Στο άρθρο επανεξετάζονται τα σχετικά με την μάχη της Καλαβρύης (1078), της κρίσιμης αυτής αντιπαρ... more Στο άρθρο επανεξετάζονται τα σχετικά με την μάχη της Καλαβρύης (1078), της κρίσιμης αυτής αντιπαράθεσης μεταξὺ Αλεξίου Κομνηνού και Νικηφόρου Βρυεννίου, και προτείνεται μία άλλη ερμηνεία για την εξέλιξή της. Η σύγχρονη βιβλιογραφία βασίζεται στην εξιστόρηση του νεωτέρου Νικηφόρου Βρυεννίου στην Ύλη Ιστορίας, με σύντομες αναφορές στα λίγα σημεία διαφοροποίησης που υπάρχουν στην αφήγηση της Άννας Κομνηνής στην Αλεξιάδα, και η ακρίβειά της θεωρείται δεδομένη. Έχει αγνοηθεί όμως σε μεγάλο βαθμό η λίγο παλαιότερη εκδοχή που παρουσιάζει ο Μιχαήλ Ατταλειάτης. Στο άρθρο επιχειρείται να αποδειχθεί ότι μία βασική λεπτομέρεια που αναφέρεται στην σύγχρονη βιβλιογραφία –η αιφνίδια άφιξη των Τούρκων μισθοφόρων που έγειρε την πλάστιγγα υπέρ του Αλεξίου– βασίζεται στην παράδοση της Ύλης Ιστοριών και της Αλεξιάδας, δεν επαληθεύεται όμως από την Ιστορία του Μιχαήλ Ατταλειάτη. Η αναφορά σε «αιφνίδια άφιξη» των Τούρκων μισθοφόρων οφείλεται σε παρερμηνεία της τακτικής του Αλεξίου: οι Τούρκοι ήσαν εξ αρχ...
This paper will reassess the course of the 1078 Battle of Kalavrye, a crucial battle between Alex... more This paper will reassess the course of the 1078 Battle of Kalavrye, a crucial battle between Alexios Komnenos and the rebel Nikephoros Bryennios the Elder. Modern accounts of this important battle adhere very closely to the narration of events provided by Nikephoros Bryennios the Younger in the Hyle Historias, with consideration given to the scant points of divergence presented by Nikephoros’ wife and contemporary Anna Komnene in her account of the battle presented in the Alexiad. Modern assessments of Alexios Komnenos’ skills as a general, particularly those presented by John Birkenmeier in The Development of the Komnenian Army: 1081 – 1180 are predicated upon a close reading of the Hyle Historias. The accuracy of Nikephoros’ account has, so far, being taken for granted. Historians have largely ignored, however, an earlier account of the Battle of Kalavrye presented in Michael Attaleiates’ History. I will seek to rectify this imbalance and to demonstrate that a crucial element of modern narrations of the Battle of Kalavrye – the serendipitous arrival of Turkish mercenaries at the eleventh hour, whose timely intervention won the battle for Alexios Komnenos – is based on the Hyle/Alexiad tradition of events but which is contradicted by Michael Attaleiates’ History. I will then demonstrate that the ‘arrival’ of the Turks presented in the Hyle is a misrepresentation of Alexios Komnenos’ tactics, and that the Turks were always present on the battlefield. This paper will therefore address Byzantine military tactics and Byzantine historiography in equal measure, and endeavor to provide a compelling reinterpretation of the course of this crucial battle.
The following thesis presents new perspectives on the representation of Byzantine generals during... more The following thesis presents new perspectives on the representation of Byzantine generals during the eleventh century, focusing specifically on parallel representations of Nikephoros Bryennios the Elder. I will argue that Byzantine chroniclers routinely employed the language of Byzantine military manuals as a template to describe the generals who populate the pages of their works. This tendency created a shared language of praise and censure which chroniclers applied to the generals whose reputation they sought either to exalt or to tarnish. The career of Nikephoros Bryennios the Elder as it is presented in the History of Michael Attaleiates and the Materials for a History of Nikephoros Bryennios the Younger vividly demonstrates this tendency as Nikephoros Bryennios the Younger attempts to salvage the reputation of his grandfather.
