανδρος also means winding (LSJ, δίνη: whirlpool, eddy). Note that the English translations simply translated this word as “current” or “stream”, however from the following sentence it is clear that Anna was describing the eddy characteristic of the river, in that case Anna is accurate.
In Alexias Anna, like her husband Bryennios, provides us with very few phenomena, due to the lack of phenomena it appears. The first record can be found in the third book, in III.8.8-10 Anna tells us the catastrophe -more vividly than others- at the foot of Mt. Lobitzos, in fact, she just says the foot of Lobitzos (περὶ τοὺς τοῦ Λοβιτζοῦ πρόποδας). Thanks to her detail about the feast of Hagia Thekla, we can give an exact date, which is 24 September 1059. Like other authors, she describes an unseasonable snowstorm (νιφετὸς ἔξωρος) after a violent thunderstorm (ῥαγδαῖος ὄμβρος). Rising waters overflowed their banks, as a result, the plain where Isaakios Komnenos encamped was overwhelmed, turning into a sea. (Πλημμύρας οὖν γενομένης τῶν ποταμίων ῥευμάτων καὶ ὑπερχειλήσαντος τοῦ ὕδατος θάλασσαν ἦν ὁρᾶν ἅπαν τὸ πεδίον ἐκεῖνο) Anna also adds that the thunder threatened to set ablaze the countryside.
202
(τὸ περίγειον ἐκεῖνο ἅπαν ἐμπρῆσαι οἷον ἠπείλουν.) Most of his men got destroyed by the whirling waters and Issakios retreats to an oak tree. From the oak tree, he hears a tremendous sound and at that moment winds become more violent. He steps aside and the oak tree torn apart by the roots as if a signal was given (Ὁ δ' εὐθὺς ὥσπερ ἐκ συνθήματος ῥιζόθεν ἀνασπασθεὶς εἰς γῆν ὡρᾶτο κείμενος.). Issakios was unharmed. He attributes this to God’s care for him (τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ περὶ αὐτὸν κηδεμονίαν) and erects a new church for Hagia Thekla. Anna makes no comment about the origin of this natural phenomenon.
The second and the last phenomenon can be found in the twelfth book of Alexias. Her account is as follows:
XII.4.1-2: ...ἐν οὐρανῷ δὲ κομήτης ἐφάνη μέγας καὶ τῶν πάλαι φανέντων ὁ μέγιστος, ὃν οἱ μὲν δοκίδα, οἱ δ' ἀκοντίαν ἔφασαν εἶναι. Ἔδει γὰρ τῶν μελλόντων καινισθῆναι ξενοπρεπῶν πραγμάτων προοίμιά τινα προκαταγγελτικὰ τούτων μηνυθῆναι ἄνωθεν. Καὶ γὰρ ἦν τοῦτον θεᾶσθαι ἐπὶ τεσσαράκοντα νυχθημέροις ὅλοις παμφαίνοντα· ἐφαίνετο δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν δυτικῶν μερῶν ἐξιὼν καὶ πρὸς ἀνατολὰς ἡλίου διήκων. Ὃν οἱ θεώμενοι ἅπαντες ἐκδειματούμενοι ἐζήτουν, τίνων ὁ ἀστὴρ ἄγγελός ἐστιν. Ὁ δὲ αὐτοκράτωρ μηδὲ πάνυ τοῖς τοιούτοις προσέχων, ἀλλὰ φυσικῆς τινος ἐξηρτῆσθαι τὰ τοιαῦτα αἰτίας δοξάζων, ὅμως ἠρώτα τοὺς περὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα δεινούς.
...in the sky a big comet appeared, the biggest of all that had ever been seen before, and some pronounced it to be a beam-meteor, and others a javelin-meteor. For it was only right that some unusual signs, predicting the strange deeds that were shortly to happen, should be sent from above. And this comet was to be seen shining brightly for a whole forty days and nights. and it seemed to rise in the west and travel across towards the east. All who saw it were dumbfounded and asked what is the message of the meteor/star. The Emperor did not pay much attention to such matters, for he was of opinion that they arose from some natural cause, yet he asked the experts on these things.
The date of the comet is February-March 1106. Emperor Alexios’s attitude of accepting the comet as a natural cause is worthy, yet he summons a man called Basileios, who interprets this comet as the departure of Celts, by that he probably
203
meant the Normans ravaging the western part of the Empire. Again Anna makes no comment.
To sum up, as far as we see in Alexias Anna, even though she was a great Byzantine intellect and one of the best examples of those who use Atticising style, and as a well-educated in classical education, has a very bad knowledge of geography. This is odd given the level of her education, which shows itself through the references she made. The very few phenomena she describes are not enough for us to analyse her approach. She, herself makes no comment in that regard. Nevertheless, her depiction of the Earth with pole-star above and the Torrid Zones, and the Lake Ozolimne are remarkable examples. Ioannes Zonaras
The Greek text used for Zonaras’ books I-XII is Moritz Pinder’s CSHB edition (1844) and for the rest (libri XIII-XVIII) we have used Theodor Büttner-Wobst’s CSHB edition (1897). Due to the long structure of this chronicle, the available translations in modern languages are “fragmentary.” Of them, we have benefited from Thomas Banchich’s and Eugene Lane’s English translation and commentary on books XII-XIII (2009), and from Erich Trapp’s German translation of books XVII-XVIII (1986).
Zonaras world chronicle begins with a statement like “God has no nature that needs something (I.12.1: Θεός ἐστι μὲν ἀνενδεὴς φύσις,). With references to Holy Scriptures and Gregorios Theologos (aka Nazianzenos), Zonaras portrays a typical Genesis narrative and continues further with Jewish History. The naming of the rivers Nile, Ganges and Pishon in I.15-16 is the same as the narrative in Genesis. In that narrative, Zonaras offers nothing new.
As one should expect from a Byzantine world chronicle Zonaras’ work too provides no detail and does not stand out among other chronicles, which we have examined. Among them, only Manasses’ chronicle has a different approach both as literary style and in terms of its content.
In XII, on the account of Emperor Alexander Severus’ Persian campaign (232-233 CE), Zonaras describes the mountains in Armenia as follows:
XII.15 (vol 2. p. 122) πλεῖστοι δὲ καὶ τῶν Ῥωμαίων ἐφθάρησαν, οὐ τοσοῦτον ὑπὸ τῶν πολεμίων ὅσον ἐν τῷ ἐπανιέναι διὰ τῶν τῆς Ἀρμενίας ὀρῶν.
204
δυσχειμέρων γὰρ ὄντων τούτων οἱ τῶν ὁδοιπορούντων πόδες, ἐνίων δὲ καὶ αἱ χεῖρες ἐκ τοῦ ψύχους ἠκρωτηριάσθησαν μελανθεῖσαι καὶ νεκρωθεῖσαι.
Most of the Romans perished in the return through the mountains of Armenia, more than they suffered at the hands of their enemies (i.e. Persians). Because, since the mountains were frigid, the feet of the marchers and even the hands of some became blackened and mortified because of the cold and as a result were cut off/amputated.
This narrative is almost identical to Herodianos’ account (VI.6.3). In Herodianos’ history, during 232-232 winter, the Roman army was retreating from Media to Antiokheia, which was the Emperor’s base of operations during the Persian Campaign. In that case, the so-called mountains must be the Armenian highlands. Despite the accurate account, the quotation above does not belong to Zonaras.
Another account, which we can accept as a geographical depiction, again comes from the Persian War, which is as follows:
XIII.7 (vol 3. p. 35-36): καὶ τὸν ποταμὸν δέ, ὃς διὰ μέσης ἔρρει τῆς πόλεως, μετωχέτευσεν, ἵνα δίψει πιεζόμενοι οἱ τῆς πόλεως προδοῖεν αὐτῷ τὴν πόλιν. τοῖς δὲ ἀφθονία ἦν ὑδάτων καὶ ἐκ φρεάτων καὶ ἐκ πηγῶν. ὡς δ' εἰς οὐδὲν αὐτῷ κατήντησαν ἀνύσιμον αἱ ἐπίνοιαι, ἕτερόν τι αὐτῷ μεμηχάνητο. ἀναδραμὼν τὸν ποταμόν, ὅς, ὡς εἴρηται, διὰ τῆς πόλεως ἔρρει, καὶ πρὸς φάραγγας γεγονώς, ἔνθα ὁ χῶρος, δι' οὗ διέρρει, ἐστένωτο, ἀπέφραξε τὸν τόπον καὶ ἐπέσχε τὸ ῥεῦμα αὐτοῦ. τοῦ δ' ὕδατος πλημμυρήσαντος, ἀθρόον τὰ φραγνύντα τὴν τοῦ ὕδατος διέξοδον ἐξελὼν ἀφῆκε τὸ ῥεῦμα κατὰ τῆς πόλεως· τὸ δὲ πολύ τε σεσωρευμένον καὶ σὺν βίᾳ σφοδρᾷ τῷ τείχει προσπεσὸν μέρος ἐκείνου κατήραξεν.
He (i.e. Shahanshah Shapur I of Sassanids, Sapor in MS) diverted the river that flows through the middle of the city (i.e. Nisibis), so that the inhabitants of the city, oppressed by thirst, might surrender the city to him. But for them, there was an abundance of water from wells/cisterns and springs. Since these plans gave nothing effective for him, he devised an alternative. Returning up the river, which, as has been said, flowed through the city, and having come to ravines where the terrain, which through the river flowed, narrowed, he blocked/dammed the region/spot and shut its flow. After the water had filled,
205
he all at once removed the material which was blocking the water’s passage and unleashed the flood against the city. Since the water had risen to such a great depth and had struck the wall with extreme force, it collapsed part of it.
Sassanid Shanshah Shapur besieged Nisibis in mid April 350 CE. The siege lasted for four months. The river mentioned must be Mygdonius (tr. Çağ-Çağ Deresi). Kedrenos very briefly mentions this incident: “In the 13th year, Sapor, a Persian, after he had artfully invested the city Nisibis and channelled the river against the city and made all types of siege devices, was defeated and withdrew in flight toward his homeland, having lost most of his people.” (524.1-4).
XVII.4: ἀναζευγνὺς δ' ἐκεῖθεν καὶ γενόμενος κατὰ τὴν Ἀνάβαρζαν καὶ τὸ Ποδανδόν, ὁρῶν τε κἀνταῦθα καὶ ἐν ἄλλαις χώραις πολλαῖς χωρία πολυάνθρωπά τε καὶ πάμφορα, ἠρώτα οὗ εἶεν.
However, when [Emperor Ioannes Tzimiskis] returned from there to the vicinity of Anabarza/Anavarza and Podandos and saw there, as well as many other areas, populous and very fertile lands, he asked to whom they belonged.
Anazarva in Kozan, Adana, which indeed was and still is a very fertile land. However, Podandos, as the other authors of the era suggested, was a kleisoura in Taurus Mountains (Fig. 3.27).
Figure 3.27 Anazarva and Podandos.
The same erroneous depiction of Turkish geography can be found in Zonaras as well. Zonaras might have copied it from the other sources we have mentioned. In the eighteenth book, Zonaras depicts Turks as a very numerous and independent Hunnic
206
race, that dwells in the north of Caucasian Mountains (XVII.25, p. 634: εἰσὶ μὲν οὖν οὗτοι γένος τι Οὐννικὸν οἰκοῦν τὰ προςάρκτια τῶν Καυκασίων ὀρῶν, πολυπληθὲς καὶ αὐτόνομον).124 And again in Ch. 25 of the same book, Zonaras provides us with the incorrect Oxus-Araxes description.
XVII.25: οἱ δὲ μὴ οἷοί τε ὄντες ἀπιέναι πρὸς τὴν σφετέραν, εἰ μὴ αὐτοῖς ἀνεθείη ἡ τοῦ Ἀράξιδος γέφυρα (ποταμὸς δ' οὗτός ἐστιν εἰ μὴ διὰ τῆς γεφύρας οὐ περατός, ἡ γέφυρα δ' ἐπεπύργωτο ἑκατέρωθεν, καὶ τοῖς πύργοις φρουροὶ ἐφειστήκεισαν),...
They (i.e. the Turks) could not get into their country now unless the bridge over the Araxes was opened to them. (This river can only be crossed over the bridge, but the bridge had towers on both sides and there were guards on the towers.)...
Same Araxes-Oxus confusion. Every Byzantine text follows the same pattern. We can say that the Byzantines were ill-informed about the geography of the east or strict to Herodotus and Strabon. Besides, from their narrative, we can also say that they had no interest to learn since they all followed the same narration pattern (cf. Skylitzes XXI.9.20-26; Bryennios I.7.33-36; Kedrenos, vol 2. 567).
For the sake of nomenclature, we see that ancient toponyms are alive in Zonaras’ lines. However, that is excepted for earlier parts of his work consist of the copies belong to ancient sources, which we have seen in example of Herodianos. In his last book, when Zonaras describes Alp Arslan’s dividing his army, he uses North Asia (Ἀσίαν τὴν ἄνω), South Asia, which can be seen in the following quotation:
XVIII.11 (p. 689): ἔνθεν τοι ὁ μὲν σουλτὰν εἰς τοὐπίσω πεποίητο τὴν ὁρμήν, δύο δὲ μοίρας τῆς βαρβαρικῆς διελὼν στρατιᾶς τὴν μὲν εἰς τὴν νοτιωτέραν Ἀσίαν τὴν ἄνω, τὴν δὲ πρὸς τὴν βορειοτέραν ὁρμῆσαι τοῖς προεστῶσιν αὐτῶν ἐνετείλατο.
So the Sultan (i.e. Alparslan) turned back, separated two divisions from the barbarian army, and ordered their commanders to move one inwards to Southern Asia and the other to Northern [Asia].
124 cf. Skylitzes XXI.9.2-4 20-26; Bryennius I.7.33-36 XVII.25.
207
This chapter belongs to Skylitzes Continuatus (p. 126),125 it seems Zonaras copied from him. The army was divided in two when Alp Arslan was somewhere north of Antiokheia and Kilikia, i.e. at the base of the Anatolian peninsula possibly closer to the Mediterranean than to the Black Sea (probably somewhere in Kappadokia). Thus, “Northern Asia” or “towards the north” here probably means towards the arc of the River Halys (the present Kızılırmak), and possibly also towards Armenia. Now, this is precisely how Herodotos defines Upper Asia versus Lower Asia. He frequently speaks of "Lower" and "Upper" Asia, the river Halys being the boundary between the two. Herodotos (I. 6) points out that this physical boundary, i.e. the Halys, was also an important political boundary between the dominions of Kroisos, the Lydian king, and those to the east: "Kroisos ... the monarch of all nations west of the River Halys, which flows from the south between Syria and Paphlagonia and flows northward into the sea called Euxeinos." (Κροῖσος ἦν Λυδὸς μὲν γένος, παῖς δὲ Ἀλυάττεω, τύραννος δὲ ἐθνέων τῶν ἐντὸς Ἅλυος ποταμοῦ, ὃς ῥέων ἀπὸ μεσαμβρίης μεταξὺ Συρίων τε καὶ Παφλαγόνων ἐξίει πρὸς βορέην ἄνεμον ἐς τὸν Εὔξεινον καλεόμενον πόντον.) Strabon (XII.1.3) writes that Herodotos’ boundary also defined the eastern boundary of the "peninsula", i.e. “all the country which is west of Kappadokia”, which agrees well with Zonaras’ and Skylitzes’ description of the whereabouts of Alp Arslan’s army, when he split it in two and sent one half towards “Upper Asia.” Thus we see that Herodotos’ terminology was alive and well in the eleventh century, i.e. after some sixteen centuries (Şengör, 2021, personal communication).
Again in the tenth chapter of his last book, Zonaras describes how the Turks pillaged the area around Mesopotamia, Melitene, Kilikia, Kappadokia and Kolie Syria (XVIII.10, p. 683): ὅθεν οἱ βάρβαροι ποτὲ μὲν τῇ Μεσοποταμίᾳ ἐφήδρευον, ποτὲ δὲ τὰ περὶ τὴν Μελιτηνὴν ἐπόρθουν, ποτὲ δὲ τὴν Κιλικίαν ἐσίνοντο, καὶ ἄλλοτε τοῖς Καππαδόκαις ἐπῄεσαν καὶ τοῖς κατὰ Κοίλην Συρίαν ἐνίοτε). Zonaras uses the term Koile Syria (Κοίλη Συρία: lit. means Hollow Syria). He doesn’t give the exact
125 ⟨Διὰ⟩ ταῦτά τοι ὁ μὲν σουλτάνος ὀπισθόρμητος γέγονε, μοῖραν δέ τινα μεγάλην ἀποτεμόμενος καὶ ταύτην διχῇ διελών, τὴν μὲν εἰς τὴν Ἀσίαν τὴν ἄνω νοτιωτέραν ἐκπέμπει, τὴν δὲ βορειοτέραν παραγγέλλει γενέσθαι: The sultan ⟨because of⟩ these sounded the retreat, and after detaching a large contingent which he divided into two, he despatched one to upper Asia as his southern wing and ordered the other to be his northern wing.
208
boundaries of the location, which seems not clear in Byzantine geography, however the same nomenclature also used by Arrianos, Ptolemaios, Diodorus Siculus and even by Plinius (as Cava Syria in Latin). Since Zonaras’ source for his earlier books was Diodorus, it would be safe to assume that he knew it very well. Then again, in XII.29, Zonaras uses Hesperia (Ἑσπερία) instead of Iberia. Hesperia was used in both Ancient Greek and Byzantine sources to identify the Iberian Peninsula (and sometimes NW Africa).
In the case of natural phenomena Zonaras provides no details, even though the sources he copied contain details he omits these. However, it can be clearly seen, what few explanations Zonaras provided have divine origins. It appears along with natural phenomena, certain events have divine origins as well. Exempli gratia, the spear blow killed Emperor Iulianus Apostata (d. 363 CE), might had come from an enemy, from one of his own men, from power more divine (XIII.13: εἴθ' ὑπὸ πολεμίου εἴθ' ὑπό τινος τῶν αὐτοῦ εἴτ' ἐκ θειοτέρας δυνάμεως·). Another earthquake occurred in Alexios’ reign is depicted as follow:
XVIII.22, p. 740-741: Γέγονε δ' ἐπὶ τῆς βασιλείας τούτου κλόνος τῆς γῆς φρικωδέστατος κατὰ τὴν ἡμέραν τῆς μνήμης τοῦ ἐν θαύμασι περιωνύμου ἁγίου Νικολάου, ὑφ' οὗ πολλαί τε οἰκίαι καὶ ναοὶ κατηρείπωντο καὶ στοαί, δι' ὧν αἱ τῆς πόλεως ὠρόφωνται ἀτραποί, καὶ πλεῖστοι ἐν τοῖς συμπτώμασι συνεχώσθησαν καὶ ἀπέθανον.
During his reign (i.e. Alexios Komnenos) on the day of remembrance of the miraculously famous Hagios Nikolaos, occurred a terrible earthquake, which collapsed many houses, churches and stoas, which covered the streets of the city, and great numbers of people were in the rubble and died.
Alexios I took the throne in 1081, the feast of St. Nicholas is celebrated on 6 December. So the date of the earthquake should be 6 December 1108. Note that instead of σεισμός Zonaras uses κλόνος τῆς γῆς (lit. agitation/shaking of the earth), which we also see in other contemporary Byzantine authors.
In XV.23, Zonaras mentions the February 824 Earthquake which destroyed the walls of Panion and damaged Herakleia. However, he provides no further details. Again, in XVI.10 he writes about the 25-26 October 986 earthquake that occurred during the reign of Emperor Basileios I. Like other authors who recorded the earthquake he too
209
mentions that Hagia Sophia’s west part fell. Still, give provides no further details. It is the same with a storm that occurred in 1107, which is mentioned in XVIII.26. In a way, he provides us with a “damage report”, but has no explanation on the phenomenon itself. Zonaras in general gives no details about earthquakes.
A similar approach can be seen in his account of the storm in Lobitzos. XVIII.6 (pp. 671-672): As we have stated, during Isaakios Komnenos’ campaign against Scythians (Pechenegs in fact) at the end of September (1059) he sets camp in Lobitzos, where a downpour and snow following that overflowed the river and destroyed supplies along with horses and men. Zonaras only writes as ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν τῷ Λοβιτζῷ (Emperor encamped in Lobitzos, the presaent day Lovech). Unlike his contemporaries, he didn’t identify Lobitzos as a mountain or a hill, nor did he mention the foot emperor encamped (cf. Ann. Kom. III.8.8-10; Attal. 51.24; Glyk. 602.11; Sky. Cont. 107.10). Besides, Zonaras provides no explanation.
However, in his account in XVII.24, Zonaras tells us that the Naval Battle of 1043 between the Rhos-Byzantine which occurred near Konstantinoupolis was won thanks to a storm that was sent by Above (συνεμάχησε δὲ Ῥωμαίοις τότε καὶ ἄνωθέν τις ῥοπή·). As we have stated above, Psellos mentions the storm as well (without any plain reference to divine help). Attaliates, however, does not. Also according to Zonaras in the battle fought against Sviatoslav I of Kyiv in 970, it was God’s aid through the storm that destroyed the Rhos
Zonaras might have a distinction between phenomena. It is certain that he gives no details about the earthquakes. Yet in astronomical phenomena it is different. E.g., Zonaras link the comet that appeared at the birth of Konstantinos VII, which was mentioned by several authors above, to the birth of the future emperor. Moreover, the example above clearly shows the distinction between phenomena:
XV.13 (p. 298): ὅτε συνέβη ἐφ' ἡμέρας ἑπτακαίδεκα μὴ λάμψαι τὸν ἥλιον, ἀλλ' ἀλαμ- πεῖς εἶναι καὶ σκοτώδεις τὰς ἡμέρας ἐκείνας, οὐκ οἶδα εἴτε τυχαίως οὕτω συμβὰν εἴτε καὶ διὰ τὴν τοῦ Κωνσταντίνου τύφλωσιν, ὡς τηνικαῦτα τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἐδόκει, οἷα τῆς θείας προνοίας νεμεσησάσης τῷ πάθει, ὡς ἐκ μητρὸς εἰς υἱὸν γενομένῳ.
It became clear that from that day to the seventeenth day before, that the Sun did not shine brightly in the world, and that the days were as dark as the nights,
210
either that this thing was done by an evil deed, or that divine providence had done it because of such an abominable thing as the mother had done to her son.
In short, as a typical world chronicler Zonaras has almost nothing new to elaborate. Almost everything we have deduced in terms of geography belongs to other authors, who were copied by Zonaras. On natural phenomena, it seems there is a distinction between seismic phenomena and astronomical phenomena. In the former Zonaras offers no details and has no explanation or interpretation, even though the sources he copied have them, and in the latter, it is clear that Zonaras have divine or supernatural explanations, which was the trend among Byzantine authors in the case of astronomical phenomena. Konstantinos Manasses
The Greek text used for the analysis is Odysseys Lampsidis’ CFHB edition (1996). We have also benefited from Lind Yuretich’s English translation (2018) based on the same edition. Since the work was written in politikos stikhos form, we have used the line numbers for references. Therefore, the numbers before the paragraphs show the exact line number. Exempli gratia, 50: ὁ παντοτέκτων ὁ σοφὸς ἄλλοις προσεῖχεν ἔργοις, is the 50th line from the beginning.
