第238章（1 / 1）
[201]According to F.Taeschner and P.Wittek，‘Die Vezirfamilie der candarlyzade and ihre Denkmaler’，Der Islam 18（1929），71 ft.，the Turks took Serres for a short period as early as 1373.So also Loenertz‘M.Paléologue et D.Cydonès’，278（date：1372）；Lemerle，Phillipes is more cautious and so indeed is Dennis，Manuel Ⅱ，66 f.The view that the Turks occupied the city temporarily in 1372 or 1373 is based on the statements made in the Turkish chronicle of Sa’deddin and especially on a document of Murad I，extant in a Greek translation，which has been preserved in the Prodromos monastery at Serres and assures this monastery（？—it speaks of the monks）of the Sultan’s protection.Cf.the text itself in A.Guillou，Les archives de St-Jean-Prodrome sur le mont Ménécée，Paris 1955，P.155，in which this document is dated to 1372，while Taeschner and Wittek，and the communication of J.H.Mordtmann which they quote，op.cit.，72 n.1，place it in 1373.But it is in any case remarkable that the Byzantine documents of this period，which often refer to Serbain rule before 1371（cf.especially，Lemerle，Actes de Kutlumus No.33 of August 1375 and No.34 of October 1375），do not contain a single word of any subsequent occupation by the Turks.
[202]On the chronology cf.Babinger，Beitrage，65 ff.
[203]The credit for pointing this out belongs to Dennis，in his interesting work，Manuel II.But Dennis seems to overestimate the success of the Byzantine counter-offensive.The accounts referring to it in the correspondence of Demetrus Cydones—the only source to mention it—are full of spirited rhetoric，but do not contain a single concrete fact about what was achieved.
[204]On the chronology of the capture of Thessalonica cf.Charanis，‘Short Chronicle’，359 ff.，Loenertz‘M.Paléologue et D.Cydonès’，478 ff.，Dennis Manuel II，151 ff.Apparently Thessalonica was again freed from the Turks and，as Loenertz，op.cit.483，shows，was then stormed by Bajezid Ⅰ on 12 April 1394.New evidence that Thessalonica was still in Byzantine hands in January 1394 is given by M.Laskaris，（1951），331 ff.
[205]There is little certain information about the course of the battle，since contemporary accounts of it are inadequate and legends soon grew up round the events.Cf.the critical survey by S.Cirkovicin S.Novakovic，Srbi i Turci（Serbs and Turks）（1960），453 ff.For recent literature on the battle of Kosovo see ibid.，470.On the accounts given by Byzantine sources cf.especially N.Radojcic，｀Die griechischen Quellen zur Schlacht am Kosovo Polje’，B 6（1931），241 ff.Cf.also M.Braun，Kosovo，die Schlacht auf dem Amselfeld in geschichtlicher und epischerüberlieferung，Leipzig 1937.
[206]Cf.I.Bozic，Dohodak carski，Belgrade 1956，54 ff.G.Ostrogorsky，‘Byzance，Etat tributaire de l’Empire turc’，ZRVI 5（1958），53 ff.
[207]In addition to Dolger，‘Johannes VⅡ’and Charanis，‘Palaeologi and Ottoman Turks’，G.Kolias， 12（1951），36-64，has now produced an authoritative investigation into the history for John Ⅱ’s coup d’état，which for the first time makes thorough use of the important eye-witness account of Ignatius of Smolensk.
[208]This is clear from the account of Ignatius of Smolensk;cf.Kolias，op.cit.39 f.，43 ff.
[209]Cf.the‘commisio’for the Venetian ambassadors cited by Silberschmidt，Das oriental.Problem 68.
[210]Lampros-Amantos，No.52，44.Cf.Kolias，op.cit.41 and 49 ff.；Dolger，‘Johannes Ⅶ’28;Charanis，‘Palaeologi and Ottoman Turks’304.
[211]Chalcocondyles Ⅰ，58.Cf.Wittek，Mentesche 78 ff.，on the capture of Philadelphia in 1390（not in 1379 as often given in the older works）.From the sequence of events described above，it is clear that this event occurred after the reinstatement of John Ⅴ and Manuel when the Sultan exacted recognition of their dependence on him in particularly oppressive forms and it was notorious that Manuel had to stay in Bajezid’s camp.Charanis，‘Palaeologi and Ottoman Turks’304 ff.，also reaches this conclusion，and tightly stresses that the conquest of the city in any case fell between 17 September 1390 and 16 February 1391，and in all probability was before the end of 1390.Cf.also Babinger，Beitrage 9，note 37.H.Hunger，Byzantinische Geisteswelt von Konstantin dem Grossen bis zum Fall Konstantinopels，Baden-Baden，1958，282 ff.，translates an interesting extract from an unedited work of John Chortasmenus，who describes the pitiable condition of the Empire before the battle of Angora.In order to illustrate the‘monstrous enslavement’of the Roman Empire at that time，he recalls how‘the barbarians as it were，hardly let our most pious Emperor breathe freely for a single hour，but chased him up and down the whole world and with his help brought under their control cities which had not been previously subjected’（p.285）。
[212]Ducas 77，11 ed.Grecu（CB，48）.Silberschmidt，Das oriental.Problem，entirely misunderstands the situation when he speaks of a Byzantino-Turkish‘union’（‘alliance’or‘entente’）at this time and enlarges on the Emperor’s‘Turkish policy’，regarding the Turks as the Emperor’s weapon against all his enemies and attributing to the Venetian senate anxiety lest‘a Greek Empire of the Turkish nation’should develop（pp.52，68，70，79 and passim）。
[213]On the date cf.Charanis，‘Short Chronicle’357 f.，based on Lampros-Amantos，Nr.52，47;cf.also Nr.29，23. ↑返回顶部↑
[202]On the chronology cf.Babinger，Beitrage，65 ff.
