Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T11:47:19.064Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Observations on Alexios Philanthropenos and Maximos Planoudes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2016

Angeliki Laiou
Angeliki Laiou*
Affiliation:
Rutgers University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The campaign of Alexios Philanthropenos in Asia Minor, and his subsequent rebellion and punishment were among the most dramatic events in the Byzantine Empire in the 1290s. When first he assumed the responsibilities of a general and doux of the Thrakesion theme, Alexios was the great hope of the Emperor, Andronikos II, and of the population of Asia Minor. With his army, the general soon achieved spectacular victories in the Maeander valley. The Turks of the area were defeated, the Greek population took heart, deserted cities and villages were repopulated; he was able to send back to Constantinople the spoils of war, gold and silver and corn, and many captives. Large numbers of Turks, pressed on the other side by the Mongols, preferred to join Philanthropenos’ army, and came to form a substantial part of it. To his own followers he gave a considerable portion of the spoils, and this too spurred them on to greater victories. The local population, having at last found a defender, joined him and gave him their loyalty.

Type
Research Article
Information
Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies , Volume 4: Essays Presented to Sir Steven Runciman , 1978 , pp. 89 - 99
Copyright
Copyright ©The Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies, University of Birmingham 1978

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. Ahrweiler, H., ‘L’ histoire et la géographie de la région de Smyrne entre les deux occupations turques (1081–1317), particulièrement au XIIIe siècle’, Travaux et Mémoires, I (1965) (=Variorum Reprints [London, 1976], no. IV), 151.Google Scholar

2. M. Treu, ed., Maximi monachi Planudis epistolae (5 Programme des Kgl. Friedrich-Gymnasiums zu Breslau, 1886–1890), letters 77, 98, 105, 106, 107, 112, 118–20; Laiou, cf. A. E., Constantinople and the Latins; The Foreign Policy of Andronicus II, 1282–1328 (Cambridge, Mass., 1972), pp. 80–4.Google Scholar

3. Pachymeres, II, pp. 214–19 (CSHB); Gregoras, I, p. 196 (CSHB).

4. Gregoras, I, p. 205; Pachymeres, pp. 210–29, For the date 1295, see Laiou, Andronicus II, p. 82, and P. Schreiner, Studien tu den , (Munich, 1967), pp. 181–5.

5. There are 28 letters to Philanthropenos (nos. 60, 61, 74, 77, 78, 79, 80, 90, 93, 96–98, 101–13, 118–20), and 14 to Melchisedek (71–3, 85, 86, 89, 94, 95, 99, 100, 114–17).

6. Runciman, Steven, The Last Byzantine Renaissance (Cambridge, 1970), pp. 59–60 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On Planoudes, see also Wendel, Carl, ‘Planudea’, BZ, XL (1940), 406–45 Google Scholar and Kugeas, S., ‘Analekta Planudea’, BZ, XVIII (1909), 109.Google Scholar

7. Schmidt, Pia, ‘Zur Chronologie von Pachymeres’, BZ, LI (1958), 82–6 Google Scholar; Verpeaux, J., ‘Notes chronologiques sur les livres II et III du De Andronico Palaeologo de Georges Pachymère’, REB, XVII (1959), 168–74 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Laiou, op. cit., passim.

8. Schreiner, P., Die byzantinischen Kleinchroniken, I (CFHB, XII/i [Vienna, 1975]), P. 194 Google Scholar. In his ‘Zur Geschichte Philadelpheias im 14. Jahrhundert (1293–1390)’, OCP, XXXV (1969), 378, and in the Studien, pp. 181–5, 207, Schreiner reads the first notice as . I assume that the reading in the Kleinchroniken is the correct one. A question may be raised about the word . If this is a Gallipoli chronicle, as Schreiner suggests, then Philanthropenos must have ‘come’ to Gallipoli, or that general area, in 1293. The chronicle uses the word once again, and incorrectly. It says that Rocafort ‘came’ to the West in the year 1307, when in fact, from the point of Gallipoli, Rocafort went to Macedonia in that year. It is, then, possible that the verb ‘came’ was used irresponsibly in both instances. It may, of course, be that Philandiropenos did go to Gallipoli, on his way to Asia Minor.

9. On the other data, see Schreiner, Studien, pp. 186–96. On the notice concerning Chalil () cf. also Laiou, op. cit., p. 232, with a slightly different chronology from Schreiner’ s.

10. Pachymeres, II, p. 210: …

11. Laiou, op. cit., p. 79 and n. 94.

12. Cf. Schreiner, ‘Philadelpheia’, 377–9.

13. Laiou, op. cit., p. 55. On Athanasios II, see Trapp, E., Prosopographisches Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit, I (Vienna, 1976), no. 413, p. 37.Google Scholar

14. Both letters refer to some parchment that Planoudes had asked for; in no. 109 Planoudes complains to Philanthropenos that the parchment had not been sent, while in no. 86 he responds to Melchisedek who had complained about the statement made in no. 109.

15. Cf. Ahrweiler, ‘Smyrne’, 73. Planoudes provides the information that Alexios’ father, Michael Tarchaneiotes (Laiou, op. cit., p. 81, n. 98), Achyraous. This was, of course, an older town, rebuilt by Vryonis, John Comnenus. S., The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of Islamization from the Eleventh Through the Fifteenth Century (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London, 1971), p. 217 Google Scholar. Presumably, Michael Tarchaneiotes rebuilt or repopulated the town.

16. Ahrweiler, ‘Smyrne’, 154.

17. Nicol, D. M., ‘Constantine Akropolites, A Prosopographical Note’, DOP, XIX (1965), 249–54.Google Scholar

18. Treu, Planudis epistolae, letter 120, p. 176.

19. Salamates is called Salampakis by Pachymeres, II, p. s 11. Wittek, P., Das Füntentum Mentesche (Istanbul, 1934), pp. 29–30 Google Scholar, has identified this as a title cf. Schreiner, ‘Philadelpheia’, 382.

20. Pachymeres, II, p. 219; Gregoras, I, p. 198.

21. I have been unable to provide even approximate dates for the following letters: nos. 80, 85, 95 (written after no. 85), 96, 97, 100 (probably written before nos. 109, 86), 103, 104, 108, 115 (written after 85).

22. Pachymeres, II, p. 210; Gregoras, I, p. 195.

23. The panegyric has been published by Westerink, L. G., ‘Le basilikos de Maxime Planude’, BS, XXVII (1966), 98–103 Google Scholar; XXVIII (1967), 54–67; XXIX (1968), 34–50. The date ascribed to it (soon after 21 May 1295), must be corrected to 1294. It is interesting to notice that in this oration Planoudes insists at some length on the military virtues which an Emperor should have. Andronikos II was not without talents, but by no stretch of the imagination could he be considered a military man.

24. On the punishment of Constantine Akropolites, cf. Nicol, ‘Constantine Akropolites’, 250 and n. 10.

25. Runciman, , Last Byzantine Renaissance, p. 60 Google Scholar; Beck, H-G., Kirche und theologische Literatur im byzantinischen Reich (Munich, 1959), p. 687.Google Scholar