Manasses’ work is about the brief history of “earth”, beginning from the Biblical Creation through Trojan Wars and Roman Periods, ending with the reign of Emperor Nikephoros Botoneiates. His narrative is very brief (as was expected) and it is clear that he was not interested in geography. However, from his references (from Moirai to Hades that is the Christian Hell in Byzantine context) we understand that he was well-educated in Classical Greek literature. He mentions some natural phenomena (e.g. earthquakes, hailstorms), but he gives no details or any explanations (be it divine or logical).
Throughout the first 113 line Manasses writes the creation according to Genesis, which is not different from the other world chronicles. However, between the lines 113-141 he incorporates Greek astronomy into the Biblical creation narrative:
113-141: τότε τὸ πρῶτον οὐρανὸς ἀστέρας τοὺς μεγάλους
καλλισφαιρώτους ἔβλεψεν ἐρίζοντας ἀλλήλοις
καὶ καλλωπίζοντας αὐτὸν ὡς ἄνθη τοὺς λειμῶνας.
211
ὁ Κρόνος ἦν μελάντερος, μολίβδινος τὴν χρόαν·
ἔλαμπε Ζεὺς ὡς ἄργυρος, Ἄρης φλογώδης ὦπτο·
ἔστιλβεν ἥλιος λαμπρὸν ὡς ὄβρυζον χρυσίον·
ἀντηύγει δ' ὡς κασσίτηρος σφαῖρα τῆς Ἀφροδίτης·
ὡσεὶ χαλκὸς ἐρυθραυγὴς Ἑρμῆς ἐλαμπτηρούχει·
διαφανὴς ὡς ὕελος ηὔγαζεν ἡ σελήνη.
οὕτως ὁ πέπλος οὐρανοῦ παντόχρους ἑωρᾶτο.
ὁ Κρόνος ἐκυάνιζεν ὡς ὑακίνθου χρόα·
ὡς κρῖνον ἔλαμπεν ὁ Ζεύς, Ἄρης καθάπερ ἴον·
ὡς ῥόδον περιπόρφυρον ἥλιος ἦν χρυσίζων·
ὡς λευκανθὴς ἀναγαλλὶς ἔστιλβεν ἑωσφόρος·
ὡς ἄνθος ἐρυθρόβαπτον Ἑρμῆς ἐφωτοβόλει·
νάρκισσος καλλιπέταλος ἐφαίνετο σελήνη.
τοιαύτη τις ἀνθόχροια τὸν οὐρανὸν ἐκόσμει·
τοιαύτη τις ἐφίζανε τοῖς οὐρανοῦ προσώποις
ποικιλανθὴς χαρίεσσα καλλιλαμπὴς τερπνότης,
καὶ κῆπον ἀστροφύτευτον τὸν οὐρανὸν ἐποίει,
οὗ φυτοσκάφος ὁ θεός, ὡς δὲ φυτὰ καὶ βλάσται,
ὡς ἄνθη μυριόχροα τὰ τῶν ἀστέρων σέλα.
τότε τὸ πρῶτον ἥλιος φαύσας καὶ φωταυγήσας,
φανείς τε κόσμος οὐρανοῦ καὶ κάλλος τῆς ἡμέρας,
ἐδούλευσε κελεύσματι τῷ τοῦ πεποιηκότος
καὶ μύσας συνετέλεσεν ἡμέραν τὴν τετάρτην.
Οὕτω μὲν οὖν τετέλεστο τὰ κατὰ τοὺς ἀστέρας,
καὶ τέτακτο μὲν ἥλιος ἀστὴρ ἡμεροκράτωρ,
τὸ δὲ σελήνης βλέφαρον ἐπύρσευσε τὴν νύκτα.
Then for the first time, the heaven saw the Great Stars, well-rounded, each competing with the next and decorating the heaven as flowers decorate meadows.
Kronos (Saturn) was dark with the appearance of lead.
Zeus (Jupiter) was shining like silver. Ares (Mars) was fiery.
212
The Sun glittered brilliantly, like pure gold.
The sphere of Aphrodite (Venus) glittered like tin, red-glowing Hermes (Mercury) like bronze.
The Moon sparkled as brightly as glass.
Thus the multi-coloured mantle of heaven became visible.
Kronos became blue, the colour of a hyacinth.
Zeus was shining like a lily, Ares like a violet/gilliflower.
The Sun was gold like a rose edged with purple.
The Morning Star gleamed like a white pimpernel,
Hermes glowed like a flower dyed bright red.
The Moon with beautiful petals seemed like a narcissus.
Such diverse colours of flowers adorned the heaven such a multi-coloured, elegant, shimmering splendour lay upon the face of heaven.
God made heaven a garden planted with stars and was its gardener, and the radiance of the stars was like the buds, sprouts and the many-hued flowers.
Then the Sun shone for the first time and produced light, revealed as the ornamentation of the heaven and the beauty of the day.
It obeyed the Creator’s command and, closing its eye, brought an end to the fourth day. Thus the stars were created.
The Sun was appointed as the star that ruled the day, the lunar orb was lighting up the night.
Manasses puts this at the end of 4th day of Genesis. In the line “The Moon sparkled as brightly as glass.”, the verb αὐγάζω (to view in the clearest light, see distinctly or to appear brightly) might be chosen to indicate that the Moon is the most distinctly seen celestial object from the Earth. This example is a peculiar one among the other chronicles, which simply follow Holy Scriptures.
In 210-230, Manasses describes Eden, writes about the naming of the river and their “locations.”
210-230: ἐν μέσοις τούτοις τῆς ζωῆς τὸ δένδρον ἐβλαστήκει, (...)
ὑδατομήτωρ δὲ πηγὴ κάτωθεν ἀνερρώγει,
καὶ τὸ καλλίδενδρον Ἐδὲμ ἐπότιζε χωρίον, (...)
ἐκεῖθεν δὲ πρὸς τέσσαρας ἀρχὰς διαιρουμένη
γίνεται μήτηρ ποταμῶν τῶν μεγαλοχευμόνων.
213
οἱ ποταμοὶ δὲ τῇ φωνῇ καὶ γλώσσῃ τῇ τῶν Σύρων
Φεισὼν καλοῦνται καὶ Γεών, Φορὰδ ἐν τούτοις τρίτος,
τέταρτός ἐστιν Ἐδδεκέλ, κατὰ δ' Ἑλλάδα γλῶσσαν
Γάγγης καὶ Νεῖλος ὁ πολύς, Εὐφράτης τε καὶ Τίγρης.
καὶ Γάγγης μὲν περιπολεῖ γῆς Εὐϊλὰτ τοὺς ὅρους
(ἐκεῖ χρυσὸς εὑρίσκεται καὶ λίθος ὁ πρασίζων,
ὁ δὲ χρυσὸς ἀκίβδηλος καὶ στίλβων καὶ πυρράζων),
ὁ Νεῖλος δ' ὁ λευκόρειθρος κυκλοῖ τὴν Αἰθιόπων,
καὶ τὰς λιπαροβώλακας ἀρούρας Αἰγυπτίων
εὐτρόφοις ἄρδει ῥεύμασι καὶ τίθησιν εὐκάρπους.
ὁ Τίγρις δὲ φερόμενος ὡς βέλος μετὰ ῥοίζου,
καὶ καχλασμοὺς ἀποτελῶν καὶ ῥόθους βαρυδούπους,
τῶν σχοινισμάτων ἔναντι γῆς Ἀσσυρίων τρέχει.
In the midst of this, the tree of life sprouted (...)
A spring, the mother of waters, flowed out from beneath it and watered Eden,
place of lovely trees. (...)
From there it was divided into four branches
and became the mother of the mightily flowing rivers.
In the speech and language of the Syrians,
the rivers are called Pison and Gihon,
Phorad is the third and the fourth is Hiddekel.
In the Hellenic language, these are the Ganges,
the Great Nile, the Euphrates and the Tigris.
The Ganges flows around the borders of the land of Havilah.
(Gold and a greenish stone are found there. This gold is pure, shining and fiery red.)
The white-streamed Nile encircles the land of the Ethiopians.
It irrigates the richly clodded fields of the Egyptians with waters providing nourishing floods and making them fruitful.
The Tigris, rushing on like a whizzing arrow, creating foam and a thunderous roar,
flowed in the areas opposite the land of the Assyrians.
214
There is no need to describe how incorrect Manasses’ depiction is. Yet is a good example to see how Holy Scriptures form the perception of geography in the minds of Byzantines. Later, in 5905-5906, Manasses identifies these four rivers with four cardinal virtues, which are justice, prudence, bravery and temperance. (δῐκαιοσύνη, φρόνησις, ἀνδρεία, σωφροσύνη).
In 1176-1177 Konstantinos tells how the storm dragged Menelaos to Egypt, before the Trojan War. Manasses identifies where Menelaus was dragged as Kanobos (Κάνωβος), a mouth of the Nile (στομάτων τῶν τοῦ Νείλου, Κανωβικὸν ὀνομασθὲν). The author doesn’t tell us it is the westernmost mouth of the Nile (Hdt. 2.17, 113; Str. 17.1.10). In the following lines, the narrative on epic Trojan War continues. In 1370-1374, Manasses states that “Priamos besought Tantanes of India(ns)” (τὸν οὖν Ταντάνην τῶν Ἰνδῶν Πρίαμος ἱκετεύει). As far as we know there was no Indian leader in Homeric literature. Manasses also writes that all Indians were black-skinned (ἦσαν Ἰνδοὶ πάντες μελανοχρῶτες) and the Greeks were afraid from the animals that India nourished (Ἕλληνες ... ζῷα περιτρέσαντες ἅπερ Ἰνδία τρέφει,). That must be elephants.
In 1681-1683, gives us the well known etymological story of Capitolium Hill in Roma, “Hence the Tarpeian Hill was renamed to Capitoline Hill from the appearance of the head, since “caput” means “head” in the language of the Romans (i.e. Latin)”126 (ἐντεῦθεν ὁ Ταρπήϊος μετωνομάσθη λόφος ἐκ τῆς φανείσης κεφαλῆς Καπιτωλῖνος λόφος· κάπουτ γὰρ ἡ κεφαλὴ κατὰ Ῥωμαίων γλῶσσαν).
In 2349-2355, where Manasses briefly writes about the foundation of Konstantinoupolis, Nea Rhoma, and he also provides us with the geography of the City with a poetic style.
2349-2355: καὶ πόλιν ὀλβιόπολιν αὐτῇ προσανεγείρει,
πόλιν τὴν μεγαλόπολιν, πόλιν τὴν νέαν Ῥώμην,
Ῥώμην τὴν ἀρρυτίδωτον, τὴν μήποτε γηρῶσαν,
126 Another Latin expression can be found in 4505-4506: ἦν δὲ τῶν Φράγγων φύλαρχος ὁ Κάρουλος ἐκεῖνος· ῥῆγας τοὺς σφῶν κατάρχοντας οἴδασι Φράγγοι λέγειν: That Karl (i.e. Charlemagne) was the chieftain of the Franks. The Franks call their rulers kings. It is clear Manasses used the Hellenised version of Latin rex, ergo ῥήγας < ῥήξ < lat. rex.
215
Ῥώμην ἀεὶ νεάζουσαν, ἀεὶ καινιζομένην,
Ῥώμην ἀφ' ἧς προχέονται χαρίτων αἱ συρμάδες,
ἣν ἤπειρος προσπτύσσεται, θάλασσα δεξιοῦται,
ἠπίως ἀγκαλίζονται παλάμαι τῆς Εὐρώπης,
ἀντιφιλεῖ δ' ἑτέρωθεν τὸ τῆς Ἀσίας στόμα.
From this [Constantinus Magnus] raised a blessed city,
a great city, a city called the New Rome,
a Rome without wrinkles, which would never grow old,
a Rome which will always be young, always renewed,
a Rome from which graces flow in streams,
a city which the mainland bosoms and the sea welcomes,
while the hands of Europe gently embraces it,
and on the other side, the mouth of Asia kisses in return.
In the same part, the author describes Khalkedonia as the city of the blind (τὴν τῶν τυφλῶν κατέλαβε Χαλκηδονίων πόλιν) which is a clear reference to Herodotos (IV.144). Also formerly in 2310-2320, the City is mentioned as the city of Byzas. What Manasses meant by unwrinkled is not clear, the word ἀρρυτίδωτος lit. means unwrinkled. It might not be related to the city’s geography at all. συρμάς, which is used for “streams” lit. means snowdrift in pluralis. However, in this context, it was very likely used as a stream. Note its likeliness to συρμός (any sweeping motion from meteors to waves).
The final lines of Manasses are about the Atlantic Ocean and Gibraltar. However, it is entirely allegorical, which serves as epilogos to his work.
6723-6725: Ἀλλὰ λοιπὸν εἰς σιωπῆς ὅρμον ὁ λόγος στήτω· πελάγους γὰρ Ἀτλαντικοῦ χύσις ἀνέρρωγέ μοι, (...)
6731-6733: καὶ τοίνυν ἀναψώμεθα κάλων πρυμνίτην ὧδε, τοῦ πλοῦ τὴν κώπην σχάσαντες καὶ στείλαντες τὰ λαίφη· οὐ γὰρ περάσιμά φασι τὰ τῶν Γαδείρων πέρα.
At last, this work docked in the harbour silence, for a flood of the Atlantic Sea (i.e. Ocean) has overwhelmed me (...)
Let us fasten the stern lines here, cease plying the ship’s oar and take in the sail because they say: no one can go further than Gadeira.
216
As can be seen, Manasses chronicle offers nothing to this study. All that can be said in his favour is his incorporation Greek astronomy in Genesis, which is remarkable, in truth it is genuine. His style of giving a date in 3735th line, “in the six circling of Sun” (ἐν ἑξαμέτρῳ τοιγαροῦν ἡλίου περιδρόμῳ) is also remarkable. Other than that, his work offers nothing, no depictions no phenomena, nothing. Eustathios
The Greek text used for the analysis is Savvas Kyriakidis’ edition (1961), during the analysis we have also benefited from John R. Melville Jones’ English translation and commentary (1988).
After Kaminiates, Eustathios is our second author, who hails from the city of Thessalonike, and also writes on its fall. Unlike Kaminiates, Eustathios provides other geographical depictions of the topoi outside Thessalonike or Hellas in that regard. E.g., in 28.1, he tells us the flight of Andronikos Komnenos to Sinope. In this passage, he identifies Sinope as a peninsula (ἐκ τῆς Σινωπικῆς χερσονήσου). According to Niketas, Andronikos was in Oinaion, i.e. modern Ünye (cf. Nik. Khon. III.225). What follows this, plainly shows Eustathios archaistic approach in terms of toponyms.
30.26-32: Ὡς δέ, τὴν τῶν Θυνῶν καὶ Βιθυνῶν γῆν περιελθών, ἦν τῆς τῶν Βεβρύκων καὶ περὶ τὴν ἀντιπέραν τῆς Μεγαλοπόλεως Χαλκηδόνα ἐστρατοπεδεύσατο, ἦν μὲν ἥκιστος τὸν λαὸν ὁ ἀνήρ, διασπείρας δὲ τὴν ἀμφ' αὐτὸν στρατιὰν πρὸς τέχνην καὶ σκηνὰς πηξάμενος ἐν τόποις καιρίοις, ὡς φαίνεσθαι πυκνοῦσθαί τε καὶ πλῆθος ἔχειν, καὶ τὰ πλοῖα δέ, οἷς ἐνέβαλέ τι τοῦ στρατιωτικοῦ, περὶ τὰ κατ' αἰγιαλὸν βράχεα καὶ λοιπὰς θαλαττίους ἀγκάλας δεξιῶς μερίσας καὶ καταστήσας, ὡς μὴ σαφῶς διαφαίνεσθαι οἷά τε καὶ ὁπόσα ἐκεῖνα,...
By the time that he had crossed the land of the Thynians and the Bithynians and was within the land of the Bebrykians, and had encamped in Khalkedon, in the opposite the Great City, his forces were few in number. Yet he skilfully spread his army around him, pitched tents in right places so that it seemed that he has assembled great numbers. Also, he cleverly divided his ships, which through them he had embarked part of his troops, and stationed them along
217
short stretches of beach/shallows and in various inlets (lit. bent arms) so that their true numbers could not be clearly spied.
Eustathios doesn’t give the name of the place of encampment, however, Niketas says that this place was Peukia (Nik. Khon. III.246), which is located as present-day Çamlıca. Belke suggests (2020, p. 912) that this topos is in the hills above Khalkedon, presumably in the area of today’s Büyük and Küçük Çamlıca hills, where the name might survive as a translation of pine, i.e. Peuke(πεύκη)>Peukia Çam>Çamlıca, approx. 6 km north of Khalkedon (= Kadıköy) and 5 km east of Khrysopolis (= Üsküdar).
In 78.7-8, Eustathios acknowledges that the water of Thessalonike comes from nearby Khortaitis (τὸ Χορταῆθεν ὕδωρ, ἀπολυθὲν). However, he gives no detail. Khortaitis is the mountain that lies in the southeast of Thessalonike. In antiquity, it was known as Mt. Kissos (Str. VIIa. 1. 21). In this particular passage, the author tells us that David Komnenos, the governor of the city, refused to stop water flow in the cistern despite warnings. The cistern was repaired recently and the coating needed a few more days to dry. Hence, David’s so-called “forgetfulness” destroyed the cistern and the remaining water supply of the city. Eustathios claims that David was secretly working with Normans, and he was a spy and a traitor. Note that David also stopped Byzantine sally outs against Norman siege-engines, except for one example, in which David closed the gates after defenders sallied out. He was either a genuine fool or a bloody traitor. Niketas too mentions David as a traitor (IV.298).
In 100.11, Normans, despite their artilleries,127 breached the walls by undermining them. Eustathios describes this as chasm of Hades gaped open (οὕτω χάσμημα καθ' ἡμῶν Ἅιδου εὐρυνθὲν κατέσπακεν εἰς χάος ἀτρύγετον).
127 Normans used πετροβόλος (lit. stone-thrower, unlike European terminology Greek has no distinctive terminology between artilleries, e.g. mangonel, catapult, trebuchet) to breach walls. Among these artillery there are two bigger ones, one of them named “the Daughter of Earthquake” (δύο δὲ μείζονας, ὧν θατέρα σεισμοῦ θυγάτηρ), these two might be trebuchets. Also note that the Byzantine garrison complains that their πετροβόλοι don’t have enough reach to hit their enemies, which further supports our argument.
218
It can clearly be seen Eustathios offers little, which fits to aim of this study. His short work contains no phenomena for us to analyse. Contrary to Kaminiates, Eustathios does not describe Thessalonike’s general geography, but other regions in today’s Anatolia. Nevertheless, his description of Peukia, when combined with Niketas’ account, helps us to locate this topos. Ioannes Kinnamos
The Greek text we have used is German Classicist August Meineke’s CHSB edition (1836). We have also further aided by Charles Brand’s English translation (1976).
The very first geographical depiction that welcomes us is the one that belongs to Pisidian Sozopolis.
I.2: Σωζόπολις αὕτη πόλις μέν ἐστι τῶν ἐν Ἀσίᾳ πάλαι ἐπισήμων, ἐφ' ὑψηλοῦ δέ τινος καὶ ἀποκρήμνου ἱδρυμένη χωρίου τῷ μὲν ἄλλῳ ταύτης μέρει πανταχόθεν ἄβατος γίνεται, μίαν δέ τινα κομιδῇ στενωτάτην παρέχεται εἴσοδον, ἐφ' ἣν οὔτε μηχανὴν ἄν τις ἑλκύσαι δυνήσεται οὔτε τι τῶν εἰς τειχομαχίαν εὐτρεπίσασθαι· καὶ ἀνθρώποις γὰρ ὅτι μὴ κατ' ὀλίγους πορευομένοις μόλις ἐπὶ τὴν πόλιν εἰςηγητὰ γίνεται. ἡ μὲν δὴ πόλις οὕτως εἴληχε θέσεως.
Sozopolis is one of the remarkable cities in Asia, lies in a high and precipitous place. Therefore, it is inaccessible from all sides except one, which offers a single, very narrow entrance. It is impossible for one to drag up a siege engine, nor could any of the materials for siege be prepared. [Approach] to the city was [impossible] for men, unless they advance in few. The city had this situation.
Pisidian Sozopolis (aka Apollonia) is present day Uluborlu, Isparta (Ramsay, 1890, p. 400; Belke & Mersich, 1990, p. 387; Vryonis, 1971, pp. 154-168). Belke and Mersich further suggest that the city is in a dominant and difficult to access position on a 1250 m high rock cone in front of Kapı Dağı, in the valley of ancient Hippophoras, i.e. Pupa Çayı (Fig. 3.28).
219
Figure 3.28 Sozopolis in Pisidia.
In I.7 Kinnamos writes that “two children were born to Count Petones, who was seated around the Ionian Gulf” (I.7: τῷ κόμητι Πετούης, ἣ περὶ κόλπον ἵδρυται τὸν Ἰόνιον, παῖδες γίνονται δύο). Kinnamos is in error here, for so-called Petones was Guillaume IX d’Aquitaine, the Duke of Aquitaine and the Count of Poitiers (We believe Petones, the Medieval Greek name used to identify him, probably derived from his Occitan surname/title “de Peitieus”), and his estates were nowhere near to the Ionian Sea. Also, note that he writes Ionian Gulf (κόλπον ... τὸν Ἰόνιον) like Herodotos and Thoukydides (Hdt. 6.127 and Thouk. 1.24, respectively). All we can say in his favour is that he mistook the Count with the Normans of Sicily.
Where Anna Komnena was erroneous in case of Saron (XII.2.4.5-8), Kinnamos correctly states “..the ships which were anchored in the River Pyramos, which flows through Mopsuestia and makes its outlet in the sea.” (II.1: ...ἐπὶ τὰς ναῦς αἳ παρὰ τὸν Πύραμον ὡρμίζοντο ποταμόν, ὃς διὰ Μοψουεστίας φερόμενος ἐπὶ θάλασσαν ποιεῖται τὴν ἐκβολήν).
The depiction of what we have located as Lake Beysehir is accurate, yet it raises a problem concerning nomenclature.
I.10: ἐπὶ τὴν Πασχούση καλουμένην λίμνην διεβίβαζε τὸν στρατόν. αὕτη γὰρ δὴ ἐς ἄφατόν τι μῆκος καὶ εὖρος ἐκτεινομένη νήσους κατὰ μέσον παρέχεται διακριδὸν ἀλλήλαις τοῦ ὕδατος ἀνεχούσαις, ἐν αἷς φρούρια ἐκ παλαιῶν ἀνῳκοδόμηται χρόνων. οἰκοῦσί τε ἐν αὐτοῖς ἄνθρωποι τὸ ὕδωρ ἀντὶ ταφρείας πεποιημένοι· ἔξεστι δ' αὐτοῖς ἐς Ἰκόνιον ἀνιοῦσιν αὐθημερὸν ἐκεῖθεν ἐπανελθεῖν.