This paper seeks to analyze the methods of Procopius of Caesarea and reconcile the apparent contr... more This paper seeks to analyze the methods of Procopius of Caesarea and reconcile the apparent contradictions the historian presents in his treatment of the reign of the Emperor Justinian. To that end, the tone of each work is considered and compared to similar works of Late Antiquity. This paper endeavors to demonstrate that the attitudes of Procopius toward the Emperor Justinian and many elements of his reign were universally hostile, veiled only by the conventions of the genres in which Procopius chose to write.
What follows is a discussion of the internal reasons for the “Byzantine Military Renaissance”, a ... more What follows is a discussion of the internal reasons for the “Byzantine Military Renaissance”, a period of rapid expansion from the middle of the tenth century AD to the end of the first quarter of the eleventh. This paper examines how the Byzantine Empire accomplished this drastic change in fortunes, shifting from a defensive position to one of conquest. This paper examines the sources of Byzantine strength, as well as internal motives for undertaking wars of conquest and concludes that the Byzantine Empire expanded during this period primarily as a result of internal factors. This paper culminates with a discussion of the Battle of Manzikert, and examines whether this fateful battle represented a failure of leadership or a failure of the Byzantine military system. It is the purpose of this paper to demonstrate that the rapid expansion of the Byzantine Empire during the latter half of the tenth century and first half of the eleventh was a direct result of a series of institutional reforms undertaken in the first half of the tenth century; we shall further demonstrate that the collapse of these institutions was the direct result of mismanagement during the middle of the eleventh century.
Στο άρθρο επανεξετάζονται τα σχετικά με την μάχη της Καλαβρύης (1078), της κρίσιμης αυτής αντιπαρ... more Στο άρθρο επανεξετάζονται τα σχετικά με την μάχη της Καλαβρύης (1078), της κρίσιμης αυτής αντιπαράθεσης μεταξὺ Αλεξίου Κομνηνού και Νικηφόρου Βρυεννίου, και προτείνεται μία άλλη ερμηνεία για την εξέλιξή της. Η σύγχρονη βιβλιογραφία βασίζεται στην εξιστόρηση του νεωτέρου Νικηφόρου Βρυεννίου στην Ύλη Ιστορίας, με σύντομες αναφορές στα λίγα σημεία διαφοροποίησης που υπάρχουν στην αφήγηση της Άννας Κομνηνής στην Αλεξιάδα, και η ακρίβειά της θεωρείται δεδομένη. Έχει αγνοηθεί όμως σε μεγάλο βαθμό η λίγο παλαιότερη εκδοχή που παρουσιάζει ο Μιχαήλ Ατταλειάτης. Στο άρθρο επιχειρείται να αποδειχθεί ότι μία βασική λεπτομέρεια που αναφέρεται στην σύγχρονη βιβλιογραφία –η αιφνίδια άφιξη των Τούρκων μισθοφόρων που έγειρε την πλάστιγγα υπέρ του Αλεξίου– βασίζεται στην παράδοση της Ύλης Ιστοριών και της Αλεξιάδας, δεν επαληθεύεται όμως από την Ιστορία του Μιχαήλ Ατταλειάτη. Η αναφορά σε «αιφνίδια άφιξη» των Τούρκων μισθοφόρων οφείλεται σε παρερμηνεία της τακτικής του Αλεξίου: οι Τούρκοι ήσαν εξ αρχ...
This paper will reassess the course of the 1078 Battle of Kalavrye, a crucial battle between Alex... more This paper will reassess the course of the 1078 Battle of Kalavrye, a crucial battle between Alexios Komnenos and the rebel Nikephoros Bryennios the Elder. Modern accounts of this important battle adhere very closely to the narration of events provided by Nikephoros Bryennios the Younger in the Hyle Historias, with consideration given to the scant points of divergence presented by Nikephoros’ wife and contemporary Anna Komnene in her account of the battle presented in the Alexiad. Modern assessments of Alexios Komnenos’ skills as a general, particularly those presented by John Birkenmeier in The Development of the Komnenian Army: 1081 – 1180 are predicated upon a close reading of the Hyle Historias. The accuracy of Nikephoros’ account has, so far, being taken for granted. Historians have largely ignored, however, an earlier account of the Battle of Kalavrye presented in Michael Attaleiates’ History. I will seek to rectify this imbalance and to demonstrate that a crucial element of modern narrations of the Battle of Kalavrye – the serendipitous arrival of Turkish mercenaries at the eleventh hour, whose timely intervention won the battle for Alexios Komnenos – is based on the Hyle/Alexiad tradition of events but which is contradicted by Michael Attaleiates’ History. I will then demonstrate that the ‘arrival’ of the Turks presented in the Hyle is a misrepresentation of Alexios Komnenos’ tactics, and that the Turks were always present on the battlefield. This paper will therefore address Byzantine military tactics and Byzantine historiography in equal measure, and endeavor to provide a compelling reinterpretation of the course of this crucial battle.
