Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-l4dxg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T01:46:14.478Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pachymeres on the ‘Amourioi’ of Kastamonu

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2016

Elizabeth A. Zachariadou
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In a recent article Professor CI. Cahen pointed out various problems resulting from the history of the region of Kastamonu, which on account of its remoteness from the political centres attracted little attention from the chroniclers. One of the problems is the incompatibility of the narratives of the oriental sources and the writings of the Byzantine historian George Pachymeres with respect to some events of the reign of the Seljuk Sultan Masud II: Pachymeres while referring to the history of Kastamonu produces a certain Ali Amourios, his brother Nasir ed-din — a person of lesser importance—and their father, whom he also names Amourios. The same Amourios and his sons are also mentioned by Nikephoros Gregoras, who, however, passes over in silence the sons’ names.

Type
Research Article
Information
Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies , Volume 3 , 1977 , pp. 57 - 70
Copyright
Copyright © The Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies, University of Birmingham 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. CI. Cahen, ‘Questions d’histoire de la province de Kastamonu au XIIIe siècle’, Selcuklu Arastirmalari Dergisi (Journal of Seljuk Studies), III (1971), 145–58 Google Scholar; cf. idem, , Pre-Ottoman Turkey (London, 1968), pp. 310–12.Google Scholar

2. Pachymeris, Georgii, De Michaele et Andronico Palaeologis libri Tredecim, ed. Bekker, I. (CSHB, 1835), II, pp. 327–30.Google Scholar

3. They are also mentioned by Laonikos Chalkokondyles and the compiler of the Chronicon Maius once attributed to Georgius Sphrantzes. It has been attested that Chalkokondyles’ information derives from Gregoras and that the compiler of the Chronicon Maius(sixteenth century) was based on Chalkokondyles. Therefore diese two sources will be ignored in the present article. See Wittek, P., Das Fürstentum Mentesche (Istanbuler Mitteilungen, II: Istanbul, 1934), pp. 18–19 Google Scholar; Loernertz, R. J., ‘Autour du Chronicon Maius attribue à Georges Phrantzès’, Miscellanea Giovanni Mercati, III (Studi e Testi, 123: Vatican City, 1946), 273–311.Google Scholar

4. Moravcsik, G., Byzantinoturcica, II (Berlin, 1958), p. 216 Google Scholar (s.v.); it is to be noted that the confusion between Omur goes back to the manuscripts of the history of Chalkokondyles (see preceding note): in some of them the name appears as (genitive); but as Chalkokondyles’ history was written at the end of the fifteenth century no special importance can be attributed to the variae lectiones (Moravcsik, loc. cit.). Moreover it is to be emphasized mat many a Byzantine author used to render the Arabic name Omur by (Moravcsik, loc. cit.) and this fact leads to further complications.

5. According to Pachymeres, at first reached or was an ancient town of Paphlagonia; see Arriani, Flavii, Quae exstant omnia, ed. Ross, A. G., II: Scripta Minora et Fragmenta (Leipzig, 1968), pp. 116–17 Google Scholar; cf. Ptolemaei, Claudii, Geographia, ed. Muller, C. ½ (Paris, 1901), p. 846 Google Scholar (especially the commentary). In another passage Pachymeres (II, p. 611), repeating the same account, states that

6. This change of the Mongol policy will be explained later.

7. As this phrase constitutes a key, I quote it: Pachymeres, II, p. 330. On meaning also dignity, loftiness, majesty, see Liddell-Scott, Lexicon, s.v. is obviously here an adjective; there is no need to write it with a capital letter, following the editor of Pachymeres.

8. Pachymeres, II, p. 591, and mainly pp. 611-12; on the husband to be (irrelevant to this article) see Wittek, P., ‘Yazijioghlu Ali on the Christian Turks of Dobruja’, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, XIV (1952), 664–5.Google Scholar

9. Gregorae, Nicephori, Byzantina Historia, ed. Schopen, L. (CSHB, 1829), I, P. 137.Google Scholar

10. On Izz ed-din II see the article Keykâvus II in Islam Ansiklopedisi (O. Turan).

11. Spuler, B., Die Mongolen in Iran (Berlin, 1955), pp. 77–83.Google Scholar

12. The exact year of the attempted restoration of Tralleis has not yet been fixed: Lemerle, P., L’Émirat d’Aydin, Byzance et L’Occident (Paris, 1957), p. 255 Google Scholar; at any rate it took place around 1280; see Laiou, Angeliki E., Constantinople and the Latins: the Foreign Policy of Andronikos II, 1282-1328 (Cambridge, Mass. 1972), pp. 24–5.Google Scholar