220
[Emperor] led the army to the lake called Paskhouse. It extends to immense length and width and has islands that rise separately from each other in the middle of the water. These [islands possess] fortresses, which have been built in the old times. The men who dwell in them consider the water like a moat. It is possible for them to go to Ikonion and return in a single day.
As we have stated the lake mentioned is Lake Beyşehir/Lake Karalis. Paskhouse is an error, the name should be Pousgouse. This error clearly points to a problem in nomenclature. Belke (1984, p. 218) confirms that it is the Lake Beyşehir. Ramsay (1890, p. 389) has doubts regarding the description yet in the end he accepts that it is Lake Beyşehir. He also adds that Pousgouse should be accepted as the Byzantine name for Lake Karalis because the geographical accuracy of the later historians is not always perfect. Note the in “go to Ikonion” the verb Kinnamos preferred for “to go” is ἄνειμι, which means to go up, to ascend (as in hill) or to go inland, which indicates location.
Later Kinnamos mentions Konya and the Seljuk Sultan of Rum who relies on the strength of a mountain which extends between Konya and a certain fort called Kaballa as follows:
II.5, p. 42.17-21: καὶ δὴ τὸ μὲν τοῦ στρατεύματος ἐπὶ φυλακῇ τῆς πόλεως ἔταξε, τὸ δ' ἄλλο διχῆ διελὼν τὸ μὲν κατὰ νώτου τῆς πόλεως ἐπὶ τοῦ κατάντους ἔστησεν, ὃ δὲ αὐτὸς ἔχων ἐν δεξιᾷ παρετάξατο τῇ τοῦ ὄρους ὀχυρότητι μάλιστα πεποιθώς, ὃ μεταξὺ πόλεως Ἰκονίου καὶ τοῦ φρουρίου Καβάλλας ὑπερτείνει.
[Sultan Masud] posted his army to guard the city [of Ikonion], and dividing the rest in two, he placed one on the slope behind the city, and keeping the other himself he lined them on the right, for he especially relied on the strength of the mountain which extended between Ikonion and the fortress of Kaballa.
According to Belke (1984, p. 182), Kaballa is the name of the fortress built on the top of the highly volcanic 1625 m Tekeli Dağı. Ramsay suggests (1890, p. 359) a pass through Ala Dağ, despite Belke’s claim there is no Tekeli Dağı in Konya. That must be the Takkeli Dağı (Fig. 3.29), and the Kabala should be the ruins atop, which Kedrenos mentions as “...a fortress, named Kabala, situated above Ikonion” (Kedren. II, p. 266 τι φρούριον ἄνωθεν τοῦ Ἰκονίου διακείμενον, ὃ Καβάλαν ὠνόμαζον, καὶ εἰς ἀποστασίαν ἔβλεψεν). However, in this passage the description “the slope behind the city” and “lined them on the right” seem a bit problematic. We know that Emperor
221
Manuel and the imperial army was approaching from Akşehir, Konya side (NW), and also know that Sultan Masud was in full retreat to prepare the defences. In that case, from Kinnamos’ point of view, slopes behind the city (κατὰ νώτου τῆς πόλεως κατάντους) suggest somewhere at the east of Konya and right side (ἐν δεξιᾷ) suggest either the east of the city or the south of the city. In that case, Kinnamos’ depiction is kinda problematic.
Figure 3.29 Fort Kaballa and Ikonion
II.5; p. 38.18-22; 39.1: ὡς γὰρ ὀξέως τὸν Μύσιον διαβὰς Ὄλυμπον ἄχρι τε ἐς τὸν Πιθηκᾶν γεγονώς, ἔνθα φρούριον αὐτὸς ἐδείματο καρτερόν, νύκτωρ διὰ τῶν ταύτῃ ὀρῶν ἐπορεύετο, ἃ τῇδε ἀποκρέμαται ὑψηλὰ καὶ δεινῶς λάσια, ξυνέβαινεν ἐκ τῶν κατὰ τὰς λόχμας ἀναγομένων ἀτμῶν ἐμπιπλαμένης αὐτῷ τῆς κεφαλῆς ἀθρόον κατενηνέχθαι, ὡς μηκέτι μηδὲ ἀναστῆναι δύνασθαι.
For after [Emperor Manuel] had swiftly traversed the Mysian Olympos (= Bursa, Uludağ) and had come as far as Pithekas, where he had built a strong fort, he marched by night through the mountains there, which rise high and exceedingly bushy/overgrown. When his head was filled by the mists/clouds/vapours rising over the thickets, he suddenly collapsed, so that he wasn’t able to rise again.
The exact location of Pithekas is unknown. Belke (2020, p. 920) suggests it is near the village Başköy in the valley of Karasu (Fig. 3.30) and also adds that Pithekas might be the name of the river (Karasu Deresi).
222
Figure 3.30 The possible location of Pithekas.
In the ninth chapter of his second book, Kinnamos provides some details regarding the source of the River Maender. Firstly, he writes that when Emperor Manuel reached a certain place where the Maeander had its source, he thought that he was already outside the enemy territory and saw that the country is well-watered (II.9: Ἐπεὶ δὲ περί τινα χῶρον ἐγένετο οὗ δὴ Μαίανδρος τὴν ἐκβολὴν ποιεῖται, ἔξω τῶν πολεμίων ἤδη γεγενῆσθαι νομίσας εὔυδρόν τε ἄλλως τὸν χῶρον ἰδὼν καὶ πολὺ τὸ χαρίεν ἀνθρώπων ὄψεσι παρεχόμενον). From this, it is understood that during the reign of Manuel I, the springs of Maeander might be a boundary between the Byzantines and the Turks. However, the use of ἤδη (immediately, already) might indicate that the Emperor had already crossed the border. This source is between Apameia (Dinar) and Khoma-Sublaion (Gümüşsu, Akdağ Kalesi).128 Strabon points to Kelainai for the source of Maender (Str. XII. 8. 15-16). Herodotos too points to the same location (Hdt. 7. 26). Both Kelainai and Apameia are in Dinar. The following description further supports this point:
II.9 (p. 63.8-12): ἔνθα πολύ τε καὶ ἄμετρον ὕδωρ ῥεῖ μὲν ἐκ τῶν κατὰ τὴν ὑπωρείαν πετρῶν ὡς ἐκ μυρίων ἀναδιδόμενον στομάτων, τὸν δὲ παρακείμενον ἐκπελαγοῦν χῶρον ἐς λίμνην μὲν τὸ πρῶτον ξυνίσταται, ἑξῆς δὲ προϊὸν διώρυχά τε βαθεῖαν τέμνει καὶ ποταμὸν ἐντεῦθεν ποιεῖ.
128 See Ramsay, 1890, p. 84; Belke & Norbert Mersich, 1990, p. 188; Vryonis, 1971, p. 123.
223
There (i.e. Maeander), a great and never-ceasing amount of water flows from the foot of the rocks as if emitted from countless mouths; it flows from the adjacent region and first pools up in a lake, following that, advancing, cuts a deep channel and thence forms a river.
This clearly refers to the region from Apameia/Dinar to Soublaion/Homa and further west. The lake mentioned must be Lake Işıklı (Fig. 3.31). Kinnamos’ depiction is very accurate. The verb ἐκπελαγοῦν, which we have translated as it flows from was translated as “overspreads” (1976, p. 56). However, it is ἐκ+πελαγόω, therefore it points to a motion from inside-out. According to Lexikon zur Byzantinischen Gräzität it means “to make sea” (Ger. zu Meer machen).
Figure 3.31 Maender's Source according to Kinnamos.
In his opus, Kinnamos provides detailed depictions on the hinterland of Konstantinoupolis, the first one we have encountered is “Khoirobakkhoi”, where the German crusader contingent experienced a calamity.
II.14, p. 73.18-74.10: οἱ δὲ βάρβαροι ὁδῷ ἰόντες, ἐπειδὴ ἐς τὰς ἐπὶ Χοιροβάκχων παρῆλθον πεδιάδας (ὑπτιάζει γὰρ ἐνταῦθα ὁ χῶρος καὶ πόαν δαψιλῆ μάλιστα ἐς τὰς ἵππων παρέχεται νομάς), ἐνταῦθα ηὐλίζοντο. ἔνθα τι δυστύχημα λόγου κρεῖσσον αὐτοῖς ξυνενεχθῆναι λέγεται, ἐξ οὗπερ ἄν τις εἰκότως στοχάσαιτο μηνῖσαι τὸ θεῖον αὐτοῖς, τούς τε ὅρκους ἠδικηκόσι καὶ πολλῇ τῇ ἐς τοὺς ὁμοθρήσκους αὐτοῖς καὶ μηδὲν ἠδικηκότας ἀνθρώπους ἀπανθρωπίᾳ κεχρημένοις. ὄμβρου γὰρ ἐξαισίου καταρραγέντος ἀθρόον οἱ τὸν χῶρον ἐκεῖνον παραρ- ρέοντες ποταμοί, ὧν ὁ μὲν Μέλας, ἅτερος δὲ Ἀθύρας πρὸς τῶν ἐγχωρίων ὠνόμασται, πολλῷ τοῦ συνήθους μᾶλλον ἀνοιδήσαντες
224
μέτρου ἐπὶ πλεῖστόν τε τοῦ πεδίου προχυθέντες πολύ τι μέρος τοῦ Ἀλαμανῶν στρατεύματος αὐτοῖς ἵπποις καὶ ὅπλοις καὶ αὐταῖς παρέσυραν ταῖς σκηναῖς ἐπὶ θάλασσάν τε ἀπὸ γῆς ἐξέπτυσαν φέροντες.
The barbarians (i.e. crusaders of Konrad III) proceed on their way, and when they reached the plains at Khoirobakkhoi (for there the country spreads and [provides] abundant grass especially for horses’ pasture), they camped there. There a calamity beyond words fell to them, from which one might reasonably guess that the Divinity was angry at them, who had committed perjury and who had shown great inhumanity towards people who were of the same religion and who had done them no wrong. When an unexpected storm suddenly burst, the rivers which flow past that place, one of which is called Melas, the other, called Athyras by the locals, rose far beyond the usual level and flooded the greatest part of the plain. They swept away a large portion of the Germans’ army with the horses, weapons, and the very tents; rushing along, they spewed them forth from land to sea.
Khoirobakkhoi is located as Çatalca, near modern Bahşayiş in Thrace, west of Istanbul. The toponym literally means “Pig-bacchides” (Kulzer, 2008, p. 313). The depiction (see above Th. Cont.) and the location suggest that this place is identical with Diabasis. Melas is today Karasu, note the Greek word also means Black. This passage is remarkable not only does it provide us with an accurate geographical depiction, but it also shows Kinnamos’ attitude towards this phenomenon. He clearly accepts that it has divine origins, for God was angry to crusaders for all their misdeeds towards their brother-in-Christ. Moreover, earlier in II.13, Kinnamos writes that these barbarians, i.e. Konrad’s German crusaders, were in a rough country, for from the River Danube up to Sardika (= Sofia) there rises many mountains, lofty and inaccessible (II.13: οἱ δὲ βάρβαροι μέχρι μὲν ἐν δυσχωρίαις ἦσαν (πολλὰ γὰρ ἐκ τοῦ ποταμοῦ Ἴστρου ἄχρι καὶ ἐπὶ Σαρδικὴν ὄρη ἀνέχει ὑψηλὰ καὶ δεινῶς ἄβατα). Kinnamos here correctly depicts Rhodope, Balkan Mountains, Lyulin and Vitosha mountains without naming them.
After the calamity above, Konrad makes haste towards Konstantinoupolis and reaches a place called Philopation at the opposite side of the Theodosian Walls. At that point Kinnamos makes a word-play, referring to Philopation, he states that “I don’t know whether [the name is] hinting at its pleasant habitation, for it provides relaxation and
225
release from cares to people who escape thither from urban chaos, or whether that it is overgrown with leaves and produces rich grass, [for] the place is widespread and bears everywhere a green look, he (= Konrad) gave his attention to the city’s wall from there. (II.14: ὃ Φιλοπάτιον ὀνομάζουσιν οὐκ οἶδα εἴτε τὴν φίλην αἰνιττόμενοι διατριβὴν (ἄνεσιν γάρ τινα παρέχεται καὶ φροντίδων ἀπαλλαγὴν τοῖς ἐκ τῶν ἀστικῶν ταράχων ἐνθάδε ἀπαλλασσομένοις) εἴτε καὶ τὴν φύλλοις κομῶσαν πόαν τε δαψιλῆ ἀνιεῖσαν (ἀμφιλαφὴς γὰρ ὁ χῶρος καὶ ἐπίχλοον ἁπανταχῆ φέρει τὸ πρόσωπον), ἐντεῦθεν τῷ περιβόλῳ προσεῖχε τοῦ ἄστεος). The exact location of Philopation is unknown. Kulzer (2008, p. 587) puts it somewhere at the west of Konstantinoupolis very close to Theodosios Land Walls at the level of Blackhernai. From the word-play Kinnamos made, we might deduce that the toponym comes from φίλον+πάτιον, which is the present participle of πατέω (to walk, to dwell in). This suggestion fits Kinnamos’ description and explanation. Niketas too mentions Philopation, yet not as detailed as Kinnamos, he simply writes that the plains that sloped down to Philopation, suitable for horse-riding outside the battlements could be seen through a side door of Blakhernai, i.e. Ayvansaray, (Nik. Khon. V.2.403.19-22: δεικνύων δὲ καὶ παράθυρον ἐν τοῖς βασιλείοις τῶν Βλαχερνῶν, δι' ἧς ὁρατὰ ἦν τὰ ἱππήλατα πεδία τὰ ἔξωθεν τῶν ἐπάλξεων ἐν τοῖς Φιλοπατίοις καθυπτιάζοντα).
Afterwards, Konrad sets out from there, his next course is narrated by Kinnamos as follows:
II.14 (p. 75.12-20): ἐνθένδεν ἀπηλλάττετο, τήν τε γέφυραν, ἣ τὴν ὑποκειμένην ὡς ἂν εἴποι τις ποταμοθάλασσαν ζεύγνυσι, ταχὺ διαβὰς ἐπί τι τῶν ἀντιπέρας Βυζαντίου κατήγετο προαστεῖον, ὃ Πικριδίου ὠνόμασται. ἔστι δὲ τὸ τοῦ ἐνταῦθα πορθμοῦ τοιοῦτον. ὁ Εὔξεινος πόντος ἀπορροήν τινα ποιούμενος ἐπὶ τὸ δεξιὸν εἰσπλέοντι μέρος ὡς ἐπὶ δυσμὰς ἄνεισι, λιμένα ἐπιμήκη Βυζαντίοις ἐργαζόμενος. ποταμὸς δέ τις ἄνωθέν ποθεν ἐκβάλλων τὸ ῥεῦμα κάτεισι μὲν διὰ τῶν τῇδε πεδιάδων, ὀλίγου δὲ Βυζαντίου ἄποθεν κατὰ κορυφὴν τῷ λιμένι ξυμβάλλων εἰς ταὐτὸν ἔρχεται, ἔνθα τὴν γέφυραν ἵστασθαι ξυμβαίνει.
[Konrad III] set out from there and swiftly crossed the bridge which yokes what one might call the adjacent “river-sea”, and arrived at one of the suburbs opposite Byzantion, which is called Pikridion. Here is the logic of the crossing there: The Pontos Euxeinos creates a backwater by turning to the right as it proceeds further west, forming an oblong harbour for the Byzantines. A certain
226
river which arises someplace higher up runs down through the plains there, then reaching the head of the harbour a little above Byzantion, it comes to the place where the bridge stands.
This passage is the evidence for the existence of a bridge over the Golden Horn outside the city wall, just west of Blakhernai, in the modern Eyüp district (Janin, 1964, pp. 465-466; Brand, 1992, pp. 237-238). Pikridion or Pikridou is at the south of present day Hasköy (Kulzer, 2008, p. 592). It appears Kinnamos accepts Bosporos and the Golden Horn as a branch of the Black Sea. The river which, according to Kinnamos, rise higher above and flows into Golden Horn, is either Kağıthane Deresi or Alibey/Alibeyköy Deresi. Kinnamos is sloppy at this one, for the two rivers flows into Golden Horn. In fact, it is the other way around, for the Golden Horn is the estuarial inlets of these two rivers (Fig. 3.32). Kinnamos is at the wrong there.
Figure 3.32 The Golden Horn, Pikridou, Petra, Kosmodion and the river Kinnamos depicts.
Later in VI.8, Kinnamos provides further depiction on the west of Konstantinoupolis.
VI.8 (p. 275.4-10): ...σκεψάμενος περί τινα χῶρον οὐ πολλῷ Βυζαντίου διέχοντα, ὃς Πέτρα κατωνόμασται, δεξαμενήν τινα ὑπόνομον ἐδο- μήσατο, ἥπερ βουνῶν ἑκατέρων ἐν κοιλότητι κατὰ μέσον ἱδρυμένη ἐπιμήκης στόμασι πολλοῖς ἐφ' ἑαυτὴν καὶ ὕδωρ ἐπιχάσκουσα δέχεται ὡς ἐκ μυρίων ὀχετῶν διὰ τῶν σχισμῶν σηράγγων ἐπ' αὐτὴν καταβαῖνον, ἡ δὲ διὰ τῶν ἐξ ἔθους αὖθις ὑπονόμων ἐπὶ τὴν πόλιν τοῦτο προΐησιν.
227
...[Manuel I] had examined a place not far from Byzantion, which was called Petra, constructed as an underground reservoir/cistern. Situated in a hollow between hills on both sides, it was extensive, with many mouths to it, and, gaping, received water which descended to it through hollowed clefts as if from countless channels. It carried [water] to the city through the regular underground systems.
The location of this “Petra” is not known. Janin claims (1964, p. 215) that it might be in modern Eyüp. Kulzer (2008, p. 580) places it in the south of Eyüp, which is known as Kosmodion. The first meaning of σῆραγξ is “a cave hollowed out by the water.” In the text, it is probably used as participium of σηραγγόομαι, which means to be/become hollow. The word used for channel is ὀχετός, which means water-pipe, duct, drain, canal; in plural form it also means stream. In the text, it is used in genetive plural form. However, from the context, we can argue that this word indicates an artificial canal.
Later, in the third book Kinnamos writes that Monembasia, which is the promontory of Lakonia was called so due to its shape (III.12: ἀκρωτηρίῳ τῆς Λακωνικῆς προσέσχεν, ὃ Μονεμβασία ἐκ τῆς τοῦ τόπου θέσεως πρὸς τῶν πολλῶν ὀνομάζετα). Monembasia means single entrance or single passage; Pausanias identifies the same place as Akra Minoa. Kinnamos’ use of Lakonia suggests an archaic approach for toponyms. However, his preference in Monembasia is clearly to highlight its topography, and it is a correct one (Fig. 3.33).
Figure 3.33 Monembasia.
The last depiction Kinnamos provides is on Doryleion.
228
VII.2 (p. 294.12-24): τὸ δὲ Δορύλαιον τοῦτο ἦν μὲν ὅτε πόλις ἦν μεγάλη τε εἴπερ τις τῶν ἐν Ἀσίᾳ καὶ λόγου ἀξία πολλοῦ. αὔρα τε γὰρ τὸν χῶρον ἁπαλὴ καταπνεῖ, καὶ πεδία παρ' αὐτὴν τέταται λειότητός τε ἐπὶ πλεῖστον ἥκοντα καὶ ἀμήχανόν τι προφαίνοντα κάλλος, οὕτω μέντοι λιπαρὰ καὶ οὕτως εὔγεω, ὡς τήν τε πόαν δαψιλῆ μάλιστα ἐκδιδόναι καὶ ἁβρὸν παρέχεσθαι ἄσταχυν. ποταμὸς δὲ διὰ τοῦ τῇδε τὸ νᾶμα πέμπει καὶ ἰδέσθαι καλὸς καὶ γεύσασθαι ἡδύς. πλῆθος ἰχθύων τοσοῦτον δὲ ἐννήχεται τούτῳ, ὅσον εἰς δαψίλειαν τοῖς τῇδε ἁλιευόμενον ἐλλιπὲς οὐδαμῆ γίνεσθαι. ἐνταῦθα Μελισσηνῶν ποτε καίσαρι οἰκίαι τε ἐξῳκοδόμηνται λαμπραὶ καὶ κῶμαι πολυάνθρωποι ἦσαν θερμά τε αὐτόματα καὶ στοαὶ καὶ πλυνοὶ,...
Dorylaion was once as great a city as any Asian city and much worthy of word. For a tender breeze blows over the land, and plain, very smooth and providing an extraordinary beauty, extend around it, so rich and fertile that it yields bountiful grass and produces extraordinary corn. A river, fair to see and sweet to taste, sends its stream through it. Such a multitude of fish swims in it that, there is no lack for those who fish there. Splendid dwellings had been erected there by a former caesar of the House Melissenos (prob. Nikephoros Melissenos), and there were populous villages and natural warm springs and porticoes and baths...
This is a little exaggerated depiction of what is today Şarkhöyük, Eskişehir (1990, p. 238). Ramsay (1890, pp. 212-213) suggests that the fish is inedible. Vryonis (1971, p. 123) provides the translation of this passage.
Kinnamos reference to Varangian Guards in I.3, solves our Thule problem. In this passage it is stated that Emperor Ioannes II ordered the “axe-bearers” around him, which Kinnamos explains further as the British people have been in service to the emperors of Romans for a long time) (...ἐκέλευε τοῖς ἀμφ' αὐτὸν πελεκυφόροις (ἔθνος δέ ἐστι τοῦτο Βρεταννικὸν βασιλεῦσι Ῥωμαίων δουλεῦον ἀνέκαθεν). Without giving any ambiguous geographical details like previous authors, Kinnamos tells us that the Varangians are British, Anglo-Saxon to be more precise. In that case, the Thule Island mentioned in other authors must be Britain. Also note that, since the antiquity, Βρετᾰνικός or Βρεττᾰνικός used to identify the people of Britain (Cassius Dio LX.12.5), however, Kinnamos here used Βρεταννικός (Bretannikos) here with double “ν”. As far as we know this is the only Βρεταννικός in the Greek texts.
229
To sum up, even though Kinnamos’ depictions are accurate, his approach is somehow sloppy. His depictions on the western plains of Konstantinoupolis is valuable, same with the depiction of the source of Maender. The sole reference to natural phenomena is explained by divine origins. It is not enough to conclude, but given the period’s trend, one cannot suggest otherwise. Niketas Khoniates
The Greek text of Khoniates's Historia we used in this chapter is the CFHB edition prepared by Jan Louis van Dieten (1975). We have also benefited from Harry J. Magoulias’ English translation (1984 ).