The following thesis presents new perspectives on the representation of Byzantine generals during... more The following thesis presents new perspectives on the representation of Byzantine generals during the eleventh century, focusing specifically on parallel representations of Nikephoros Bryennios the Elder. I will argue that Byzantine chroniclers routinely employed the language of Byzantine military manuals as a template to describe the generals who populate the pages of their works. This tendency created a shared language of praise and censure which chroniclers applied to the generals whose reputation they sought either to exalt or to tarnish. The career of Nikephoros Bryennios the Elder as it is presented in the History of Michael Attaleiates and the Materials for a History of Nikephoros Bryennios the Younger vividly demonstrates this tendency as Nikephoros Bryennios the Younger attempts to salvage the reputation of his grandfather.
This paper seeks to analyze the methods of Procopius of Caesarea and reconcile the apparent contr... more This paper seeks to analyze the methods of Procopius of Caesarea and reconcile the apparent contradictions the historian presents in his treatment of the reign of the Emperor Justinian. To that end, the tone of each work is considered and compared to similar works of Late Antiquity. This paper endeavors to demonstrate that the attitudes of Procopius toward the Emperor Justinian and many elements of his reign were universally hostile, veiled only by the conventions of the genres in which Procopius chose to write.
What follows is a discussion of the internal reasons for the “Byzantine Military Renaissance”, a ... more What follows is a discussion of the internal reasons for the “Byzantine Military Renaissance”, a period of rapid expansion from the middle of the tenth century AD to the end of the first quarter of the eleventh. This paper examines how the Byzantine Empire accomplished this drastic change in fortunes, shifting from a defensive position to one of conquest. This paper examines the sources of Byzantine strength, as well as internal motives for undertaking wars of conquest and concludes that the Byzantine Empire expanded during this period primarily as a result of internal factors. This paper culminates with a discussion of the Battle of Manzikert, and examines whether this fateful battle represented a failure of leadership or a failure of the Byzantine military system. It is the purpose of this paper to demonstrate that the rapid expansion of the Byzantine Empire during the latter half of the tenth century and first half of the eleventh was a direct result of a series of institutional reforms undertaken in the first half of the tenth century; we shall further demonstrate that the collapse of these institutions was the direct result of mismanagement during the middle of the eleventh century.
Uploads
Papers
Historians have largely ignored, however, an earlier account of the Battle of Kalavrye presented in Michael Attaleiates’ History. I will seek to rectify this imbalance and to demonstrate that a crucial element of modern narrations of the Battle of Kalavrye – the serendipitous arrival of Turkish mercenaries at the eleventh hour, whose timely intervention won the battle for Alexios Komnenos – is based on the Hyle/Alexiad tradition of events but which is contradicted by Michael Attaleiates’ History. I will then demonstrate that the ‘arrival’ of the Turks presented in the Hyle is a misrepresentation of Alexios Komnenos’ tactics, and that the Turks were always present on the battlefield. This paper will therefore address Byzantine military tactics and Byzantine historiography in equal measure, and endeavor to provide a compelling reinterpretation of the course of this crucial battle.
Historians have largely ignored, however, an earlier account of the Battle of Kalavrye presented in Michael Attaleiates’ History. I will seek to rectify this imbalance and to demonstrate that a crucial element of modern narrations of the Battle of Kalavrye – the serendipitous arrival of Turkish mercenaries at the eleventh hour, whose timely intervention won the battle for Alexios Komnenos – is based on the Hyle/Alexiad tradition of events but which is contradicted by Michael Attaleiates’ History. I will then demonstrate that the ‘arrival’ of the Turks presented in the Hyle is a misrepresentation of Alexios Komnenos’ tactics, and that the Turks were always present on the battlefield. This paper will therefore address Byzantine military tactics and Byzantine historiography in equal measure, and endeavor to provide a compelling reinterpretation of the course of this crucial battle.