13. Pachymeres, I, p. 474.

14. Steven Runciman, ‘The Ladies of the Mongols’, (Athens, 1960), 48–50; cf. Gianelli, C., ‘Le récit d’une mission diplomatique de Georges le Métochite (12 75-12 76) et le Vat. Gr. 1716’, Scripta Minora (Rome, 1963), pp. 91–111 Google Scholar; Loenertz, R. J., ‘Notes d’histoire et de chronologie byzantine’, Byzantina et Franco-Graeca (Rome, 1970), pp. 438–9.Google Scholar

15. Geanakoplos, D.J., Emperor Michael Palaeologus and the West, 1258-1282 (Cambridge, Mass., 1959), pp. 305–71.Google Scholar

16. Pachymeres, I, pp. 468-74, 483, 494, 500-5, 523. Nicol, D. M., The Last Centuries of Byzantium, 1261-1453 (London, 1972), pp. 91–3.Google Scholar

17. Gregoras, I, pp. 138-40 and 142.

18. Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica, I, p. 451.

19. Laiou, op. cit., p. 79.

20. This has been already suggested by Professor CI. Cahen, ‘Questions d’histoire’, 157.

21. Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica, II, pp. 66-8.

22. Pachymeres, II, p. 328; cf. p. 591; II, p. 591.

23. Pachymeres, II, p. 346. This conclusion, i.e. that constitutes another way of rendering in Greek the Arabic title amir, could perhaps help for a re-examination of the Byzantine folk epic poem known under the title TO . Many an interpretation of the name has been suggested; see the relevant bibliography in G. Veloudis, ‘Das Armourislied und “Omar al-Aqta”’, BZ, LVIII (1965), 313-19. Veloudis after establishing that is another form of thinks that it constitutes the Greek rendering of the Arabic name Umur. After analysing the passages of Pachymeres, I think that the view of Kalonaros, that is another form of the term could be correct: P. Kalonaros, II, (Athens, 1941), p. 213.

24. Pachymeres, II, pp. 327 and 332.

25. The first to suggest that is Masud was Mordmann, J., ‘über das Türkische Fürstengeschlecht der Karasi in Mysien’, Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften(Berlin, 1911), 4.Google Scholar

26. On Malik see Moravcsik, , Byzantinoturcica, II, p. 187.Google Scholar

27. On the adventures of Izz ed-din II and his family see Wittek, P., ‘Yazijioghlu ‘Ali’, above note 8, pp. 639–63 Google Scholar; on his descendants attested in Berroia in the fourteenth century see Zachariadon, Elizabeth A., of Makedoniha, VI (1964–5), 62–74.Google Scholar

28. Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica, II. p. 183.

29. Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica, II, p. 199.

30. The Cambridge History of Islam, I (Cambridge, 1970), pp. 248-53 (O. Turan); Cahen, , Pre-Ottoman Turkey, pp. 234–48 and 270–303.Google Scholar

31. Cahen, , Pre-Ottoman Turkey, pp. 243 and 310–11 Google Scholar; idem, ‘Questions d’histoire’, pp. 153-4.

32. See Turan, Osman, Türkiye Secuklulan hakkinda Resmî Vesikalar (Ankara, 1958), pp. 9–12 and 32–33 Google Scholar; idem, , Selcuklular zamamnda Türkiye (Istanbul, 1971), pp. 608–9 Google Scholar; cf. Wittek, , Das Fiirstentum Mentesche, p. 22, n. 2.Google Scholar

33. Cahen, , Pre-Ottoman Turkey, p. 294.Google Scholar

34. Laiou, op. cit., pp. 175-6.

35. Cahen, , Pre-Ottoman Turkey, p. 298.Google Scholar

36. The Cambridge History of Islam, I, p. 267. Some confusion derives from the oriental sources with respect to the end of Yavlak Arslan; an important source, the work of Aqsarayi, reports that it was Yavlak Arslan’s father who was killed during the disturbances: see Turan, Selcuhlular zamanmda TUrkiye, p. 612, n. 11.

37. Cahen, , Pre-Ottoman Turkey, pp. 298–9; cf. The Cambridge History of Islam, I, p. 267.Google Scholar

38. Pachymeres, II, pp. 332–3.

39. Pachymeres, II, pp. 459-60; cf. Laiou, op. cit., p. 176.

40. Cahen, ‘Questions d’histoire’, p. 154.

41. Between the years 1273 and 1275 the Byzantines defeated the Turks of Paphlagonia; perhaps Nasir ed-din was taken as a hostage at that time; see R. J. Loenertz, ‘Mémoire d’Ogier, protonotaire, pour Marco et Marchetto nonces de Michel VIII Paléologue auprès du Pape Nicolas III’, Byzantina et Franco-Graeca, p. 561.

42. Gregoras, , I, pp. 214–15.Google Scholar