The first depiction in the text is the one that belongs to Sozopolis, which the author locates in Pamphylia, in fact, it was in Pisidia.129 Ergo, Khoniates is wrong whereas Kinnamos above is right (Kinnam. I.2). However, Khoniates’ depiction of the terrain is correct. According to his statement, it is hard to capture the city due to the city being heavily garrisoned and its inaccessible and precipitous terrain by which it is surrounded (I.12.25-13.2: ὡς δὲ δυσάλωτος ἐδόκει τις εἶναι διά τε τὸ ἐγκαθήμενον ἔνδον ὁπλιτικὸν καὶ τὸ δυσέμβολον τῆς θέσεως καὶ περίκρημνον). Khoniates’ error once again shows us that Byzantines have a problem positioning certain topoi, according to classical geography. In the same book Khoniates describes Anazarba as “a nurturing and crowded city, surrounded by stout walls situated above precipitous rocks...” (I.25.15-20: ἀλλὰ καὶ κατὰ τὴν Ἀνάζαρβαν πρότερον τὰ πλεῖστα ἐμόγησεν. ἡ γὰρ πόλις αὕτη, κουροτρόφος οὖσα καὶ πολυάνθρωπος, ἐρυμνοῖς διείληπται τείχεσι καὶ πετρῶν ἀποτόμων ὕπερθεν ἵδρυται). This depiction, Khoniates provides, is very accurate. Niketas gives no location, however from the following we understand that the Emperor was marching towards Antiokheia, where he was welcomed by Princeps Raymond (i.e. Raymond de Poitiers, the Prince of Antioch). In that passage, Khoniates states “the Emperor departed for Koile Syria and entered to the beautiful city of Antiokheia through which the Orontes River flows and the west wind blows (I.25.7-11: μετελθὼν ἐς τὴν Κοίλην Συρίαν ἄπεισι καὶ τὴν καλλίπολιν Ἀντιόχειαν εἰσιών, ἣν
129 Stephanos Byzantios locates it in Pisidia as well. However, he gives the name of the city as Σῴζουσαι. See the related article in Stephanos Byzantios’ Ethnika.
230
δίεισιν Ὀρόντης καὶ περιβομβεῖ Ζέφυρος ἄνεμος). Khoniates positions Antiokheia in Koile Syria. Later in I.30, Niketas tells us that Emperor Ioannes left the city of Antiokheia and arrived at the borders of Kilikia. In his second book, Niketas repeats this statement “Antiokheia, the capital city of Koile Syria, which is watered by the Orontes and the west-wind (zephyros) blows upon” (II.3.115.26-27: ταύτην λέγω τὴν τῆς Κοίλης Συρίας προκαθημένην, ἣν Ὀρόντης ποτίζει καὶ καταπνέει ζέφυρος ἄνεμος). This time he refers to Antiokheia as the capital of Koile Syria. Byzantine authors tend to place Antiokheia in Koile Syria. This, when combined with other statements above, raises the following question: Is this a geographical error or this is where Antiokheia located in Byzantine geography? The answer seems to be the latter.
Later in I.27.11-14, Niketas states that Emperor Ioannes decided to attack the “Syro-Phoenician” cities around Antioch which were occupied by the Agarenes (κόμητα, ἔγνω προσβαλεῖν ταῖς περὶ τὴν Ἀντιόχου ἱδρυμέναις καὶ παρ' Ἀγαρηνῶν κατεχομέναις Συροφοινίσσαις πόλεσι).130 Niketas uses Συροφοῑνίσσαις to describe the cities on the Levant coast. The term was also used by Loukianos (Luc. Deor.Conc. 4), however, it was most likely that Niketas borrowed it from the Gospel writer St. Mark (Mark. 7.26). The earliest example we could find was in Latin literature, in Iuvenalis’ Saturae (8. 159). Iuvenalis used Syrophoenix to describe the Jews, who live in Idymaean Gate (probably Porta Capena in Rome). In all of these references, the term is used to identify the people and not the region, unlike Niketas’.
Afterwards, Emperor returns to Kilikia and encamps there. According to Khoniates “encamped in the extremely wide ravine, which lies at the foot of greatly ascending twin-peaked mountains, called Crows’ Nest, went hunting” (I.40.4-6: Ἐν δ' εὐρυτάτῃ στρατοπεδευσάμενος φάραγγι, καθ' ἣν ὄρη δικόρυμβα ἐπὶ πολὺ τοῦ ἀέρος ἀνέβαινον, ἅπερ λόγος αἱρεῖ Κοράκων φωλεοὺς κικλήσκεσθαι, εἰς κυνηγέσιον ἔξεισι). The location of this “Crows’ Nest” is unknown. Kinnamos gives no details, he just mentions that the Emperor encamped in Kilikia was hunting enormous boar, which are
130 Note that in the beginning of this sentence Niketas writes that Emperor Ioannes stayed in the city for enough time, for he sees himself as the liege of both the Prince of Antioch and the Count of Tripoli (i.e. Raymond II de Tripoli). To describe liege Niketas uses λίζιον, which is no Greek word. It is the Hellenised version of French liege. This also shows that the Emperor acts according to European feudal law, at least towards the Latins.
231
common in the region (Kinnam. I.24-25). TIB can’t locate it either (Hild, 1990, p. 310). καθ' indicates a downwards position, which indicates that an extremely wide ravine was at the slopes of the mountain. According to Niketas’ narrative, the mountain is so great, in fact, that he uses ἐπὶ πολὺ τοῦ ἀέρος ἀνέβαινον, lit. ascends greatly to mists/sky. Other than these Niketas gives no further details, but only about the death of Ioannes II. According to him Emperor’s arrows were poisoned (στέγων ἔσωθεν ἰοβόλα βέλεμνα) and the Emperor accidentally cut his hand with them. Emperor was hunting with a javelin, but still bringing poisoned arrows to a hunting party does not make sense. A piece of skin called ἐκδορά was applied to his wound. Alas in vain. Note that Niketas mentions physicians as Ἀσκληπιάδαι, lit. means the disciples of Asklepios (medics or physicians in Byzantine Greek of course), which shows Niketas’ archaistic style.
In II.1.50.2-5, it appears Anna’s mistake regarding the River Saron in XII.2.4.5-8, is correct by Niketas with the statement as follows: ...ships entered Pyramos River which enriches Mopsuestia and mixes into the sea (αἳ τῷ Πυράμῳ ποταμῷ ἐνωρμίζοντο, ὃς Μοψουεστίαν λιπαίνων θαλάσσῃ προσπλέκεται). Thus, when Anna is wrong about this, Kinnamos and Khoniates are correct.
In his first book, which covers the reign of Emperor Ioannes II, Khoniates too depicts Lake Beyşehir, and very accurately we would say so, his depiction is as follows:
I.37.14-20: Ἤδη γὰρ καὶ τούτων ἔνιαι τοῖς Τούρκοις ὑπέκυψαν, ἐν αἷς ἦν καὶ ἡ τοῦ Πουσγούση καλουμένη λίμνη. αὕτη γὰρ εἰς ἀχανῆ καὶ μικροῦ θαλαςσίαν χύσιν ἐκτεινομένη ἐν πολλοῖς νησῖδας ἀνίσχει προβεβλημένας τείχεσιν ἐρυμνοῖς. ᾤκουν μὲν οὖν ταύτας τηνικάδε καιροῦ Χριστιανῶν ἐσμοί, οἳ καὶ διὰ λέμβων καὶ ἀκατίων τοῖς Ἰκονιεῦσι Τούρκοις ἐπιμιγνύμενοι οὐ μόνον τὴν πρὸς ἀλλήλους φιλίαν ἐντεῦθεν ἐκράτυναν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς ἐπιτηδεύμασιν αὐτῶν ἐν πλείοσι προσεσχήκασιν.
Some of these [regions] had already bowed to the Turks. The lake called Pousgouse was among them, stretching out into an immense almost sea-like expanse,131 [the lake] had islets scattered throughout which were protected by
131 χύσις might also be used to point out its sea-like stream.
232
strong walls. Back then these islands were inhabited by Christian settlers who through their fishing boats and light boats mingled with the Turks, not only did they strengthened their mutual bonds of friendship but also maintained successful commercial relations.
The phrase “τοῖς Ἰκονιεῦσι Τούρκοις ἐπιμιγνύμενοι” requests further elaboration. Niketas puts Ἰκονιεῦσι between τοῖς >...< Τούρκοις and it is dativus pluralis. We believe this sentence is not about crossing Iconium with light boats (how is that even possible?), but about the Turks’ identity. They were clearly the Turks who live in Konya, and the ἐπιμιγνύμενοι goes with Christian settlers (οἳ). So it is about the Christian settlers who mingled with the Turks of Konya, and since they lived in the islets on the lake they used boats to cross the other side of the lake, which has coast to Konya. That being said Magoulias’ translation (1984, p. 22) is in error there (These islands were inhabited by colonies of Christians who crossed Ikonion in their barks and light boats and, by mingling with the Turks).
In the second book, we see the same account of the calamity that befell German crusaders in Khoirobakkhoi.
II.1.64.12-27; 65.1-5: Εἶχε τοίνυν μεθ' ἡμέρας αὐτοὺς ἡ (†) τῶν Χοιροβάκχων πᾶσα ἱππήλατος πηγνύντας στρατόπεδον (...) παραρρεῖ δὲ ταῖς ἐκεῖσε πεδιάσι ποταμὸς οὐ πλατὺς τὸ ῥεῖθρον, οὐ βαθὺς τὴν περαίωσιν, Μέλας τοὔνομα. ἀλλ' οὗτος θέρους μὲν λειψυδρῶν ἐς χαράδραν132 συνάγεται τεναγώδη, ὅτι μηδὲ διὰ ψαμμώδους πρόεισι γῆς, ἀλλ' ἐριβώλακος ἁπάσης καὶ μέλανος καὶ εἰς βαθεῖαν σχιζομένης ἀρόταις βουσὶν αὔλακα· χειμῶνος δ' ἐφεστῶτος ἢ ῥαγδαίων ὑετῶν κατενεχθέντων ἐκ μικροῦ μέγιστος γίνεται καὶ προβὰς ἐς βαθυδίνην ἐκ πονηροῦ καὶ λακκαίου ἀνοιδαίνεται ὕδατος καὶ θαλάσσαις θέλων συνεξετάζεσθαι καὶ ποταμὸς οὐκέτ' ἀνεχόμενος εἶναι εἰς φλοῖσβον τραχύνεται καὶ πλωτὸς ἐκ βατοῦ γίνεται καὶ διεκχεῖται εἰς πλάτος. ἀμέλει καὶ διαρριπιζόμενος πνεύμασιν εἰς κῦμα μετεωρίζεται κἀντεῦθεν ἄχνην ἀποπτύων καὶ τῇ γείτονι χέρσῳ ὑβριστὴς προσαράσσων πόνους παρασύρει γεωργῶν, ὁδοιπόρους ἐπέχει τῆς ὁδοῦ, καὶ ὡς ἐπίπαν εἰς χρῆμα ἐπάρατον σχεδιάζεται.
132 χαράδρα, ἡ: I. mountain-stream, torrent, which cuts itself (χαράσσει) a way down the mountain-side, II. the bed of such a stream, gully, ravine.
233
Τότε τοίνυν οὗτος ὁ χειμάρρους ἐξ ὑετοῦ πολὺς καὶ κατακλύζων φανεὶς καὶ νυκτὸς ἐκ τοῦ αἰφνηδὸν ὑπερπλημμύρας, ὡς εἴπερ αὐτῷ οἱ καταρράκται ἀνεῴγεσαν οὐρανοῦ, ἀπάγει τῆς παρεμβολῆς τῶν Ἀλαμανῶν οὐ μόνον ὅπλα καὶ ἵππεια φάλαρα καὶ ἐσθήματα καὶ εἴ τι ἕτερον αὐτοῖς ἐσκευαγώγει τὰ ὑποζύγια, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἵππους καὶ ὀρέας καὶ ἄνδρας ἱπποκορυστάς.
Some days later, [the Germans] fixed their tents in the all (†) of Khoirobakkhoi, which is suitable for horse-riding (...) A narrow and shallow river stream named Melas flows by these plains. In the summer, the lack of water turns it into a shallow gully, and it doesn’t move through gravel/sandy soil but through the extremely fertile black/murky earth and cuts a channel like a deep furrow as if it is made by ox-driven ploughs. With the coming winter or with a downpour of violent heavy showers, it greatly expands from a drop, and from worthless cistern water it swells into a deep-eddying [river]. Rivalling the seas and no longer content to be a river, it becomes rough like roaring [waves], it becomes navigable and whilst passable it extends widely. (‡) Dispersed by winds it rises high waves and spits out foam as it violently dashes against the neighbouring dry land to sweep away the farmers’ toil and pours itself over the travellers from the road. The river now totally acts like an accursed monster. Swollen by violent rains it (i.e. Melas) deluged and suddenly overflowed that night, (= 7-8 September 1147) as if the cataracts of heaven had opened into it, Melas carried away the German camp not only the weapons and horse harnesses, whatever goods the pack-animals were carrying, but also the horses, mules and the knights too
As we have stated it is Çatalca, near modern Bahşayiş in Thrace, west of Istanbul. In (†) Niketas gives no nomen, but an adjective. Adjective πᾶσα is femininum and goes with the articulus ἡ. The missing word (most probably πεδιάς) it modifies must be ‘a plain’, for in the following sentence Niketas tells us that the River Melas flows through πεδιάσι (plains). Kinnamos too identifies this location as a plain and states that it is especially suitable for horses (See above Kinnam. II.14). Secondly, we translate the expression οὐ πλατὺς ... οὐ βαθὺς, as ‘not wide’ and ‘not deep’, however in the same paragraph Niketas says that the river becomes navigable in winters and it rivals the seas. If the river is narrow and shallow then how can it be navigable? If by extending (διεκχεῖται εἰς πλάτος) he meant flood then why did he use the word navigable
234
(πλωτός). (‡) What Niketas meant by is this is the following: The river is passable in summers but in winters it extends and becomes impassable once again. The very word Niketas used for the German crusader knights is a delicate wordplay. In Homeric context, ἱπποκορυστής means chariot-equipped, chariot-fighter or the individual heroes, since chariot was used by nobility (Hom. Il. 2.1). Niketas writes as ἄνδρας ἱπποκορυστάς, which can be translated directly as charioteer men. Of course in the Medieval Era chariot was long gone and what Niketas wanted to say is that these German “charioteers” were knights. Knights were the warrior-elite of Medieval Europe, and like the Mycenaean warrior-elite centred around chariots, they were centred around horses.
Like Kinnamos, Niketas too describes Maender in his second book. According to Niketas, the Turks blocked the Latins from fording the river. He writes that “at any other time and place, whole river was already not easy to cross, but at this time it was completely impassable due to its rushing stream and whirlpools” (II.1.67.17-20: οἱ δὲ εἰς φάλαγγας πυκνωθέντες καὶ ταῖς ὄχθαις ἐφεστῶτες τοῦ ποταμοῦ (Μαίανδρος οὗτος ἦν) οὐκ εἴων ὅλως τὰ Λατινικὰ στρατεύματα διελθεῖν. ἔστι δ' οὗτος καὶ τὸν ἕτερον μὲν ἅπαντα χρόνον οὐ ῥᾴδιος ἁπανταχῇ τὴν περαίωσιν, τότε δὲ καὶ τέλεον ἦν ἄπορος, εἰς δίνας ἑλιττόμενος καὶ μεταχωρῶν εἰς στροφάλιγγας).
Niketas’ description of Korinthos show his archaistic attitude
II.2.75.7-11: Ἔστι δὲ ὁ Ἀκροκόρινθος τῆς μὲν πάλαι πόλεως Κορίνθου ἀκρόπολις, νυνὶ δὲ φρούριον ὀχυρόν, αὐτὸ δὲ ὄρος ὑψηλόν, εἰς ὀξεῖαν τελευτῶν κορυφήν, αὕτη δὲ εἰς τραπεζῶδες χωρίον ἀποτελευτῶσα ἐπίπεδον, τετειχισμένον ἀσφαλῶς. ἔνδοθεν δέ εἰσι ποτίμου καὶ διαυγοῦς ὕδατος οὐκ ὀλίγα φρεάτια καὶ ἡ Πειρήνη κρήνη, ἧς ἐν ῥαψῳδίᾳ Ὅμηρος μέμνηται.
Akrocorinthos was the acropolis of the ancient city of Korinthos, now a stout fortress on a high, sharp-peaked mountain that stands on a table-shaped plain safely fortified by walls. Within there were several cisterns of drinkable and clear water, as well as the Peirene/Pirene fountain recalled/made famous by Homeros in his rhapsodia/epic poetry.
Akrokorinthos litteraly means upper-Korinthos. Strabon uses the same adjective to τραπεζῶδες (table-shaped) describe a plain close to famous -and almost mythical- Egyptian Labyrinthos, which is close to Lake Moeris. (17.1.37.1; τι τραπεζῶδες
235
χωρίον: a tablet-shaped plain.) Niketas’ choice of these two words shows his classicising approach, which is at the level of stubbornness. Yet, it seems Niketas is in error about his reference to Homeros, for nowhere in Ilias or Odysseia, Homeros mention Peirene fountain. However, Pausanias does (II.3.2-3.). Nevertheless, the depiction Khoniates provided is very accurate, as can also be seen from the satellite image below.
Figure 3.34 Akrokorinthos is situated on the top of a sharp-peaked monolithic rock known by the same name, which stands on a table-shaped plain.
Thanks to Niketas’s account on the Siege of Kerkyra in 1149, we have a notable depiction of Kerkyra (i.e. Corfu), which is as follows:
II.2.78.5-10: Ἔστι δὲ ἡ Κερκυραίων ἄκρα αἰγίλιψ πᾶσα καὶ ἀγχινεφής, ἑλικοειδὴς τὴν θέσιν καὶ ὑψικόρυμβος, προσνενευκυῖα ἐς τὸ βάθιστον τῆς θαλάσσης. πέτραι δὲ περιερρώγεσαν αὐτὴν ἀμφίκρημνοι καὶ ἀπότομοι, τὸ δ' ὕψος ὑπὲρ τὴν ᾀδομένην Ἄορνιν. τείχη δὲ ἀρραγῆ τὴν πόλιν περιείληφε πᾶσαν καὶ πύργων περιεστᾶσιν ὑψώματα, ἃ καὶ ποιοῦσι τὴν ταύτης παραλογωτέραν ἅλωσιν.
The citadel of Kerkyra, too sheer even for the goats, reaches to clouds, winding with lofty peaks and bends towards the deepest waters. Its precipitous and abrupt cliffs are broken all around,133 its summit is higher than the famous
133 εριρρήγνῡμι: lit broken all round, precipitous.
236
Aornos. Impregnable walls embrace the city and high towers surrounds it, which makes her capture even more unexpected.
Aornos or Aornis, was the name of the mountain located in modern Pakistan. It was famous in antiquity because of Alexander the Great’s last siege. According to DGE Aornis means “birdless” (Esp. sin pájaros), for the mountain was so high even the birds can’t make their nest on it. However, the name probably derives from Sanskrit or the Old Persian word for “stronghold”. In the following lines, according to Niketas, Kerkyra’s citadel was so high that Ioannes Axoukhos thought he was not able to pile the mountains on top of one another in order to take that lofty citadel (ἀνατιθέναι τὰ ὄρη ἐπάλληλα καὶ τὴν ἄκραν οὕτως ποιεῖν ἁλώσιμον). Furthermore, Niketas writes that “Axoukhos examining from all sides, thinking about a ravine whose interior was both accessible and approachable, proposed to set up a wooden ladder built in the shape of a tower on all sides (= siege-tower). (...) When this tower-ladder pushed into the citadel, its peak touched the beetling cliff on the shore and jagged crag at the point where the city wall began, providing a stepping place for those about to leap from the ladder” (II.2.82.18-26: Ὡς δὲ πάντοθεν ἦν ἀπορούμενος, ἔδοξε κατά τινα φάραγγα, εὐέφοδα καὶ προσιτὰ τιθεῖσαν τὰ ἔνδοθεν, βαλέσθαι ξυλίνην κλίμακα, ἐς σχῆμα πύργων τεκτονηθεῖσαν κύκλωθεν. (...) ὡς δὲ ἔδει ποτὲ ἀρθῆναι καὶ παρὰ τὴν ἄκραν τεθῆναι τὴν πυργοειδῆ ταύτην κλίμακα, ἡ μὲν κορυφὴ αὐτῆς ῥαχίᾳ πέτρας134 καὶ πάγῳ προσήγγιζεν ὀκριόεντι, ὅθεν ὁ τῆς πόλεως τειχισμὸς ἀρχόμενος βάσιν ἐνεδίδου τοῖς ἀποβαίνειν ἐκ τῆς κλίμακος μέλλουσι).
Now, from the description above we have located this as the Citadel of Kerkyra, which is also known as the Old Fort. Angeloukastron that lies at the western coast of the island was also another candidate. Angeloukastron is situated on top of a higher and more precipitous rock, which can clearly be seen in Fig. 3.35. However, there are a few things that assert the contrary. First of all, Niketas writes that the walls “embrace the city” and points to a certain spot which “the city walls begin”, secondly he claims that the Imperial Navy surrounds “the cape” (Αἱ μὲν δὴ ναυτικαὶ δυνάμεις τὴν ἄκραν περιστεψάμεναι). This cape or ἄκρα clearly refers to the cape citadel lies upon, which
134 αὐτῆς ῥαχίᾳ πέτρας (lit. cliffy rocky shore) indicates that this cliff is on the shore.
237
is today known as Akra Sideros (Άκρα Σίδερος).135 In short, Niketas gives us a little exaggerated depiction of the Citadel of Kerkyra (Fig. 3.36).
Figure 3.35 Angeloukastron in Kerkyra.
Figure 3.36 The Citadel of Kerkyra.
In the second book (II.3.120), Niketas records Sultan Kilij Arslan II’s visit. During this visit, a certain man of “Hagarenes origin” at the top of the column near Hippodromos, tried to fly. The man was wearing a folded garment like a sail of a ship, thus by unfolding his garment he was planning to fly. However, it appears that the man was more piteous skywalker (οὐρανοδρόμος) than Ikaros, for like a solid mass subject
135 The eastern cape of Krete is also know with the same name. Strabon refers to same cape as (Str. II.4.3)
238
to gravity he fell to the ground (ὡς σῶμα κεντροβαρὲς136 χαμαιρριφής ... τέλος δὲ καταπεσὼν). Note that according to Işıltan’s Turkish translation (1995, p. 82) and according to some Turkish historians this man was Turkish.137 This is totally wrong for Niketas describes this man as “τις ἀνὴρ τῆς Ἄγαρ ἀπόγονος” (tis anēr tēs Agar apogonos) yet in the same part, he refers to Turkish Sultan as σουλτὰν Τούρκων. If this “pseudo-Ikaros” was a Turk he would use the same adjective he used for the Sultan. Hence, Τουρκός or Τουρκικός. Thus, those who claim this man was a Turk, done this either because they approached the matter ideologically or because they did not have the knowledge of proper Ancient Greek let alone Medieval Greek, to read the original texts. Even though this passage is not related to this study nevertheless, it is worthy of mention, given the argument. Moreover, Niketas also records an earthquake that occurred during this visit. Niketas gives no detail but only states that the buildings collapsed. According to him, it was God’s doing, for the God cancelled that day’s joy (II.3.119: θεὸς δ' ἠκύρωσε τὰ τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης λαμπρά). The exact date of the earthquake cannot be identified. However, from Kilij Arslan’s visit, we are certain that it occurred in 1162. Guidoboni (2005, p. 171) as well, cannot give a precise date.