[203]The credit for pointing this out belongs to Dennis，in his interesting work，Manuel II.But Dennis seems to overestimate the success of the Byzantine counter-offensive.The accounts referring to it in the correspondence of Demetrus Cydones—the only source to mention it—are full of spirited rhetoric，but do not contain a single concrete fact about what was achieved.
[204]On the chronology of the capture of Thessalonica cf.Charanis，‘Short Chronicle’，359 ff.，Loenertz‘M.Paléologue et D.Cydonès’，478 ff.，Dennis Manuel II，151 ff.Apparently Thessalonica was again freed from the Turks and，as Loenertz，op.cit.483，shows，was then stormed by Bajezid Ⅰ on 12 April 1394.New evidence that Thessalonica was still in Byzantine hands in January 1394 is given by M.Laskaris，（1951），331 ff.
[205]There is little certain information about the course of the battle，since contemporary accounts of it are inadequate and legends soon grew up round the events.Cf.the critical survey by S.Cirkovicin S.Novakovic，Srbi i Turci（Serbs and Turks）（1960），453 ff.For recent literature on the battle of Kosovo see ibid.，470.On the accounts given by Byzantine sources cf.especially N.Radojcic，｀Die griechischen Quellen zur Schlacht am Kosovo Polje’，B 6（1931），241 ff.Cf.also M.Braun，Kosovo，die Schlacht auf dem Amselfeld in geschichtlicher und epischerüberlieferung，Leipzig 1937.
[206]Cf.I.Bozic，Dohodak carski，Belgrade 1956，54 ff.G.Ostrogorsky，‘Byzance，Etat tributaire de l’Empire turc’，ZRVI 5（1958），53 ff.
[207]In addition to Dolger，‘Johannes VⅡ’and Charanis，‘Palaeologi and Ottoman Turks’，G.Kolias， 12（1951），36-64，has now produced an authoritative investigation into the history for John Ⅱ’s coup d’état，which for the first time makes thorough use of the important eye-witness account of Ignatius of Smolensk.
[208]This is clear from the account of Ignatius of Smolensk;cf.Kolias，op.cit.39 f.，43 ff.
[209]Cf.the‘commisio’for the Venetian ambassadors cited by Silberschmidt，Das oriental.Problem 68.
[210]Lampros-Amantos，No.52，44.Cf.Kolias，op.cit.41 and 49 ff.；Dolger，‘Johannes Ⅶ’28;Charanis，‘Palaeologi and Ottoman Turks’304.
[211]Chalcocondyles Ⅰ，58.Cf.Wittek，Mentesche 78 ff.，on the capture of Philadelphia in 1390（not in 1379 as often given in the older works）.From the sequence of events described above，it is clear that this event occurred after the reinstatement of John Ⅴ and Manuel when the Sultan exacted recognition of their dependence on him in particularly oppressive forms and it was notorious that Manuel had to stay in Bajezid’s camp.Charanis，‘Palaeologi and Ottoman Turks’304 ff.，also reaches this conclusion，and tightly stresses that the conquest of the city in any case fell between 17 September 1390 and 16 February 1391，and in all probability was before the end of 1390.Cf.also Babinger，Beitrage 9，note 37.H.Hunger，Byzantinische Geisteswelt von Konstantin dem Grossen bis zum Fall Konstantinopels，Baden-Baden，1958，282 ff.，translates an interesting extract from an unedited work of John Chortasmenus，who describes the pitiable condition of the Empire before the battle of Angora.In order to illustrate the‘monstrous enslavement’of the Roman Empire at that time，he recalls how‘the barbarians as it were，hardly let our most pious Emperor breathe freely for a single hour，but chased him up and down the whole world and with his help brought under their control cities which had not been previously subjected’（p.285）。
[212]Ducas 77，11 ed.Grecu（CB，48）.Silberschmidt，Das oriental.Problem，entirely misunderstands the situation when he speaks of a Byzantino-Turkish‘union’（‘alliance’or‘entente’）at this time and enlarges on the Emperor’s‘Turkish policy’，regarding the Turks as the Emperor’s weapon against all his enemies and attributing to the Venetian senate anxiety lest‘a Greek Empire of the Turkish nation’should develop（pp.52，68，70，79 and passim）。
[213]On the date cf.Charanis，‘Short Chronicle’357 f.，based on Lampros-Amantos，Nr.52，47;cf.also Nr.29，23. ↑返回顶部↑