If we are to return to the matter at hand, in the following chapter a problematic depiction of modern Zemun, Belgrad welcomes us. According to Niketas “Zeugminon, located on a hill, and walled by a flowing river was inaccessible from the south” (II.4.133.18-20: Ἔστι δὲ τοῦτο κατὰ μεσημβρίαν ἀπρόσβατον γηλόφῳ περιήκοντι καὶ ποταμίῳ τειχιζόμενον ῥεύματι). Now the location of the river is a bit problematic. If the river mentioned is the Sava which lies 6 km south of Belgrad, then the expression is a bit exaggerated. If it is the Danube, which is right at the north of the city. Then it is an error. The hill mentioned must be Gardos, where the old city along with its fort is situated (Fig. 3.37). περιήκοντι also means ‘to surround’ in medium-passive, but the participle is active and it is in present form. So can’t mean ‘surrounded’.
136 According to Lexikon zur byzantinischen Gräzität κεντροβαρής means “der Schwerkraft unterworfen” (subject to gravity). Note that the title of Archimedes’ treatise was as τά κεντροβαρικά.
137 For the claim see Kesik, M. (2002). Türkiye Selçuklu Sultanı II. Kılıç Arslan'ın İstanbul'u Ziyareti ve Türkler'in Tarihteki İlk Uçuş Denemesi (1162) BELLETEN, 66 (247), 839-848.
239
Figure 3.37 Zeugminon, Sava and Danube in the north.
In the sixth chapter of the same book, Niketas mentions exaggeratedly his hometown Khonai, i.e. modern Honaz in Denizli.
II.6.178.14-23: Ἀπάρας οὖν τῆς βασιλίδος τῶν πόλεων Φρυγίαν τε καὶ Λαοδίκειαν διελθὼν ἀφικνεῖται ἐς Χώνας, πόλιν εὐδαίμονα καὶ μεγάλην, πάλαι τὰς Κολοσσάς, τὴν ἐμοῦ τοῦ συγγραφέως πατρίδα. καὶ τὸν ἀρχαγγελικὸν ναὸν εἰσιών, μεγέθει μέγιστον καὶ κάλλει κάλλιστον ὄντα καὶ θαυμασίας χειρὸς ἅπαντα ἔργον, ἐκεῖθεν ἐξελάσας εἰς Λάμπην ἵκετο καὶ πόλιν Κελαινάς, ἔνθα τοῦ Μαιάνδρου εἰσὶν αἱ ἐκδόσεις καὶ ὁ Μαρσύας ῥεῖ ποταμὸς ἐμβάλλων εἰς Μαίανδρον καὶ ὁ Ἀπόλλων ἐκδεῖραι Μαρσύαν ἐκεῖ που λέγεται καθάπερ μύωπι οἰστρηθέντα βιαίῳ καὶ περὶ τῆς ἀοιδῆς ἐρίζειν ἀρξάμενον πρὸς Ἀπόλλωνα. κἀκεῖθεν εἰς τὸ Χῶμα ἐλθὼν τῷ Μυριοκεφάλῳ ἐφίσταται· φρούριον δὲ τοῦτο παλαιὸν καὶ ἀοίκητον,
The Emperor [Manuel I] set out from the Queen of Cities (= Konstantinoupolis), passing through both Phrygia and Laodikeia, and arrived at Khonai, a wealthy and great city, the ancient Kolossai, the hometown of our historian. He entered the Church of the Archangel [ Michael] biggest and most beautiful and a marvel of craftsmanship among all, then marched on to Lampe and reached the city of Kelainai, where are the [waters] of the Maeander and where the Marsyas River flows and discharges into the Maeander. Where, it is told that Apollon flayed Marsyas who, as if he had been driven mad by a horsefly, had challenged Apollon over a song. From there he went on through Khoma and stopped at the abandoned ancient fortress of Myriokephalon,...
240
Niketas insistence to use ancient toponyms shows itself once more. His contemporary Kinnamos mentioned Kelainai as Apameia (mod. Dinar), which is more common in Byzantine literature. Yet, Niketas prefers Kelainai and also retells the famous tale of Marsyas. In fact, the lines are very similar to Herodotos’ account, in which he tells the march of Xerxes through Kelainai, which he also identifies as the source of Maender and mentions the same tale about Marsyas (Hdt. VII.26). The route and the description Niketas had provided is accurate. Moreover, this passage is notable to show his classicist attitude.
From the passage above it can be seen that Emperor Manuel is advancing towards Myriokephalon, where he caught the devil. Henceforth, the following chapters are about the Myriokephalon. The first depiction is as follows:
II.6.178.27-180.15: ...προκαταλαμβάνει τὰς δυσχωρίας, αἳ κλεισώρειαι τοῦ Τζιβρίτζη κατονομάζονται, ἃς καὶ ἤμελλον Ῥωμαῖοι μετὰ τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ Μυριοκεφάλου παριέναι ἄπαρσιν, κἀκεῖσε τὰς οἰκείας* παραβύει φάλαγγας, ὡς ἀντιτάξαιντο Ῥωμαίοις αὐτίκα δὴ παριοῦσιν. ἔστι δὲ ὁ τόπος οὗτος ἐπιμήκης αὐλὼν ἔχων ὀρῶν ὑπερβολάς, κατὰ μὲν τὸ βόρειον κλίμα ὑποκαταβαίνων τοῦ ἀνάντους ἠρέμα εἰς γήλοφα καὶ πρὸς εὐρείας κοιλαινόμενος φάραγγας, κατὰ δὲ θάτερον μέρος εἰς προτομὰς προνεύων πετρῶν καὶ εἰς κρημνώδεις σύμπας ἀναστάσεις παρερρωγώς.
... [Kilij Arslan II] occupied the rough ground called the defiles/kleisourai of Tzivritze in advance, through which the Romans were to pass after leaving Myriokephalon. There he deployed his own138 phalanxes to resist the Romans. This place is an oblong defile with mountain passes that descends slightly [towards] the steep northern slope to the hills [below] and opening up into broad ravines and then descending on the other side to the front of the jutting rocks and totally precipitous, rising ravines139
See the following passage below. Belke and Mersich (1990, p. 343)7 locates Myriokephalon in Kırkbaş, Yalvaç. This suggestion is also based on toponym
138 Niketas uses οἰκεῑᾱς, which might also means that this “phalanx” was either consisted of his kinsman or it was something like his household guard.
139 ἀναστάσεις παρερρωγώς lit. means rising/standing broken ground.
241
continuation Kırkbaş (Forty Heads) and Myriokephalon (Thousand or Countless Heads). Tzivritze/Tzibritze was a kleisoura (as Niketas said) is the historical name for the gorge-like valley of the Çay at the northwest end of the Sultan Dağları, opening north to the town of the same name (ibid, p. 411; Fig. 3.38).
Figure 3.38 Myriokephalon and the possible location of Tzibritze.
In the following lines narration continues:
II.6.180.6-17: Ἐπὶ τοιαύτης οὖν ἐλαύνειν μέλλων ὁδοῦ οὐδέν τι τῷ στρατῷ συνοῖσον προμηθευσάμενος φαίνεται· οὔτε γὰρ τὸ πολὺ τῶν σκευοφόρων ἀπεσκευάσατο ἢ γοῦν τὰς ἁμάξας ἐκποδὼν ἔθετο, αἳ τὰς τειχομάχους ἔφερον μηχανάς, οὔτε μὴν ἀπεπειράσατο σὺν εὐζώνῳ τάγματι ἀπώσασθαι Πέρσας πρότερον ἐκ τῶν ἀμφιλαφῶν ἐκείνων καὶ ὀρειαίων παρόδων καὶ λειᾶναι οὕτω τῷ στρατῷ τὴν δίοδον, ἀλλ' ὡς εἶχεν ἐπὶ πεδινῶν ποιούμενος τὴν πορείαν, οὕτω κἀπὶ τῆς τρυμαλιᾶς ἐκείνης συνθλίβεσθαι εἵλετο, καίπερ ἀκοῇ προειληφώς, μετὰ βραχὺ δὲ καὶ τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς ἔχων αὐτοπείρως πιστουμένους τὰ ἀκουόμενα, ὡς οἱ βάρβαροι κατειληφότες τὰς ἀκρωρείας ἐπίθωνται καὶ ὡς πᾶσαν μὲν φαρέτραν ἐκπωματίσουσι, πᾶν δὲ βέλος ἀφήσουσιν, ὅπως Ῥωμαίους τροπωσάμενοι τοῦ πρόσω βαίνειν ἐπίσχωσιν.
242
It appears that [Emperor Manuel] took no measures140 for the army gathered when he set out on such a path.141 For he neither get rid of the heavy loads of the pack animals/baggage, nor even he put aside the wagons carrying the siege-engines, nor did he try to repel the Persians (i.e. Turks) in advance from the overgrown mountain passes with a tagmata of light troops, thus clearing the way for the army. After making his way over the plains, he chose to be pressed in this hole, even though he had been forewarned. Soon he was about to verify these reports with his own eyes when the barbarians, who occupied the mountain ridges, would attack, emptying all of their quivers by releasing arrows, thereby putting the Romans to flight and cutting their advance.
Niketas choice of συνθλίβεσθαι εἵλετο (he chose to be pressed) clearly shows that he blames Emperor Manuel for this disaster. Niketas refers to the same narrow defile, however, to mark its narrowness this time he uses τρυμαλιάς. Note that this also means “the eye of the needle”, the very metaphor used in the Bible.
Niketas’ narrative continues throughout the chapter. He states that the retreating Byzantine infantry startled the Turkish forces deployed on the hills by the mountain (II.6.180.29-180.1: τοὺς βαρβάρους ἐκ τῶν γηλόφων ἀνασειράζουσαι, ἐφ' ὧν ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄρους), and drove them away to the higher slopes (κἀπὶ τὸ ἄναντες παλίμποδας ἀνεστοίβαζον). It is clear that Niketas makes a distinction between hills (γήλοφος) and mountains (ὄρος). The retreating Byzantine army stucks in the narrow mountain pass and get massacred. Niketas describes this as follows:
II.6.181.25-182.2: ἵππος καὶ ἀναβάτης ὁμοῦ κατεβέβληντο. αἱ σήραγγες μεσταὶ σωμάτων προυφαίνοντο. τὰ ἄλση τῶν πεσόντων πεπλήρωτο. αἱμάτων ῥύακες προύβαινον κελαρύζοντες. αἷμα συνεφύρετο αἵματι, τῷ τῶν ὑποζυγίων τὸ βρότειον.
The horse and its rider were cast down together. The hollows were filled with bodies. The groves were filled with the fallen. The gurgling, rushing streams
140 προμηθεύω is a Medieval Greek verb. According to LBG it means provide, provide for (Ger. besorgen, vorsorgen, sorgen für). In this context we preferred to translate it as “to take measures.”
141 lit. the very path he used to confront Kilij Arslan II.
243
flowed red with blood. Blood mixed with human blood and with the blood of animals.
“The horse and its rider were cast down together.” is from Exodus 15.1-21, where the army of Pharaoh was vanquished by “God”. It is strange that Niketas chose such reference for his own army, which was fighting against non-Christians. However, the following sentence about hollows and groves filled with the fallen and the rivers flowing red with the blood is not from that part. We don’t believe what Niketas gave here was a geographical detail but a preciosity. Yet, his expression above clearly depicts a mountainous difficult region, full of narrow defiles.
In his fifth book (V.1.380.4-10), Niketas states that Alexios Branas, a pretender to the imperial throne, “detached a division of his army and sent them to the northern side of Konstantinoupolis, opposite the strait famously called the Ford of the Ox (ἥτις πόρος Βοὸς κληΐζεται), from there the channel of the sea (θαλάττιος ὁλκὸς) can be clearly seen as far as to the imperial palace in the Blakhernai, and also the whole part of the City facing north” (καὶ ὅσα πρὸς ἄνεμον βορρᾶν ἐπινενεύκασι μέρη τῆς πόλεως). And also adds that this division ascended the high ground of the hill and raised their banners (οἵ γε τὸ ἐπιτετραμμένον τέλει διδόντες τοὺς ἐκεῖσέ πῃ μετεώρους γηλόφους ἀνιόντες τὰς σημαίας ἠνέμωσαν). It is clear that the pretender army was at the north of Konstantinoupolis, at the west bank of Bosporos. For they could see the whole northern side of the city. Yet, “the opposite side of the Ford of the Ox” is problematic, although Niketas’ description is remarkable clearly showing his knowledge. Note that ὁλκὸς also means the movement of a serpent, hence by θαλάττιος ὁλκὸς Niketas identifies Golden Horn as the curves of the sea. Furthermore, his statement on the island of Prinkipos and Prote is very interesting, he states that “I speak of Prinkipos and Prote and all those [islands] around them rising from the deep.” (III.251.12-13: φημὶ τὴν Πρίγκιπον καὶ τὴν Πρώτην καὶ ὅσαι περὶ αὐτὰς ἀνίσχουσι τοῦ βυθοῦ·). It seems like he has a theory on the creation of these islands. However, he provides no further details, and even he had a source, it certainly was an unknown one.
As we have presented above, when it comes to the geography of the east, Byzantines are in error. The same goes for Niketas. In his fifth book, Niketas states that Corrado del Monferrato set sails for Palestina with his fellow crusaders and anchors at Tyros. According to Niketas he fought against Muslims and along with other cities, he retook Ioppe, which is called Ake, Acre (V.2.394.13-16: Νῆα γὰρ ἐξαρτύσας εὐπαγῆ τε καὶ
244
νεογόμφωτον τὸν πλοῦν ἐς Παλαιστίνην ἔθετο καὶ τῇ Τύρῳ προσορμίσας καὶ παρὰ τῶν ἐκεῖσε ὁμογενῶν ὡς οἷά τις κρείττων ὁραθεὶς καὶ προσδεχθεὶς δύναμις τοῖς Σαρακηνοῖς ἀντεφέρετο, Ἰόππην ἐπανασωσάμενος, ἣ νῦν Ἄκε λέγεται, καὶ ἑτέρας πόλεις τοῖς ὁμοφύλοις). However, Niketas is in error here, for Ioppe is the present-day Jaffa and Ake is Acre, which are totally different cities.
From this point forward, Niketas’ depictions mostly focus on the Balkans and Hellas, as a result of his narrative focusing on Bulgarians and the Crusaders. In the summer of 1191, Emperor Isaakios Angelos sets out for a military expedition against Bulgarians and Scythians (i.e Cumans). According to Niketas, the imperial army advances to Balkan Mountains through Ankhialos142 (V.3.428.25-26: δὴ τὴν Ἀγχίαλον παραλλάξας ἐκ περιελεύσεως τὸν Αἷμον εἴσεισι), which indicates that the Emperor either followed the coast-line or directly sailed to Ankhialos. Nevertheless, the enemy does not show up. Emperor decides to build some fortifications, which Niketas describes as “refitting my feet like a deer's and setting me on the heights, training my hands for battle.”143 which in fact is from Psalms 17:34. This is the second time Niketas uses a Biblical reference to emphasise his geographical description (the first being above in the description about the terrain of Myriokephalon). After the order, the Emperor decides to return via “shortcut.”
V.3.429.5-21: ἣν τέμνων εἰς Βερόην διὰ τῶν ἐκεῖσε τεμπῶν ὑποκαταβήσεται, τό τε πλεῖον ἀπώλεσε τοῦ στρατεύματος καὶ αὐτό (...) δέον γὰρ διὰ τῆς εὐρυνομένης ἐνιαχοῦ καὶ ἐνδιδούσης ἱκανῶς ἐνιππάσασθαι πορευθῆναι, τρυμαλιᾷ δυσβάτων χωρίων καὶ ὀρεινῶν αὐλῶνι παρόδων παρενέβυσεν ἑαυτὸν καὶ τὴν στρατιάν. παρέρρει δὲ κατὰ τὸν ἐκεῖ χῶρον καὶ ὑδάτιον ἐκ χειμάρρου. (...) οἱ δὲ βάρβαροι παρ' ἑκάτερα τῆς στενῆς ἐκείνης παρόδου φαινόμενοι δῆλοι ἦσαν ἀεί τι τελέσοντες δεινόν.
As he was cutting his way to Beroe through descending into the valleys, he lost the major part of his army, (...) In places, the ground was so rough as to be
142 Modern Pomorie, Bulgaria (Soustal, 1991. p. 175). Note that Niketas uses the toponmy in classical Greek.
143 V.3.429.1-3: τοὺς ἔξωθεν ἀμυνομένους ὡσεὶ καὶ ἐλάφους ἐπὶ τὰ ὑψηλὰ τοὺς πόδας ἱστῶντας καὶ δίκην αἰγάγρων κρημνοβατοῦντας καὶ τὴν εἰς χεῖρας συμπλοκὴν ἀλυσκάζοντας)
245
almost impassable and to cross the mountain passes he had to squeeze his troops through holes and defiles where a mountain stream flowed. (...) The barbarians, positioned on both sides of this narrow pass, were clearly in a position to do harm at any time.
As we have stated, Haimos is the Balkan Mountains (Mt. Haimos). Since Emperor decides to go Beroa (present-day Stara Zagora) via short the short path this cannot be Sidera that Anna Komnene mentioned (An. Komn. VII.3.1.5-13). Ergo, this must be Sredna Gora, which fits Niketas’ description. Brand (1992, p. 93) too locates it as Sredna Gora (Fig. 3.39).
Figure 3.39 Ankhialos and Sredna Gora.
Previously, Niketas provides another depiction of the Balkan Mountains, not only that but also a Solar Eclipse, which occurred on 21 April 1186. Niketas clearly accredits it to God.
V.1.372.10-373.6: τὸν δ' Αἷμον ὑποκατέρχονται, καὶ Ῥωμαϊκαῖς ἐπικαταρραγέντες κωμοπόλεσιν ἀπροσδόκητοι (...) Ἔξεισι τοίνυν ὁ βασιλεὺς κατ' αὐτῶν. οἱ δὲ τῶν δυσχωριῶν καὶ ἀπροσβάτων αὖθις ἐπιλαβόμενοι ἀντέσχον ἐπὶ πολύ. γνόφου δὲ παρὰ δόξαν ἀναβάντος ὑπὸ θεοῦ, ὃς σκότος τίθησι τὴν οἰκείαν ἀποκρυβήν, καὶ τὰ ὄρη καλύψαντος, ἃ ἐτήρουν οἱ βάρβαροι τὰς τῶν παρόδων στενὰς προλοχίσαντες, (...) ὁ δὲ βασιλεὺς κατὰ πολλὴν τοῦ κωλύσοντος ἐρημίαν πᾶσαν τὴν Μυσίαν ἔχων περιελθεῖν καὶ φρουρὰς ἐπιστῆσαι ταῖς ἐκεῖσε πόλεσιν, αἳ πολλαὶ μέν εἰσι κατὰ τὸν Αἷμον, αἱ δὲ πλείους ἢ γοῦν ἅπασαι σχεδὸν ἐπὶ πετρῶν ἀποτόμων καὶ περινεφῶν γηλόφων πεπολισμέναι,
246
[Bulgarians and Vlachs] descended from Mount Haimos, fell unexpectedly upon the Roman towns, (...) Thus Emperor [Isaakios II Angelos] marched out against them, and they, in turn, occupied the rough ground and inaccessible places and hold for a long time. But unexpectedly a blackness was ascended by God he who placed darkness to conceal the land,144 and covered the mountains which were guarded by the barbarians, who had laid ambuscades at the narrow defiles; (...) The Emperor was stalled by the vast wilderness from making all his way around Mysia. Many of the cities there are in the surroundings of [Mt.] Haimos, and the majority and in fact all of them, are built on precipitous rocks/cliffs and misty hills.
Misty hills can be also read as hills around clouds, pointing to their height. Note that in Niketas’ account Mysia here is Bulgaria, which he portrayed accurately.
V.3.451.21-24: καὶ τὸν ποταμὸν ἐπικινδύνως διαβάς, ὃς ἐκεῖσε βαθυδίνης διὰ τοῦ πεδίου σύρεται, εἴχετο τῆς ὁδοῦ ἐς οὐδέν τι προδήλως σῶζον κατάντημα συνορῶν
At his own risk, he crossed the deep-eddying river which draws through the plain and then kept on the road, for he couldn’t see another way out.
This must be the River Maritsa. Magoulias gives reference to Hom. Il. II. 70 (δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ Ἡφαίστοιο μέγας ποταμὸς βαθυδίνης, ὃν Ξάνθον καλέουσι θεοί, ἄνδρες δὲ Σκάμανδρον.) However, both grammatically and semantically it has nothing to do with Homeros. The river mentioned in Ilias is Scamander/Xanthos River and in Niketas, despite the name of the river not being given it is clearly Maritsa, for the Emperor returns from the Balkans to Konstantinoupolis. On the other hand, Niketas’ scholarship has a certain problem that is his inappropriate references. Because of his constant references to classical or Byzantine literature or Bible; the details he provided could be a mere reference with literary value rather than geographical. A similar approach can be seen in IX.605.10-1, where Niketas describes Argos as grazed by horses, by treachery (τὸ γὰρ ἱππόβοτον Ἄργος ὑπονοθεύσας). This definition of Argos comes from Ilias, see. Hom. Il. 2.287 (ἀπ᾽ Ἄργεος ἱπποβότοιο); and once again in IX.610,
144 It seems Magoulias (1984, p. 256) forgot to translate this part.
247
where Niketas retells the same story of Alpheios which we see in Pausanias (5.7.2). However, he gives no geographical detail just the story to embellish his narrative.
In the ninth book, which covers the aftermath of Konstantinoupolis’ fall to crusaders, Niketas this time refers to Maritsa as Euros, with its classical name.
IX.632: περὶ τοίνυν τὸ Διδυμότειχον καταστρατοπεδευσάμενος καὶ τὸ χωρίον ὁρῶν ὑπερδέξιον χαλεπόν τε καὶ ἄπορον αἱρεθῆναι μετα- φέρειν τὸν ποταμὸν Εὗρον ἐπεβάλετο περικλώμενον τῷ φρουρίῳ καὶ διὰ καθόδων τοῖς πολλοῖς ἀγνώστων τοὺς ἔνδον ποτίζοντα.
When he encamped near Didymoteikhon, seeing that the higher ground was rugged and that it would be difficult to occupy, he attempted to cross the Euros River which bends about the fortress and provided water for [the inhabitants] through the little-known descending [channels.]
Didymoteikhon is the present day Dimoteka (Fig. 3.40). Note that Khoniates again chooses the classical name (Euros) over the contemporary name of Maritza. Khoniates’ account is very accurate as can be seen in the satellite image.
Figure 3.40 Didymoteikhon and the River Euros.
His hesitance for using a classical toponym can again be seen in the second part of the seventh book, where he writes about Dobromir Khrysos.145
145 Dobromir was the leader of the Vlachs and Bulgarian Slavs in eastern Macedonia in the late twelfth century
248
VI.2.502.5-14: οὗτος γὰρ τὴν Στρούμμιτζαν ἰδιωσάμενος καὶ φρούριόν τι ἀπολαβὼν λεγόμενον Πρόσακον εἰς τυραννεῖον ἑαυτῷ κατεσκεύασε, κρατύνας παντοίως τὸ ἔρυμα, ὅπερ ἡ μὲν φύσις ἀρχῆθεν φιλοτίμως ἐξεῦρέ τε καὶ ἀνέδωκε· πέτραι γάρ εἰσιν ἀπορρῶγες δισχιδεῖς, συνεπτυγμέναι ἀλλήλαις, μία δ' ἐς αὐτάς ἐστιν ἄνοδος στενὴ καὶ βίαιος καὶ ἀμφίκρημνος, ἡ δὲ λοιπὴ περίμετρος τῶν πετρῶν αἰγίλιψ ἅπασα καὶ ἀπρόσβατος, καὶ ποταμὸς βαθυδίνης ὁ Ἀξειὸς ἀμφιπερικλώμενος ἐπιτειχίζει ταύτας παραλογώτερον· ἐλθοῦσα δ' ἐς ὕστερον ἡ τέχνη ἀνθαμιλλήτρια τῇ φύσει ἀναλώτους αὐτὰς μικροῦ ἐτεκτήνατο· τείχει γὰρ ἀρραγεῖ διειληφυῖα κατὰ τὴν ἐνδοθεῖσαν ἄνοδον ὑπερφυὲς τετέλεκεν ὁρμητήριον.
[Dobromir Khrysos] had occupied Strummitza and seized a certain fortress called Prosakos, and turned it into a tyrant’s dwelling for himself, strengthening the walls in every way which nature from the beginning had generously procured and delivered. For the rocks are abrupt and cloven which abut upon one another, reached by a single narrow, steep, passage with cliffs all around, and the remaining circumference of the cliffs/rocks are sheer and inaccessible. Also, the deep-eddying Axios River, bending around, provides an even more uncommon defence. Secondly “tekhne”, rivalling nature, made them almost impregnable: provided with a stout wall along the inside of the elevation, an extraordinary post/rampart was erected.
Prosakos or Prosek is a fort near Vardar River (Fig. 3.41), also known as Stenai (Στεναί: narrow). Note that Khoniates, unlike Anna Komnene or Nikephoros Bryennios, prefers to use Axios, i.e. classical name, to identify the River Vardar. In a way, Khoniates gives us technology vs nature conflict in the line “tekhne, rivalling the nature.”
249
Figure 3.41 The location of Prosakos Fortress.
IX.604.14-24: τὰ δὲ Θετταλὰ Τέμπη ἐκπεριελθὼν μαρκέσιος ὑφ' ἡγεμόσι Ῥωμαίοις ἦγε διὰ ταχέων ἐν τοῖς μὴ ὀρειαίοις τὴν δύναμιν, ὥστε καὶ ἔλαθε τὰ πεδινὰ τῶν Λαρισσαίων κατέχων τοὺς ταῖς ἄκραις ἐφεστῶτας Ῥωμαίους καὶ τὰς ὑπερβολὰς τηροῦντας ἐπιμελῶς, αἳ τὸν μὲν Πηνειὸν ποταμὸν ἐς τὸ στενότατον πάντῃ ξυνάγουσιν, ὡς καὶ καχλάζειν ἐν πολλοῖς ἐπὶ μέγα τὸ ῥόθιον καὶ τὰς ὄχθας τῇ τῶν κτύπων ἀντιπέμψει συνεπηχεῖν, περὶ δὲ τὰς τῶν ὀρῶν ὑποβάσεις μίαν ἀτραπὸν παρανοίγουσι, συνεπτυγμένην καὶ ταύτην καὶ χαλεπὴν τοῖς βαδίζουσιν, ὥστε πῃ μηδ' ἐπὶ τεσσάρων ἀσπίδων αὐτὴν ἀναπτύσσεσθαι, ὑπὸ πετρῶν λισσάδων καὶ ποταμίου ῥεύματος ἐς τὸ πάντῃ συνιοῦσαν στενόπορον
Marquis [Bonifacio del Monferrato], surveyed through Thessalian Tempe by Roman (= Byzantine) guides, led his force quickly through the non-mountainous region so that by occupying the plains of Larissa, he escaped the notice of the Roman scouts who were stationed over the hilltops and carefully watch mountain passes which lead down from every side to the narrowest part of the River Peneios, where the bubbling waters made a great rushing noise and the banks echoed from the din. At the foot of the mountains, they (i.e. Marquis’ men) cleared a narrow, rugged short cut/path, barely wide enough to hold four men-at-arms, which led down to a narrow space beneath rocky cliffs and the river’s stream.
The depiction Khoniates makes is correct. However, it is a bit problematic. Thessalian Tempe is the valley between Mt. Olympos at the north and Mt. Ossa at the south. The
250
Marquis is marching from Thessalonike and naturally, he is expected to enter through “Tempe”, where Byzantine scouts stand at vigil. According to the text, the crusaders quickly advanced through the non-mountainous region (μὴ ὀρειαίοις) and seized the plains of Larissa. If so then why did the crusaders clear a narrow path, which led to Peneios’ stream? Niketas’ account is a bit problematic.
His description of Mikhael route to Larissa is also problematic. According to Niketas, Despotes Mikhael I of Epeiros passed through Thermopylai and descended to Oeta, and reached Larissa (IX.608.10-13: Οὐκοῦν Θερμοπύλας διιὼν καὶ τὴν Οἴτην ὑποκαταβὰς εἰς Λάρισσαν ἔξεισι καὶ τῷ βασιλεῖ Ἀλεξίῳ συγγίνεται·), where he met deposed Emperor Alexios III, who according to Niketas down the hillsides from the north in fleeing Konstantnioupolis, entered Thessalian Tempe (οὗτος γὰρ τῶν τοῦ βορρᾶ πλευρῶν κατασυρεὶς καὶ τῆς ἐν πόλεσιν ἀρχούσης ἐκσφαιρισθεὶς τοῖς Θετταλοῖς παρέβαλε Τέμπεσιν). Now, the problem is at Thermopylai and Mt. Oeta, other than this, his depiction of the north and Tempe is correct. As the satellite image below shows, if one has already passed Thermopylai and going to Larissa, then one has no need to “descend” Mt. Oeta. Even though the coastline had changed over the years (Rapp & Hill, 2006, p. 96), it still did not have a structure that would force Mikhael to cross over the Oeta. Niketas clearly mistakes, he might have confused Mt. Oeta with the western continuation of Mt. Othrys at the north of Thermopylai (Fig. 3.42).
Figure 3.42 Thermopylai and Mt. Oeta. The red line indicates the loosely represented Medieval shoreline.
251
Other than Niketas Khoniates’ depictions above and some of his interpretation about the natural phenomena, we can cite the comet which appeared in April 1182, right after the Latin Massacre. According to what Niketas reports in III.251.20-25, this “fiery mass” was in the shape of a snake (ὄφεως γὰρ σχῆμα) and that it looked like a chasm which thirsts for human blood (ἕλιγμα ἡ τοῦ φανέντος ἀνάμματος ὄψις διατυποῦσα νῦν μὲν διετέτατο), which Niketas interprets as a herald of future calamities which points to Andronikos (ὑποσημαίνων τὰ ἐσόμενα χείριστα καὶ αὐτὸν ἀτεχνῶς διαχαράττων Ἀνδρόνικον·). Right after that, a hawk trained for hunting thrice flew from Hagia Sophia to imperial kathisma. The people interpreted this as Andronikos will be violently punished, and some people who are according to cleverer (III.252.10: οἱ δέ γε σοφώτερόν τι προβλέποντες) than the others, interpreted this as Andronikos will be imprisoned once more.146 This clearly shows Niketas’ approach. Niketas also says that the astrologers also calculate the eruption of strong winds (II.7.220.25-28: ἀνέμων ἐξαισίων ἐκρήξεις).
V.1.384.17-20: Ἐγένοντο δὲ καὶ διοσημίαι τηνικαῦτα· ἡμέρας γὰρ ἀστέρες ἐφάνησαν καὶ ὁ ἀὴρ ταραχώδης ὤφθη καὶ περὶ τὸν ἥλιον πάθη τινὰ συμβεβήκασιν, ἅ φασιν ἅλωνας, ὡς μηδὲ τοῦτον καθαρὸν καὶ ἀθόλωτον, ἀλλ' ὠχρότερον ἀποδισκεύειν τὸ φῶς.
At this time (4 September 1187), omens appeared in the sky; for stars appeared in the daytime, the air looked turbulent, a misfortune called halos appeared around the Sun, and the light it radiates was not bright and luminous, but pale.
Niketas prefers πάθη (which means “that which happens” but in a bad sense like calamity, disaster) to describe this phenomenon. Niketas might prefer this noun due to the Siege of Konstantinoupolis in 1187, but the siege was lifted shortly after when
146 What is narrated about Andronikos Komnenos in IV. 2.331 is interesting. Niketas writes that Andronikos threatens certain scholars to cast them into the River Rhyndakos if they didn’t stop debating about God (ἀλλὰ καὶ κατὰ τοῦ Ῥυνδακοῦ ποταμοῦ ἀκοντίσειν χαλεπήνας ἠπείλησεν, εἰ μὴ παύσαιντο ποιούμενοι περὶ θεοῦ τὴν διάλεξιν). The subject of the debate was “My father is greater than I”, which was also the main topic of the Synod of 1166. Niketas gives no detail about Rhyndakos River. However, it is interesting that such a cruel and malicious man as Andronikos, whose behaviour was likened to Empedokleian strife by Niketas ( III.259.4-5:ὅσα τὸ Ἐμπεδόκλειον νεῖκος τερθρεύεται τέρατα.) for Andronikos’ deeds were contradictious, chose this river as punishment above all else.
252
Emperor Isaakios II’s brother-in-law Corrado del Monferrato defeated Alexios Branas. Besides this can not be an omen for the siege, for when this occurred Konstantinoupolis was already under siege.
To conclude, Niketas, the third greatest historian of his era, had mediocre knowledge of geography. His geomorphological depictions are accurate like most of his contemporary authors, however, general geography is in error. Even though he is well-educated in classical literature and persistent in using classical toponyms it is clear he has a problem with positioning. Countless references to classical literature and Bible sometimes shadow his geographical depictions. Those references are not always accurate exempli gratia his likening of Sultan Kilij Arslan II to “Tantalos” who forever fears the rock appears above his head clearly arises from his confusing Sisyphos with Tantalos.147 His explanations and interpretations for the natural phenomena have no difference from those made by his contemporaries. Again we see comets in a special place as “láthspell”.
147 III.263.16-17: ὁ γὰρ τοῦ Ἰκονίου σουλτάν, ὃν ἐδείμαινε πέτρον ἀεὶ κατὰ Τάνταλον ὑπὲρ κεφαλῆς ἀνατέλλοντα, φημὶ δὴ τὸν ἄνακτα Μανουήλ
253
THE ANALYSIS OF MILITARY MANUALS A General View on Byzantine Military Treaties
In general, like other fields and branches, the art of war or the military science in Byzantium was fundamentally based on the previous Greek examples. However, the very experiences Byzantines had (re)shaped these. It was a necessity rather than a choice. The military manuals we have examined here were the products of an era, where the Aristotelian conception of science was dominating the Byzantine intelligentsia. In a way Byzantine art of war was a science, an episteme, so to speak, but it was also an applied science, a tekhne (Salmon, 2020, p. 430).
Like other literary genres, military treaties too get their own share of the Middle Byzantine Revival. Almost all Byzantines military treaties are dated to this period. In geography, from the mountainous regions of the Balkans to what we call today the Arabian Plate, geographical factors were inevitably vital to the art of war. “In open areas, cavalry usually attacks rather than infantry, on the contrary, in forested, mountainous or swampy areas, infantry units are more to be feared.” Vegetius writes, the fourth-century Roman author in his De Re Militari.148 Even though Vegetius wrote in Latin, we know that he was known in Middle Byzantine military milieu, most probably through the translations (Salmon, 2020, p. 450).
Byzantine military manuals, in general, were military manuals compiled to advise military commanders. From espionage and siege warfare, to how to build a “boot camp” these manuals cover a variety of subjects related to the art of war. These topics would be gathered in separate books or chapters as we would call them today. E.g., if the author also wanted to give advice on naval warfare, these would fall into a separate book, and generally the fourth and the last book of the treaty. It is true that Byzantine
148 Veg. III.6: Nam in campis patentibus equites magis solent inpugnare quam pedites, at vero in locis silvestribus vel montuosis sive palustribus pedestres magis formidandae sunt copiae (Renatus, 2019, p. 93).
254
Empire’s first move against a foreign -and in fact interior- enemy would be to use intelligence and diplomacy, and when these fail the task would fall to the imperial army, and one of the ways to keep the army ready was through these manuals. In that regard, Greek used in these treaties was plain, far from any ostentation, which is a common style in military manuals even today. For they are intended for practical use and therefore they should be plain and straightforward.
In this particular chapter, examining how the Byzantines perceive and elaborate geography in their military manual has become our quest. An Analysis of Byzantine Military Treaties
Since Byzantine military manuals have the same approach and pattern, and on an individual basis offers little difference, we have deemed that it would be proper to present their analysis under the same topic.
All Byzantine military manuals were perfectly aware of the relationship between geography and warfare. All of them suggests using specific units for specific terrains, e.g. cavalry for plains, infantry for rough terrain (Leon Takt. XX.64; De Vel. Bel. 1; ST. XXII.2-4). This is the most common advice given in the manuals on warfare-geography relation.
The anonymous writer of De Velitatione Bellica writes that “infantries are better for holding the narrow and difficult terrain” (De Vel Bel. 3). Nikephoros II Phokas in his Praecepta Militaria advises commanders to deploy their army according to terrain that if the terrain is flat make your frontlines wider, if the terrain is narrow do the opposite (PM II.15-16). Furthermore, he states that the commander of the army must be alert to the situation of the land (PM II.16: ώς ή τού τόπου θέσις φέρει, οϋτω δεί και τον άρχηγον τού στρατού διεγερθηναι). Same advise is repetead by Nikephoros Ouranos in his Taktika, he writes on the relation between flat land and troop deployement, yet as we said it is nothing new (TNO 64.4: εί μέν έστι πεδινος καi έπιτήδειος τόπος, περιπατείτωσαν έξωθεν των πεζικών παραταγών οί πλαγιοφύλακες και οί όπισθοφύλακες, όμοίως και οί όντες έμπροσθεν είς το μέτωπον). Yet, in general, his text has no focus on geography. Few advises regarding the subject were given under the chapter 58 'Άλλα τινα πολλα άναγκαία και χρήσιμα (Many other necessary and useful [advices]). Advices given in this chapter offers nothing new. Basically they are
255
same with the other taktika, e.g if the battlefield is flat broaden your battle lines, if it is otherwise do the opposite (58. 1-2). Title of the chapter show the author’s point of view.
Emperor Leon in his Taktika suggests (Leo. Takt. XIV.4) that “when you are fighting against enemy archers, avoid difficult terrains (δυσχερεἰς τόπους) and especially the slopes/spurs of the mountains (προπόδας τῶν ὀρέων) for the first parts (= slopes) rises towards to mountain (ἢγουν τὰς πρὼτας ἀναβάσεις επὶ τὰ ὂρη). Again Leon states that scouting the terrain before the battle and choosing the field of battle according to your units’ capabilities is vital (Leo. Takt. XIV.24; 26-28). He too advises using specific units for the specific terrains, e.g. in wooded terrains or hills, he suggests, sending scouts in case of ambush (IX.38-39) or using them for protecting your flanks (XI.33). He also recommends using specific pieces of equipment in specific terrains, e.g. in IX.71, he suggests using javelin or spear throwers in thickly wooded areas instead of archers or slingers. Furthermore, Leon remarks on the importance of using the terrain to rear the enemy, which was vital for guaranteeing victory, and again he suggests using light troops or cavalry to seize these spots before the enemy does (IX.63). Leon’s statement in XX.56 which reads “knowing the terrain that the battle will occur is very important. It even can change the fate of the battle.” echoes the words of Sun Tzu. Leon is also aware of the tactics based on geographical features: Therefore he advises selecting the field of battle according to the troops you have at hand and the tactics to be conducted (XX.64). The same advice can be found in De Velitatione Bellica (De Vel. Bel. 24).
However, the problem with these manuals is they are too generalising. Byzantine taktika generally lack references to the theatre of operations, therefore, don’t contain geographical depictions of certain regions. They contain extremely general depictions such as “in flat land broaden your lines” or “in steep locations use your missile units”. They have no focus on a specific geography and they simply suggest tactics related to geography, as if the terrain they speak of is somewhere abstract. In that regard, Leon’s Taktika and De Velitatione Bellica holds a special place. Leon recommends special tactics for each enemy Byzantines face: In XVIII.128 he suggests that if Saracens raid inside the Taurus, ambush them by using the narrow passes (= κλεισούρα) of that mountainous region, when they are on their return journey and are exhausted. In this example he both mentions a specific topos and a specific enemy. In XVIII.87, he
256
mentions a specific enemy and a general topos. He emphasises the importance of wooded and difficult terrain against Frankish (European) knights and cavalry, for they are custom to charge on a levelled terrain. Sadly and ironically, Leon does not consider Westerners as enemies for he considers them as allies and brothers-in-Christ.
The anonymous book of Tactics, which is generally attributed to General Nikephoros Ouranos, has two examples in that regard. In XV.6-8, where he was discussing how bringing more non-combatants, baggage, pack animals than needed is a grave mistake and extremely dangerous, he specifically states that “this is especially true at the realm of Bulgarians, where there are impassable wooded defiles (κλεισοῦραι ὑλώδεις καὶ δύσβατοι) and very narrow roads (καὶ ὁδοῖ στενότητα πολλήν ἔχουσαι), for the similar tactic Byzantines used against Arabs in Taurus, can this time be used against them by the Bulgarians. The second example can be found in XXI.20, where he states that the land of Hagarenes (= Arabs) lack food for their lands have frequent devastations (ερημωσεσιν), but on 26-27 the author states these lands are abundant and produces many crops (πολυφόρῳ καὶ τοσαύτην ἀφθονίαν παρέχουσῃ γεωργιῶν) and Bulgaria lack basic necessities especially barley (κριθή). Hagarene land must be Syria.
However, the best example in this regard can be found in De velitatione bellica (Περὶ Παραδρομῆς), which was probably written by a high-ranking officer who served in the east. Ch. 23, is about the pre-occupation of the mountain passes. The author states that the roads might lead from the passes in Seleukia and the Anatolikon Theme up to the Taurus Mountains, which according to him, borders Kilikia, Kappadokia and Lykandos. In addition, there are regions around Germanikaia, Adata, Kaisoun, Danoutha, Melitene, Kaloudia and a region called Khanzeti, which lies beyond the Euphrates, and the hostile territory as far as Romanoupolis. In Byzantine art of war, it was advised to use mountain passes (especially the ones at the Taurus) to ambush Arabs, who fight with such fervour that Byzantines thought ambushes are the best way to defeat them instead of meeting them head-on in an open battle.
As we have stated, holding the mountain passes had strategic importance in Byzantine military tradition, which bring us to the kleisourai. According to LSJ κλεισούρα means narrow pass, defile, enclosure. As a specific term in Byzantine Greek, it refers to fortified military administrative units in the mountain passes, especially those in Taurus Mountains and in Bulgaria (Kazhdan, 1991b, p. 1132), in other words, it was a frontier district much like the Arabic al-thughur, Turkish Uch Beylig or European
257
Marcher Lords. Therefore, it is a military term derived from a geographical term. Particular attention has been paid to these units in almost all military manuals. In fact, even more so than the other terrains. Emperor Leon states that seizing mountain passes (called κλεισούρα) with a detachment is vital in the art of war (Leo. Takt. IX.27). Syllogue Tacticorum (tenth century) warns to be careful at the mountain passes and defiles, for they are very suitable for ambushes (ST XXIII.3). So much in fact it is repeated in few more times (ST XLIX.8; LI; XLIX.8149). The strategic importance of these passes at Taurus Mountains was so up-to-date in WWI that the reports of the Naval Intelligence Division of the United Kingdom also dwelled on the importance of this subject (Naval Intelligence Division, 1916, pp. 24-25). Moreover, NID also used certain Byzantine sources, which we have also used in this thesis, for their intelligence reports (ibid).
Not all geographical advice given was about the field of battle, some were for the place of encampment. Nikephoros Ouranos advises to send a minsourator first, to find a level ground with a water source nearby (TNO 62. 2: ὅπου δε μέλλει γενέσθαι το άπληκτον, άρμόζει πρώτον άποσταληναι μινσουρατόρας του κατασκοπησαι πεδινον και έπιτήδειον τόπον εχοντα πλησίον και ϋδωρ το άρκουν). On setting a camp, same advice can be found in Praecepta Militaria Nikephoros Phokas too advises sending minsourator150 first to find a level ground with a water source nearby. (V. 2: έν ῳ δε τόπῳ όφείλει γενέσθαι το απληκτον, πρώτον δει άποσταληναι μινσουράτορας τού κατασκοπησαι πεδινους τόπους και έπιτηδείους εχοντας ϋδωρ πλησίον το αύταρκες). Emperor Leon has more advice in that regard, he writes, like Vegetius, that hot weather is better for military drills for soldiers will get used to real conditions of war, for setting a camp he too suggests a place far from woody, marshy, watery terrains for these places have ill vapours, air that make soldiers sick (XI.3).151 In XI.53, again he addresses the
149 In this example the warning if for the cavalry. They must avoid these passages at all cost especially during the summer due to the density of the vegetation.
150 Note that μινσουράτωρ derives from Latin mensurator, which means measurer or surveyor. See. Veget. De Re Militari, I. 22-24. Again the last chapter VI περί κατασκοπῶν (concerning spies) also bear similarities with Vegetius.
151 It seems Emperor was referring to miasma theory.
258
importance of geography and regarding communication warns against noise from a nearby water source or a violent wind (XI.33).
Other advices that can be related to geography or earth sciences can be found in the texts as well. Once again, Emperor Leon has many of them, in XIX.2 he advises that for naval warfare, one must know the movements of the Sun and the Moon and of air and winds, also one must know stars, seasons. This is also repeated in the second chapter of Nikephoros Ouranos’ Περὶ θαλασσομαχίας (= On the Naval Warfare). Similarly, in XX.141, he addresses the importance of astrology regarding the decisions commander makes. The anonymous author of Syllogue Tactitorum too writes about the importance of calculating the direction of winds (ST LXXXIX).
Explaining and interpreting natural phenomena as an omen about the fate of the battle was important for Byzantines as well. At least Leon addresses this issue, but he gives little advice in case the natural phenomena are not in favour of Byzantines. In XX.151 she states that “if it is a bad omen such as thunder, pretend that it is because of the enemy.” Exempli gratia, thunder was sent because of the enemy.
In the epilogue of his work, Leon writes that by its very nature, war needs the work of these skills: armament, logistic, architectural (i.e. military engineering), astronomic, divinity, medical (Epilogue.50). In this context astronomy is actually meteorology. So one may correctly foretell the seasons and other weather phenomena and divide the day and the night for the benefit of the imperial army. To these Leon also adds the knowledge about earthquakes and other natural phenomena that were not named. Also in Epilogue 67, Leon states that it is the work for those who devote themselves to learn about celestial phenomena (οἱ περὶ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ σχολάζοντες) and they are distinguished by their wisdom and their knowledge about the calculation of stars according to some works for astronomical use which are: the Handy Tables (Prokheiron Kanon) of Ptolemaios and his Tetrabiblos, Chaldean Oracles, Aratos and his Phenomena, and de Mensibus of Ioannes Lydos. However, these writings also include nativities, horoscopes, astrology in short (γενεθλιαλογία) that are forbidden by the church and also by the Emperor. For Leon, this is not the function of astronomy. In a way, Leon makes a division between astronomy (ἀστρονομία) and astrology (he uses γενεθλιαλογία), like most Byzantines. Similarly, Konstantinos Porphyrogennetos, in his Tres Tractatus de Expeditionibus Militaribus Imperatoris, lists some books that must be available during a military expedition (Text C.200-203). These books include
259
books about the weather (temperature, storms, winds etc.) and about earthquakes (Σεισμολόγιον). Now, we believe Leon’s learned men who had knowledge about earthquakes and Konstantinos advice for bringing Σεισμολόγιον along with the army has something to do with σεισμοσκόπος of Genesios. As we have stated above, Genesios writes in II.9.1-8, that during the February 824 Earthquake there were certain people called σεισμοσκόποι, who advise Emperor about the earthquakes and explain that this earthquake was God-sent. What Genesios provides is a great example of the practical embodiment of what Leon and Konstantinos wrote theoretically. For none of the other authors who recorded the same phenomenon mentions this.
In short, Middle Byzantine taktika unavoidably pay close and thorough attention to the geography-warfare relation and provide many advice, tactics in that regard. A few of them, which we have presented above, were clearly concerned with specific regions. Yet, on the whole, those few authors deal in general, transferable geographical features and rarely refer to the unique geography of a specific area. Nevertheless, they were perfectly well aware of the relation between the two fields.
260
261
CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
To conclude, this Master of Science thesis aimed at the analysis of the knowledge of earth sciences Middle Byzantine histories, chronicles and military manuals contain. We have tried to evaluate this knowledge and tried to find whether it is genuine or simply a metaphrasis of ancient knowledge, and how it accords with modern geology. For this, we have focused on the original Greek texts, mainly CSHB and CFHB editions, for without knowing the language Byzantine authors thought and wrote with, it would be a botchy attempt, wrong even, to understand them. What we have found through this analysis was compared with their predecessors, i.e. classical scholars, and also with modern geology and physical geography.
Our findings through the analysis we made, showed us that Middle Byzantine authors have a good knowledge of physical geography. Exempli gratia, they perfectly described karstic topography of Taurus Mountains, without knowing it is karstic, or perfectly described Amanos Mountains’ characteristic black colour, without knowing that in fact it was due to Kızıldağ ophiolite. The depiction of Honaz can be added to these examples as well. In general geography, however, we can say that their knowledge was mediocre at best. They have a problem of locating certain places and especially when it comes to using classical toponyms they seemed to have problem with positioning, e.g., Leon Diakonos knew the location of Klaudiopolis, but when he tried to describe it according to classical geography he incorrectly positioned it in Galatia, which in fact the city of Klaudiopolis has nothing to do with and a grave mistake.
This discrepancy raises the following question, how can a scholar who has a good knowledge of physical geography be so wrong in general geography? We believe the answer lies in their sources and their approach, which brings us to a point where we question their sources. In Middle Byzantine historiography some of the narrative comes from previous or contemporary sources, as was stated throughout this thesis. Yet in some exceptions we see different sources, e.g. Attaleiates accompanied Emperor Romanos IV Diogenes and he wrote what he had seen, and very accurately
262
so to say, Anna Komnene on the other hand states that she talked with “old men” who were, in fact, eye-witnesses and his emperor father’s former comrades-in-arms. These sources provided accurate geomorphological depictions. Anna is a great example for this, because despite her limited knowledge in general geography she has remarkable geomorphological depictions. But, of course, in case of depictions regarding forts and fortresses, we can also say that they were simply educated guesses. Byzantine authors knew that a fortress would be built on somewhere that have a strategical importance. Almost all depictions related to forts continue as “which built on a precipitous rock.” shows that, especially in the case of most of the authors who spent their life in Konstantinoupolis and spent little or no time in the corners of the Empire. These aspects remind us of Ottoman authors.
The Middle Byzantine historians knew the classical sources and they were perfectly aware of what they contained. Their problem lies not in the sources, but in their perception and more specifically in their interest. Clearly, they were not interested in natural sciences. Just like the scholars during the Byzantine Dark Ages are not interested in history, but in hagiography. Exempli gratia, Anna’s depiction of Vardar’s delta is an interpretation based on Herodotos’ depiction of Nile’s delta, but that is all, no more than this. In short, they simply preserved what had already been said rather than contributing, unlike Medieval Islamic science.
As was stated, from their references and what we know about their education, it is clear that Middle Byzantine historians were conversent with the classical texts. Stylish references to Homeros or Herodotos can be found in their texts. However, even though they read Strabon, Pausanias, Ptolemaios they made mistakes not found in such sources, and it appears most of their general geography knowledge is based on ancient history works rather than geographical works. Furthermore, it seems Holy Scriptures hold a special place in that regard, especially when it comes to eastern geography. From rivers that rise in “Eden” to the depiction of Palestina as a land of milk and honey, it is clear that Byzantine authors accepted the Biblical geography as a fact and a solid truth.
In the case of Konstantinos Porphyrogennetos we have a unique source: being at the pinnacle of the Byzantine state also meant that he was at the top of the imperial intelligence gathering network. From the sources, we have found out that some of Konstantinos’ geographical depictions, especially the ones about Crimea and Black
263
Sea regions, were based on intelligence reports. These accurate reports also show how effective the Byzantine intelligence service worked. Moreover, we have also presented one of the earliest examples of geography-intelligence relation in terms of intelligence studies.
On the approach of Byzantine scholars, we can conclude that there was no critical approach. They simply copied what they read and did not care to elaborate further. This is so true in the case of narratives regarding natural phenomena. The best example we herein review is the account of Turkish geography: every author copied the same identical lines that the Turks live in the north of the Caucasus Mountains and they crossed the River Araxes to attack eastern Persia. Every single Byzantine author who mentioned this account copied it from a previous author. The ultimate source simply made a mistake and the others simply repeated that. This alone proves that they have no critical approach. Moreover, Psellos have a peculiar place in the case of a critical approach. Psellos’ histories offer very little that falls under the scope of this thesis. This is very odd given the fact that Psellos was interested in geography he even compiled a treatise on cartography entitled Περὶ τοῦ γεωγραφικοῦ πίνακος, and we also knew that he gave lessons with a map. The reason, we assume, lies in Psellos’ approach to historiography, it is clear that for Psellos, historiography is for political reasons. In other words, he did not give geographical details in his histories, because his histories were for “sycophanting.”
It is also strange that none of the works we have examined mention “maps.” We knew that Psellos, Attaleiates, Niketas, Anna Komnene had all maps in their educations. However, there is no mention in their works. Not a single word refers to maps in all of those works examined above. Moreover, from the errors of Anna, we understand that she did not use one when she was compiling her opus Alexias. In that regard, the same can be said for some of the other authors as well. Military treaties mention certain books to be brought in a military expedition such as earthquake catalogues or weather charts, however, the authors -strangely enough- did not include maps.
One of our findings is the σεισμοσκόπος mentioned by Ioseph Genesios. We believe this certain group of scholars are connected to “learned men who had knowledge about earthquakes” in Emperor Leon’s Taktika and Konstantinos Porphyrogennetos’ advice for bringing Σεισμολόγιον, that is an earthquake catalogue. Genesios’ account is remarkable, for every author simply mentions the February 824 Earthquake without
264
any details. However, only Genesios mentions these σεισμοσκόποι who advised the Emperor about the earthquake and explained that they are God-Sent for destroying rebel fortifications. In other words, what Genesios wrote is the practical embodiment of what emperors Leon and Konstantinos wrote theoretically, and also that is the only reference in Middle Byzantine texts. In fact, the word itself was invented by Genesios. Besides we have also presented that the word seismology is a Byzantine invention.
We can also argue that there is a difference in histories and chronicles in terms of geography. World chronicles, due to their literary genre, characteristically omits many details not only geographical but historical as well. Therefore, comparing the knowledge in histories to knowledge in chronicles would be unfair. Yet, world chronicles in this thesis provided us with remarkable examples of incorporating Ancient Greek geography, thought and even mythology into a Biblical narrative.
Military manuals, on the other hand, is an entirely different genre, we can say that Byzantines were perfectly aware of the relation between warfare and geography, However, the geography they described in these manuals is very generalising, they mention transferable geographical features as if the battlefield is abstract, and they rarely refer to the geography of a specific area, except few authors. However, this generalising concept is nothing new, we already know from the military manuals in antiquity.
In the matter of toponyms we can conclude that Byzantine authors have an inclination for using classical toponyms, as if it was the trend of that era. Specifically authors like Anna Komnene and Niketas Khoniates have a certain persistency when it comes to using classical toponyms, and with a fair accuracy we would say. This reminds us of the European authors from the Middle-Ages well into the nineteenth-century, who always used the classical names when describing the geology of Turkey. This tendency was only discontinued after the foundation the Turkish Republic. Nevertheless, they have also used contemporary toponyms. This attitude raises a few questions in that regard: 1. Did the author know this topos’ classical name? 2. If (s)he knew was (s)he aware that two topoi were in fact the same? 3. If (s)he knew, did (s)he have a problem of locating places? 4. Did (s)he prefer the contemporary name over the classical one for the sake of the reader? We have tried to answer these questions, but given the nature of this field, they remain unsolved and it appears it will remain so. However, for the sake of the third question we can say that they indeed had a problem of positioning.
265
Still, as a recommendation, we can say that it would be a worthwhile and fruitful quest to search for the answers to these questions. Yet, nevertheless, we can say that the classical nomenclature was “alive” in Byzantine literature, and it remained so until the twentieth-century because the Byzantines preserved it.
The toponym Zarnoukh is another finding, which proves that Byzantine geography borrowed a word from Arabic geography. This raises two questions, either Byzantines second-handedly learned it from locals or they simply read Arabic texts. Two approaches as Zarnoukh and az-Zarnoukh suggest knowledge of Arabic.
In the case of toponyms and classical regions, we also found out that the usage of Koile Syria changed in Byzantine Era. In antiquity Koile Syria was used to define the region at the east of Lebanon, henceforth putting the city of Antiokheia in Koile Syria would be an error. However, it seems this inaccuracy become a norm in Byzantium. All of the authors who mentioned Koile Syria puts Antiokheia in that region, some even stated that the city is its capital.
While working on toponyms we have found in Attaleiates’ Historia, it seems there was certain divination based on toponyms and in fact Byzantine emperors’ have certain scholars for consulting these matters. They might be connected to “learned men” mentioned in Leon’s and Konstantinos’ military manuals. Other than the ones provided by Attaleiates, we see few in others texts. The one about Gyris and its military interpretation is a good example, which can even indicate that a similar approach was also available in the Islamic world. This approach might be argued as another practical example of geography in Byzantium.
Also in the light of the Byzantine texts examined, we have tried to locate a few unknown locations, which also could not be located by Tabula Imperii Byzantini or other historical geographers. In that regard, identifying Anthiai as Ovacik in Tunceli, Lalakaon as İskipli in Çorum and Lake Ozolimne as Lake Razim are our primary findings. Furthermore, we have also identified the Thule Island Byzantine authors mentioned is non other than Great Britain.
The geographical depictions in the texts also showed us a Konstantinoupolis-centred view was dominant in geography. A few other examples showed us there are also writer-centred depictions, e.g. Kaminiates.
266
Another subject examined in terms of earth sciences, was the explanation, reception and interpretation of natural phenomena, especially earthquakes in that regard. Any person with a task such as this, at first would say that Byzantines, like their other Medieval counterparts, explain natural phenomena with divine “logic”, religiously in other words. Some would claim that it would be a biased comment to say so. However, according to our findings it is not, Byzantines really preferred religious explanations over logical ones. The two examples Leon Diakonos and Attaleiates provided are goldmines, so to speak. In these examples two authors quote Aristoteles’ theory on earthquakes, most probably through Agathias, however, Attaleiates’ another citation about the Aristotelian theory on winds suggests otherwise. Leon strictly refuses Aristoteles’ theory even to a degree to say that it’s the foolish dabbling of Ancient Greeks. Attaleiates, on the other hand, do not refuse altogether and tries to reconcile it with the Christian thought. In a way, these two examples are like the summary of this thesis and the vision of Byzantines in that regard. Even Psellos explained natural phenomena with a power “Above.” Basically, they were regarded as divine manifestations.
Byzantines’ natural disaster narratives make it harder to examine disasters separately. Because they tend to record every disaster in the same narrative with a seriatim approach, and from volcanic eruptions to severe famines with a very exaggerated narrative we would say. Some even, especially the early authors of the era who wrote against iconoclasist emperors, use these phenomena to embelish their narrative in a Biblical manner. However, it seems there is a certain distinction between astronomical phenomena and other phenomena. The earthquake descriptions are very accurate, however not always detailed. In fact, in most cases, the authors simply record that an earthquake occurred and provide no further details. On the other hand in astronomical phenomena, especially in the case of comets, they give details and interpret these as bad omens, heralds of calamities, láthspell so to say. We can also categorise religious explanations in two, one simply identifying the phenomenon as a portent and the second suggesting that it is the retribution of God. There are of course those without religious explanations, however, these ones have no explanation after all.
In that regard portrayal of astronomy or astrology, for the definition between two was very ambiguous in Byzantium; they seemed to have believed that natural phenomenon could be predicted by observing stars and other celestial objects. According to some
267
authors, it is also equivalent to religion. Yet other better-educated authors like Anna and Psellos deemed it as an episteme, science.
We also see some weather phenomena explained in a religious approach. If that phenomenon helped Byzantine cause it is simply God’s aid, if not then this time it is God’s vengeance or wrath. Military manuals mention these as well. Emperor Leon was aware of it, such that he recommended using these natural phenomena to encourage the army. Exempli gratia, if there is a terrible storm out there explain to your soldiers that it is because God sent it against the enemies of the state.
From the texts, whether history or taktika, it seems explanations and interpretations of phenomena are the jobs for astronomers, even the seismic phenomena. It is a leftover of the usage of meteorology in antiquity. This might seem strange. However, given the fact that until the nineteenth-century meteorologists were dealing with earthquakes, it was perfectly normal from the perspective of History of Science. Another word frequently used for these scholars is μαθηματικοί, mathematikoi, which modern translations tend to translate as mathematicians. However, it is more than that as we have stated the word itself points to fondness of learning.
We tried our best to include every Middle Byzantine history, chronicle or taktika, even the works like Kedrenos’ and Gylkas, which have no modern translations, despite Covid-19 Pandemy, which we believe it is the modern equivalent of Medieval Black Death, made it difficult for us to reach Byzantine sources. But we think it is high time that Byzantine natural sciences should be given a lot more attention than has been the case hitherto.
268
269
REFERENCES
PRIMARY SOURCES
Agathias. (1967). Historiae, Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae. (R. Keydell, Ed.) Berlin: De Gruyter.
Anonymous. (2017). Sylloge Tacticorum. (G. Khatzelis, Ed., & J. Harris, Trans.) New York: Routledge.
Anonymous. (2017). Tabula Peutingeriana. (K. Miller, Ed.) İstanbul: Boyut Yayın Grubu.
Aristoteles. (1919). Meteorologica. (F. Fobes, Ed.) Cambridge, M.A.: Harvard University Press.
Attaleiates, M. (1853). Historia, Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae. (I. Bekker, Ed.) Bonn: Weber.
Attaleiates, M. (2012). The History. (A. Kaldellis, & D. Krallis, Trans.) Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks.
Biblia Sacra Vulgata. (1994). Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.
Bryennios, N. (1975). Historiae, Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 9, Series Bruxellensis. (P. Gautier, Ed.) Brussels: Byzantion.
Bryennios, N. (1996). Η Ύλη Ιστορίας. (D. Tsounkarakes, Ed., & D. Tsouklidou, Trans.) Athena: Kanakes.
Byzantios, S. (2017). Ethnica, 5 volumes. (M. Billerbeck, J. F. Gaertner, B. Wyss, C. Zubler, G. Lentini, & A. Neumann-Hartmann, Eds.) Berlin: De Gruyter.
Caesar, G. I. (1961). Be Bello Gallico. (O. Seel, Ed.) Leipzig: Teubner.
Cassius, D. (1955.). Historiae Romanae. (U. Boissevain, Ed.) Berlin: Weidmann.
Confessor, T. (1963). Chronographia. (C. d. Boor, Ed.) Teubner: Leipzig.
Continuatus, S. (1968). “Ἡ συνέχεια τῆς χρονογραφίας τοῦ Ἰωάννου Σκυλίτση”; Ἑταιρεία Μακεδονικῶν Σπουδῶν. Ἵδρυμα Μελετῶν Χερσονήσου τοῦ Αἵμου 105. (E. Tsolakis, Ed.) Thessaloniki: Ἑταιρεία Μακεδονικῶν Σπουδῶν.
Continuatus, T. (1838). Chronographia. In A. I. Bekker (Ed.), Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae (Vol. 45). Bonn: Weber.
Continuatus, T. (2012). Chronographiae quae Theophanis Continuati nomine fertur Liber quo Vita Basilii Imperatoris amplectitur. In I. Ševcenko (Ed.), Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae (Vol. 42). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Continuatus, T. (2015). Chronographiae quae Theophanis Continuati nomine fertur Libri I-IV. In J. S.-C. Jeffrey Michael Featherstone (Ed.), Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae (Vol. 53). Berlin: De Gruyter.
270
Çelebi, E. (2007). Seyahatname (Vol. 2). (Y. D. Derleyici, S. A. Kahraman, & R. Dankoff, Eds.) İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
Diakonos, L. (1828). Historia. (C. B. Hase, Ed.) Bonn: Weber.
Diakonos, L. (2005). The History of Leo the Deacon, Byzantine Military Expansion in the Tenth Century. (A.-M. Talbot, & D. F. Sullivan, Trans.) Washington, D.C.: Dumbortan Oaks.
Genesios, I. (1834). Regum Libri. (K. Lachmann, Ed.) Bonn: Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae.
Genesios, I. (1978). Iosephi Genesii regum libri quattuor, Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae (Vol. 14). (A. Lesmüller-Werner, & H. Thurn, Eds.) Berlin: De Gruyter.
Genesios, I. (1998). On the reigns of the emperors. Byzantina Australiensia (Vol. 11). (A. Kaldellis, Trans.) Canberra: Australian Association for Byzantine Studies.
Glykas, M. (1836). Annales, Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae. (I. Bekker, Ed.) Bonn: Weber.
Glykas, M. (1836). Annales, Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae. (I. Bekker, Ed.) Bonn: Weber.
Greek New Testament (UBS). (2014). Stuttgart : Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.
Hawqal, I. (1964). Configuration de la terre (Kitab surat al-ard). (.. H. Kramers, & G.Wiet, Trans.) Beirut: Commission internationale pour la traduction des chefs-d'oeuvre.
Hawqal, I. (1992). Sûratu'l-Arz. Beirut: Dâru'l-Mektebeti'l-Hayât.
Herodianos. (1967). ab Excessu Divi Marci libri octo (τῆς μετὰ Μάρκον βασιλείας ἱστορία). (K. Stavenhagen, Ed.) Leipzig.
Herodotos. (1967). Historiae. (P. E. Legrand, Ed.) Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
Homeros. (1931). Ilias. (T. Allen, Ed.) Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Homeros. (1962). Odysseia. (P. von der Mühll, Ed.) Basel: Helbing & Lichtenhahn.
Iosephus, F. (1955). Antiquitates Iudaicae. (B. Niese, Ed.) Berlin: Weidmann.
Iuvenalis. (1959). Saturae. (W. V. Clausen, Ed.) Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kaminiates, I. (1973). De Expugnatione Thessalonicae, Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae. (G. Böhlig, Ed.) Berlin, De Gruyter.
Kaminiates, I. (2000). The capture of Thessaloniki. (G. Böhlig, Ed., D. Frendo, & A. Fotiou, Trans.) Perth: Australian Association for Byzantine Studies.
Kedrenos, G. (1839). Compendium Historiarum, Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae. (I. Bekker, Ed.) Bonn: Weber.
Kedrenos, G. (2016). Georgii Cedreni Historiarum compendium. (L. Tartaglia, Ed.) Roma: Bardi Edizioni.
Khoniates, N. (1975). Historia (Χρονικὴ διήγησις), Corpus fontium historiae Byzantinae 11, Series Berolinensis. (J. L. Dieten, Ed.) Berlin: De Gruyter.
Khoniates, N. (1984 ). O City of Byzantium, Annals of Niketas Choniates. (H. J. Magoulias, Trans.) Detroit: Wayne State University Press.
271
Kinnamos, I. (1836). Epitome rerum ab Joanne et Alexio Comnenis gestarum, Corpus scriptorum historiae Byzantinae. (A. Meineke, Ed.) Bonn: Weber.
Kinnamos, I. (1976). Deeds of John and Manuel Comnenus by John Kinnamos. (C. M. Brand, Trans.) New York: Columbia University Press.
Komnene, A. (1729). Annae Comnenae Porphyrogenitae Caesarissae Alexias. (. Hoesche, & . d., Eds.) Venezia: Bartholomaeus Javarina.
Komnene, A. (1969). The Alexiad of Anna Comnena. (E. Sewter, Trans.) London: Penguin Books.
Komnene, A. (2000). The Alexiad. (E. A. Dawes, Trans.) Ontario: In Parentheses Publications.
Komnene, A. (2001). Alexias, Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae. (D. R. Reinsch, & A. Kambylis, Eds.) Berlin: De Gruyter.
Leon. (2010). Taktika, Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae. (G. T. Dennis, Ed., & G. T. Dennis, Trans.) Washinton, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks.
Logothetes, S. (1842). Symeon Logothetes Hist., Chronicon (sub nomine Leonis Grammatici vel Theodosii Melisseni vel Julii Pollucis). (I. Bekker, Ed.) Bonn: Weber.
Logothetes, S. (2006). Symeonis Magistri et Logothetae Chronicon, Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 44. (W. Staffan, Ed.) Berlin: De Gruyter.
Logothetes, S. (2019). The Chronicle of the Logothete. (S. Wahlgren, Trans.) Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.
Loukianos. (1972). Deorum Concilium. (A. Ed. Harmon, Ed.) Cambridge, M.A.: Harvard University Press.
Manasses, K. (1996). Breviarium chronicum, Corpus fontium historiae Byzantinae 36. (O. Lampsidis, Ed.) Athina: Institutum Graecoromanae Antiquitatis auctoribus edendis destinatum Academiae Atheniensis.
Manasses, K. (2018). The Chronicle of Constantine Manasses. (L. Yuretich, Trans.) Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.
Monakhos, G. (1978). Chronicon. (C. d. Boor, Ed.) Leipzig: Teubner.
Novum Testamentum Graece. (2012). Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.
Naval Intelligence Division, UK. (1916). I.D. 1044 (Notes on the Geography of Asia Minor). London: Admiralty War Staff Intelligence Division.
Ouranos, N. (2006). Περὶ θαλασσομαχίας. In J. Pryor, & E. M. Jeffreys, The Age of the ΔΡΟΜΩΝ The Byzantine Navy ca 500-1204 (pp. 572-605). Leiden: Brill.
Ouranos, N. (2008). Taktika. In E. McGeer, Sowing the Dragon’s Teeth: Byzantine Warfare in the Tenth Century (pp. 79-161). Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks.
Pausanias. (1967). Graeciae Descriptio (Ἑλλάδος Περιήγησις). (F. Spiro, Ed.) Leipzig: Teubner.
Phokas, N. (1985). De Velitatione Bellica, Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae. In G. T. Dennis, Three Byzantine military treatises (pp. 137-241). Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks.
272
Phokas, N. (2008). Praecepta Militaria. E. McGeer içinde, Sowing the Dragon’s Teeth: Byzantine Warfare in the Tenth Century (s. 3-79). Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks.
Plinius Maior. (1909). Naturali Historia. (K. Mayhoff, Ed.) Leipzig: Teubner.
Plutarkhos. (1967). Bioi Paralleloi. (B. Perrin, Ed.) Cambridge, M.A.: Harvard University Press.
Polybios. (1967). Historiae. (T. Büttner-Wobst, Ed.) Leipzig: Teubner.
Porphyrogennetos, K. (1967). De Administrando Imperio, Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae (Vol. 1). (G. Moravcsik, Ed., & R. J. Jenkins, Trans.) Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks.
Porphyrogennetos, K. (1990). Tres Tractatus de Expeditionibus Militaribus Imperatoris. (J. Haldon, Ed.) Wien: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Porphyrogennetos, K. (1991). Об управлении Империей: Текст, перевод и комментарий. (G. G. Litavrin, & A. P. Novoseltsev, Trans.) Moskva: Наука.
Prokopios. (1963). Historia Arcana. (G. Wirth, Ed.) Leipzig: Teubner.
Prokopios. (1964). De Aedificiis. (G. Wirth, Ed.) Leipzig: Teubner.
Psellos, M. (1967). Chronographie, ou, Histoire d'un siècle de Byzance (976-1077), tomes I-II. (E. Renauld, Trans.) Paris: Les Belles lettres.
Psellos, M. (1979). Fourteen Byzantine Rulers: The Chronographia of Michael Psellus. (E. R. Sewter, Trans.) London: Penguin Books.
Psellos, M. (1990). Historia Syntomos, Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae. (W. J. Aerts, Trans.) Berlin: De Gruyter.
Ptolemaios, K. (1883). Geographia (lib. 1–3). (K. Müller, Ed.) Paris: Didot.
Ptolemaios, K. (1966). Geographia (lib. 4–8). (C. Nobbe, Ed.) Leipzig: Teubner.
Ptolemaios, K. (2017). Geographike Hyphegesis. (C. Şengör, İ. Ortaylı, A. Stückelberger, F. Mittenhuber, & R. Fuchs, Eds.) Istanbul: Boyut Yayın Grubu.
Renatus, V. (2019). Roma Savaş Sanatı (De Re Militari). (K. A. Çetinalp, & S. Özgüler, Trans.) İstanbul: Kronik Kitap.
Siculus, D. (1964). Bibliotheca historica (lib. 1–20). (F. Vogel, & K. Fischer, Eds.) Leipzig: Teubner.
Skylitzes, I. (1973). Synopsis Historiarum, Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 5, Series Berolinensis. (J. Thurn, Ed.) Berlin: De Gruyter,.
Skylitzes, I. (2010). A Synopsis of Byzantine History. (J. Wortley, Trans.) New York: Cambridge University Press.
Skylitzes, I. (2012). A Synopsis of Byzantine History, 811-1057. (J. Wortley, Trans.) New York: Cambridge University Press.
Skylitzes, I. (2020). Byzantium in the Time of Troubles The Continuation of the Chronicle of John Skylitzes (1057–1079). (E. McGeer, Trans.) Leiden: Brill.
Strabon. (1969). Geographica, 3 volumes. (A. Meineke, Ed.) Leipzig: Teubner.
273
Tacitus, C. (1939). De Vita Iulii Agricolae. (J. G. Anderson, & H. Furneaux, Eds.) Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Thessalonikes, E. (1961). De capta Thessalonica. Eustazio di Tessalonica. La espugnazione di Tessalonica. (S. Kyriakidis, Ed.) Palermo: Istituto Siciliano di Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici.
Thessalonikes, E. (1988). The Capture of Thessaloniki. (J. R. Jones, Trans.) Canberra: Australian Association for Byzantine Studies.
Thoukydides. (1967). Historiae. (H. Jones, & J. Powell, Eds.) Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Zonaras, I. (1844). Epitome historiarum (lib. 1-12), Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae. (M. Pinder, Ed.) Bonn: Weber.
Zonaras, I. (1897). Epitome historiarum (lib. 13–18), Corpus scriptorum historiae Byzantinae. (T. Büttner-Wobst, Ed.) Bonn: Weber.
Zonaras, I. (1986). Militärs und höflinge im ringen um das Kaisertum (E. Trapp,. (E. Trapp, Trans.) Graz: Styria Press.
Zonaras, I. (2009). The History of Zonaras, From Alexander Severus to the death of Theodosius the Great. (T. M. Banchich, & E. N. Lane, Trans.) New York: Routledge.
SECONDARY SOURCES
Anderson, J. (1897). The Road-System of Eastern Asia Minor with the Evidence of Byzantine Campaigns. The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 17, 22-44.
Androshchuk, F. (2013). Byzantium and the Scandinavian world in the 9th-10th century: material evidence of contacts. In L. Bjerg, J. H. Lind, & S. M. Sindbaek, From Goths to Varangians: Communication & Cultural Exchange Between the Baltic and the Black Sea (pp. 147-193). Gylling: Narayana Press.
Antonopoulos, J. (1980). Data From Investıgation On Seismic Sea Waves Events In The Eastern Mediterranean From 1000 to 1500 A.D. Annals of Geophysics, 33(1), 179-198.
Antonopoulos, J. (1980). Data From Investıgation On Seismic Sea Waves Events In The Eastern Mediterranean From 500 to 1000 A.D. Annals of Geophysics, 33(1), 163-178.
Artamonov, M. I. (1958). Саркел - Белая Вежа. In А. SSSR, Труды Волго-Донской археологической экспедиции (pp. 7-84). Moskva and Leningrad: Изд-во АН СССР.
Bazzaz, S., Batsaki, Y., & Angelov, D. (2013). Imperial Geographies in Byzantine and Ottoman Space. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Belke, K. (1984). Tabula Imperii Byzantini 4: Galatien und Lykaonien. Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Belke, K. (1996). Tabula Imperii Byzantini 9: Paphlagonien und Honorias. Wien: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
274
Belke, K. (2020). Tabula Imperii Byzantini 13, Bithynien und Hellespont. Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Belke, K., & Mersich, N. (1990). Tabula Imperii Byzantini 7, Phrygien und Pisidien. Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Blöndal, S. (2007). The Varangians of Byzantium. (B. Benedikz, Trans.) New York: Cambridge University Press.
Böhlig, G. (1978). Die Einnahme Thessalonikes durch die Araber im Jahre 904. Wien: Verlag Styria.
Brand, C. M. (1976). Introduction. In I. Kinnamos, Deeds of John and Manuel Comnenus (pp. 1-13). New York: Columbia University Press.
Brand, C. M. (1992). Byzantium Confronts the West, 1180-1204. New Jersey: Gregg Press.
Bryer, A., & Winfield, D. (1985). The Byzantine Monuments and Topography of the Pontos. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks.
Croke, B. (1981). Two Early Byzantine Earthquakes and Their Liturgical Commemoration. Byzantion, 51(1), 122-147.
Crow, J., & Turner, S. (2009). Silivri and the Thracian hinterland of Istanbul: an historic landscape. Anatolian Studies, 59, 167-181.
Demirkent, I. (2000). Bizans Kaynaklarına Göre IV.-XI. Yüzyıllarda İstanbul’da ve Çevresinde Depremler. Tarih Boyunca Anadolu’da Doğal Afetler ve Deprem Semineri (pp. 51-65). İstanbul: "Globus" Dü̈nya Basımevi.
Dendrinos, K., & Giarenis, I. (2021). Bibliophilos: Books and Learning in the Byzantine World. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Diller, A. (1950). Excerpts from Strabo and Stephanus in Byzantine Chronicles. Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association(80), 241-253.
Drenkov, I. (2021). British Foreign Office Documents on the Macedonian Question, 1919-1941. London: Anthem Press.
Durak, K. (2011). "The Location of Syria in Byzantine Writing; One Question, Many Answers," Journal of Turkish Studies, 36, 45-55.
Dück, J. (1904). Die Erdbeben von Konstantinopel. In Die Erdbebenwarte (Vol. 3, pp. 121-139). Ljubljana: Kleinmayr & Bamberg.
Dvornik, F. (1974). Origins of Intelligence Services. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.
Entwistle, W. J., & Morison, W. A. (1969). Russian and Slavonic Languages. London: Faber and Faber Ltd.
Ergin, K., Güçlü, U., & Uz, Z. (1967). Türkiye Ve Civarının Deprem Katalogu, Miliattan Sonra 11 Yılından 1964 Sonuna Kadar = a Catalog of Earthquakes for Turkey and Surrounding Area, 11 A.D. To 1964 A.D. Istanbul: İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, Maden Fakültesi, Arz Fiziüi Enstitüsü.
Foss, C. (1990). Byzantine Malagina and the Lower Sangarius. Anatolian Studies, 40, 161-183.
275
Grabbe, L. L. (2011). A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period, Volume 2 The Coming of the Greeks: The Early Hellenistic Period (335-175 BCE). London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Gregory, T. (2005). A History of Byzantium. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
Grosvenor, E. A. (1899). The Hippodrome Of Constantinople And Its Still Existing Monuments. London: Sir Joseph Causton & Sons Ltd.
Grumel, V. (1958). La Chronologie. In P. Lemerle, Traité d'études byzantines (Vol. 1, pp. xii-487). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Guidoboni, E., Comastri, A., & Traina, G. (1994). Catalogue of Ancient Earthquakes in the Mediterranean Area up to the 10th Century. (B. Phillips, Trans.) Bologna: Istituto nazionale di geofisica.
Guidoboni, E., Comastri, A., & Traina, G. (2005). Catalogue of Earthquakes and Tsunamis in the Mediterranean Area from the 11th to the 15th Century. (B. Phillips, Trans.) Bologna: Istituto nazionale di geofisica e vulcanologia.
Haldon, J. (1999). Warfare, State and Society in the Byzantine World, 565–1204,. London: UCL Press.
Haldon, J. (2005). The Palgrave Atlas of Byzantine History. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Haldon, J. (2006). "Greek fire" revisited: recent and current research. In Elizabeth Jeffreys (ed.), Byzantine Style, Religion and Civilization: In Honour of Sir Steven Runciman (pp. 290-325). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Haldon, J. (2009). Byzantine Wars. Gloucestershire: The History Press.
Haldon, J., & Kennedy, H. (2004). The Arab-Byzantine Frontier in the Eighth and Ninth Centuries: Military Organisation and Society in the Borderlands. In L. I. Conrad, & M. Bonner, Arab-Byzantine Relations in Early Islamic Times (pp. 141-181). London: Routledge.
Haldon, J., Roberts, N., Izdebski, A., Fleitmann, D., McCormick, M., Cassis, M., . . . Xoplaki, E. (2014, Autumn). The Climate and Environment of Byzantine Anatolia: Integrating Science, History, and Archaeology. Journal of Interdisciplinary History, XLV(2), 113-161.
Harris, J. (2017). Institutional Settings: The Court, Schools, Church, and Monasteries. In A. Kaldellis, The Cambridge Intellectual History of Byzantium (pp. 27-36). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hild, F. (1981). Tabula Imperii Byzantini 2: Kappadokien (Kappadokia, Charsianon, Sebasteia und Lykandos). Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Hild, F. (1990). Tabula Imperii Byzantini 5, Kilikien und Isaurien. Wien: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Holmes, C. (2005). Basil II and the Governance of Empire (976–1025). New York: Oxford University Press.
Honigmann, E. (1935). Byzance et les Arabes, Tome III: Die Ostgrenze des Byzantinischen Reiches von 363 bis 1071 nach griechischen, arabischen,
276
syrischen und armenischen Quellen. Bruxelles: Éditions de l'Institut de Philologie et d'Histoire Orientales.
Howard-Johnston, J. (2007). Byzantine Sources for Khazar History. In P. B. Golden, H. Ben-Shammai, & A. Róna-Tas, The World of the Khazars (pp. 163-195). Leiden: Brill.
Hussey, J. (1935). Michael Psellus, the Byzantine Historian. Speculum, 10(1), 81-90.
Huxley, G. (1975). A List of aplekta. Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 16(1), 87-93.
Huxley, G. (1975). The Emperor Michael III and the Battle of Bishop's Meadow (A.D. 863). Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies(16), 443-450.
Huxley, G. (1982). Topics in Byzantine Historical Geography. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. Section C: Archaeology, Celtic Studies, History, Linguistics, Literature(82C), 89-110.
Ierodiakonou, K. (2002). Byzantine Philosophy and Its Ancient Sources. New York: Oxford University Press.
Janin, R. (1964). Constantinople Byzantine: Développement urbain et répertoire topographique. Paris: Institut Français d'Études Byzantines.
Kaldellis, A. (2006). A Brief Biography of Michael Psellos. In M. Psellus, Mothers and Sons, Fathers and Daughters: The Byzantine Family of Michael Psellos (Michael Psellos in Translation) (pp. 3-10). Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.
Kazhdan, A. (1978). Some Questions Addressed to the Scholars who Believe in the authenticity of Kaminiates’ ‘Capture of Thessalonica’. Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 301-314.
Kazhdan, A. (1991a). Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium (Vol. 1). New York: Oxford University Press.
Kazhdan, A. (1991b). Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium (Vol. 2). New York: Oxford University Press.
Kazhdan, A. (1991c). Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium (Vol. 3). New York: Oxford University Press.
Kesik, M. (2010). İstanbul’da Doğal Afetler (1100-1250). In S. Öztürk, Afetlerin Gölgesinde İstanbul: Tarih Boyunca İstanbul ve Çevresini Etkileyen Faktörler (pp. 61-82). İstanbul: İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi.
Kinaş, Ö. (2019). The Depiction Of Natural Disasters In Middle Byzantine Histories (867-1204) [Unpublished master's thesis]. Boğaziçi University, Institute for Graduate Studies in Social Sciences.
Koder, J., Hild, F., & Hunger, H. (1976). Tabula Imperii Byzantini 1: Hellas und Thessalia. Wien: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Koutrakou, N. (2015). ‘Eyes of the Emperor’ and ‘Real Spies’. Stories of espionage in Byzantine Writings. Leidschrift Historisch Tijdschrift: Kennis is macht Een geschiedenis van spionage en inlichtingediensten, 30(3), 47-64.
Krallis, D. (2012). Michael Attaleiates and the Politics of Imperial Decline in Eleventhcentury Byzantium. Arizona: ACMRS Press.
277
Kulzer, A. (2008). Tabula Imperii Byzantini 12: Ostthrakien (Europe). Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Lazaris, S. (2020). A Companion to Byzantine Science. Leiden: Brill.
Magdalino, P. (1993). The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos, 1143-1180. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Magdalino, P. (2013). Constantine VII and the Historical Geography of Empire. In Y. B. Sahar Bazzaz, Imperial Geographies in Byzantine and Ottoman Space (pp. 23-43). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Martín, I. P., & Andreotti, G. C. (2020). Geography. In S. Lazaris, A Companion to Byzantine Science (pp. 231-261). Leiden: Brill.
McGeer, E. (1991). Tradition and Reality in the "Taktika" of Nikephoros Ouranos. Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 49, 129-140.
McGeer, E. (2008). Sowing the Dragon’s Teeth: Byzantine Warfare in the Tenth Century. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks.
Melin, E. (2008). The names of the Dnieper Rapids in chapter 9 of Constantine Porphyrogenitus’ de administrando imperio. Scando-Slavica, 49(1), 35-62.
Millingen, A. V. (1899). Byzantine Constantinople: The Walls of the City and Adjoining Historical Sites. London: John Murray.
Neville, L. (2012). Heroes and Romans in Twelfth-Century Byzantium: The Material for History of Nikephoros Bryennios. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Neville, L. (2018). Guide to Byzantine Historical Writing. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
Ostrogorsky, G. (2015). Bizans Devleti Tarihi. (F. Işıltan, Trans.) Ankara: TTK.
Pospelov, E. M. (1993). Имена городов: вчера и сегодня (1917–1992). Топонимический словарь. Moskva: Русские словари.
Rahlfs, A. (Ed.). (1971). Septuaginta. Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt.
Ramsay, W. M. (1890). The Historical Geography of Asia Minor. London: John Murray.
Rapp, G. R., & Hill, C. L. (2006). Geoarchaeology: The Earth-science Approach to Archaeological Interpretation. Connecticut: Yale University Press.
Salmon, T. (2020). The Byzantine Science of Warfare: from Treatises to Battlefield. In S. Lazaris, A Companion to Byzantine Science (pp. 429-463). Leiden: Brill.
Schilbach, E. (1970). Byzantinische Metrologie. München: Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.
Ševčenko, I. (1992). Re- Reading Constantine Porphyrogenitus. Byzantine Diplomacy: Papers from the Twenty-Fourth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies (pp. 167-195). Hampshire: Variorum.
Soustal, P. (1991). Tabula Imperii Byzantini 6, Thrakien (Thrakē, Rodopē und Haimimontos). Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Sreznevskii, I. I. (1902). Материалы для словаря древнерусского языка по письменным памятникам. Том 2 Л — П. St. Petersburg: Отд-ния рус. яз. и словесности Императорской акад. наук.
278
Stephenson, F. R. (2009). Historical Eclipses and Earth’s Rotation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Subaşı, Ö. (2015). XI. Yüzyılda Anadolu'da Meydana Gelen Doğal Afetler. Atatürk Üniversitesi Türkiyat Araştırmaları Enstitüsü Dergisi, 505-535.
Şengör, A. M. C. (2018). What has remained of Hans Stille’s tectonics? Global Tectonics and Metallogeny, 10(2-4), 77-107.
Şengör, A. M. C. (2020). Jeolojinin Eduard Suess'e Kadarki Kısa Tarihi. İstanbul: İTÜ Vakfı Yayınları.
Şengör, A. M. C. (2021). Personal Communication.
Talbert, R. J. (2000). Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press.
Talbot, A.-M., & Denis F. Sullivan. (2005). Introduction. In L. Diakonos, The History of Leo the Deacon, Byzantine Military Expansion in the Tenth Century (pp. 1-53). Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks.
Telelis, I. (2020). Meteorology and Physics in Byzantium. In S. Lazaris, A Companion to Byzantine Science (pp. 177-201). Leiden: Brill.
Tochtasiev, S. (2012). Из комментариев к Константину Багрянородному. ППВ, 1(16), 75-87.
Todt, K.-P., & Vest, B. A. (2014). Tabula Imperii Byzantini 15, Syria (Syria Prōtē, Syria Deutera, Syria Euphratēsia). Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Tolkien, J. R. R. (2004). The Lord of the Rings: 50th Anniversary Edition. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Trapp, E. (1986). Der Autors und Sein Werk. In J. Zonaras, Militärs und Höflinge im Ringen um das Kaisertum: byzantinische Geschichte von 969 bis 1118 (pp. 9-11). Graz: Verlag Styria.
Treadgold, W. (2013). The Middle Byzantine Historians. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Tukin, C. (1996). Girit. In TDV, TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi (Vol. 14, pp. 85-93). Ankara: TDV İslâm Araştırmaları Merkezi.
Vasmer, M. (1961). Das πέϱαμα του̃ Κϱαϱίου bei Konstantin Porphyrogennetos. Zeitschrift Für Slavische Philologie, 29(2), 379-381.
Vego, M. (1996). Austro-Hungarian Naval Policy, 1904-1914, Naval Policy and History Series. London: Routledge.
Vogel, K. (1967). Byzantine Science. In J. M. Hussey, The Cambridge Medieval History, vol. 4.2. The Byzantine Empire. Government, Church and Civilisation (pp. 264-305). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vratimos, A. (2012). Was Michael Attaleiates present at the battle of Mantzikert? Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 105(1), 829-840.
Vryonis, S. (1971). The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of Islamization from the Eleventh through the Fifteenth Century. Berkeley: University of California Press.
279
Wahlgren, S. (2015). Past and Present in Mid-Byzantine Chronicles: Change in Narrative Technique and the Transmission of Knowledge. In M. Isoaho, Past and Present in Medieval Chronicles (pp. 34-42). Helsinki: Collegium for Advanced Studies.
Wilson, N. (2004). The Archimedes Palimpsest: A Progress Report. The Journal of the Walters Art Museum, 62, 61–68.
Yavuz, V., Akçar, N., & Schlüchter, C. (2007). The frozen Bosphorus and its paleoclimatic implications based on a summary of the historical data. In V. Yanko-Hombach, A. Gilbert, N. Panin, & P. Dolukhanov, The Black Sea Flood Question: Changes in Coastline, Climate, and Human Settlement (pp. 633-649). Dordrecht: Springer.
Yuretich, L. (2018). Introduction. In K. Manasses, The Chronicle of Constantine Manasses (pp. 1-21). Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.
Živković, T. (2012). De Conversione Croatorum et Serborum: A Lost Source. Belgrade: Institute of History.
280
281
CURRICULUM VITAE
Name Surname : Kutsi Aybars ÇETINALP
EDUCATION :
 B.A. : 2015, Istanbul University, Faculty of Letters, Classics, Latin Language and Literature.
 B.A. : 2019, Istanbul University, Faculty of Letters, Archaeology.
 M.A. : Lateral transfer to ITU in 2018, Istanbul University, Institute of Social Sciences, History.
 M.Sc. : 2021 Istanbul Technical University, Graduate School, History of Science and Technology.
 M.A. (non-thesis): 2021 Cappadocia University, Graduate School, Tourist Guide.
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE AND REWARDS:
 2012-2015 Istanbul University, Classics Department, Assistant Student.
OTHER PUBLICATIONS, PRESENTATIONS AND PATENTS:
 Çetinalp, K.A. 2019. Seneca: Naturales Quaestiones. Arkhe-Logos, 7, 163-167.
 Vegetius. 2019. Roma Savaş Sanatı (De Re Militari). (K. A. Çetinalp, Trans.) İstanbul: Kronik Kitap.
 Scharre, P. 2020. Katil Robotlar, Otonom Silahlar ve Makine Savaşları. (K. A. Çetinalp, Trans.) İstanbul: Kronik Kitap.
 Roberts, A. 2021. Eski Çağ’ın Büyük Komutanları. (K. A. Çetinalp, Trans.) İstanbul: Kronik Kitap.
282
 Galileo, G. 2022. Yıldızlardan Gelen Haber (Nuncius Sidereus). (K. A. Çetinalp, Trans.) İstanbul: Kırmızı Kedi.
 von Pairis, G. 2022. Historia Constantinopolitana: Konstantinopolis’in Zaptı 1204. (K. A. Çetinalp, Trans.) İstanbul: Kronik Kitap.