Roman Emperors Dir Manuel Ii
Manuel II PALAIOLOGOS (1391-1425 A.D.)
Univeristät Graz, Austria
Manuel II(1391-1425) was the second-to-last emperor of the East-Roman (Byzantine) Empire.[[1]] His second son and successor Constantine XI died in 1453 during the conquest of the imperial capital by the Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II. The emperor was from the house of the Palaiologoi, whose founder Michael VIII in 1261 had driven the Crusaders from the imperial capital, which they had conquered in 1204. In the course of the fourteenth century the Ottoman Turkish empire had become the major rival of the empire, which, now shrunken to a minor state, had been almost completely expelled from Asia Minor. Emperor John V (1341-1391) had to deal not only with the plague but also with the crossing of the Hellespont by the Turks, who first conquered Thrace and Macedonia and, in 1389, in the battle of Kossovo destroyed and conquered the Serbian Empire. In 1365/6 he undertook a voyage to Hungary to seek support there; his son Manuel accompanied him on it. In 1370/71 the emperor undertook a new voyage to Europe, to seek support there; Manuel freed him in 1371 under humiliating circumstances from debtor's prison in Venice. The rapid decline of the empire showed itself also in the deterioration of art and coinage; Byzantine gold solidi for centuries had been the leading currency of the eastern Mediterranean. Now the gold currency of the Venetians took its place -- that is, the currency of the state in the Christian world which had most profited from the decline of Byzantium through the attack on Constantinople in 1203/04, which the Greeks even today have not forgotten, and had annexed portions of the Peloponnesus as well as Crete. Emperor Manuel II had as a rule only silver and bronze coins struck; only a few gold nomismata are preserved.[[2]] The papacy and the catholic powers tried repeatedly to force Byzantium into subjection to Roman sovereignty, but these compulsory "unions" lasted only briefly, since the people did not join in carrying them out and they resulted in no effective help.
John V, Manuel's father, was a weak and unsuccessful ruler. He was twice deposed, the first time by his son Andronicus IV and then by his grandson John VII. The decline of the empire was hastened by the civil wars; in 1346 the influential John Cantacuzenus had himself crowned emperor John VI, but had to abdicate in 1354. He lived almost thirty more years yet as a monk, and composed a series of historically interesting works. Helena Cantacuzena, the daughter of this short-reigned emperor, became the spouse of John V and mother of Manuel II, who was born in 1350 and in 1373 was raised by his father to the rank of co-emperor.[[3]] Manuel's teacher was the learned Demetrius Cydones, to whom he addressed twenty preserved letters. In 1359 Constantinople was besieged by the Turks for the first time. In collaboration with Sultan Murad II (1362-89) John's son Andronicus IV staged a coup in 1376 against his father and brother, who were incarcerated in the prison of the Anemas tower of the Blachernai palace, where Andronicus himself had previously been imprisoned. In 1379 father and son succeeded in fleeing to Murad, whom they promised higher tribute than hitherto and military help, if they were restored. [[4]] Thus Byzantium had become a client state of the Turks, and was obligated to paying tribute and to military alliance. The decline manifested itself also in the fact that after the Turks' great military successes Manuel found himself compelled to confiscate half of the property of the monasteries for the benefit of the soldiers. He hoped to be able to reverse this if times improved. But subsequently he imposed high taxes on the lands remaining to the monks.[[5]]
After the establishment of the Turks in Macedonia and the decline of the Serbian Empire, the Byzantine Empire appeared definitely headed for destruction. The population of the imperial capital had shrunk to between forty and fifty thousand. The only gain in power which John V achieved was to regain the Despotate of the Morea in the Peloponnesus, which had been administered for decades by the Cantacuzeni. He appointed his third son Theodore to govern it. From 1383 to 1387, Manuel operated as independent emperor in Thessaloniki, the second city of the empire in size, but already encircled by the Turks; it had been besieged by the Turks since 1383.[[6]] On the occasion of the Turks' ultimatum at the start of the siege, the crown prince, as viceroy, directed a speech to the city's inhabitants, summoning them to resist.[[7]] Manuel left Thessaloniki shortly before it was conquered in April 1387, and fled to Lesbos. From 1387 to 1389 he was in Lemnos, one of the few Aegean islands to remain in the emperor's hands. In 1386 even Mount Athos came under the rule of the Turks. For Sultan Bayazid I (1389-1402) the conquest of Constantinople was the logical conclusion of a process which his father had initiated. He skilfully played the pretenders to the Byzantine throne off against each other, and backed John VII's (Andronicus IV' s son) seizure of power in April 1390.[[8]] Thereupon Manuel returned from Lemnos to Constantinople, forced his way into the city on September 17, 1390, expelled his nephew John VII, and reestablished his father as emperor. While his father was able to rule for a last time, Manuel had to reside at the sultan's court and as an obedient vassal accept any humiliation.[[9]] There he met again with his nephew John VII, who had fled to the same place, and now both of them had to support the Turks, who raised the tribute. When John V wanted to strengthen the walls, the sultan threatened to blind Manuel, and forced him to put an end to the fortification works. When John V died in February 1391, after a reign of a half century, the possessions of the Byzantine Empire consisted only of the capital, some cities on the Sea of Marmora, some Aegean islands, and the Morea, which made up less than half of the Peloponnesus. "Byzantium survived only thanks to its walls and because the sultan at the moment had other aims of conquest before his eyes."[[10]]
After his father's death, Manuel fled from the sultan's camp and hastened to Constantinople, in order to forestall his nephew's plans. After his return, he married (on the tenth of February, 1392) Helena Dragasch, the daughter of the Serbian prince Constantine of Serres. In the national museum in Sofia there is preserved an icon which empress Helena had brought along for her father who fell in battle against the Turks in 1395.[[11]] Both of them were crowned by the patriarch Antonius IV. The emperor wished in this way to give expression to the fact that he was still the highest ranking of all Christian rulers. The emperor, however, was again humiliated by the sultan in the same year, in that he had to command a Turkish fleet. The archimandrite Ignatius of Smolensk has left us a description of the coronation. The pompous ceremony was supposed to strengthen the people's morale and demonstrate self-confidence. The patriarch prevailed upon the Metropolitan of Russia, Cyprian, that in the liturgy the Byzantine emperor should be mentioned first. This incurred the wrath of the Grand Prince of Moscow, Vasili I. the Grand Prince coined the sentence: "Church have we one, but emperor have we none." Byzantium however held on to the dogma to the bitter end that its ruler was the only legitimate emperor and hence was the head of the civilized world. Nonetheless Antonius stressed in 1393 in his well-known missive to the Grand Prince that precisely because of the Turks' stranglehold the exceptional position of the emperor in the Christian world had to be emphasized. "The emperor occupies in the church that place which no other secular ruler can occupy. Many other emperors in the course of history have advanced religion, summoned ecumenical councils, confirmed the canons, fought against heresies, set up primacies (i.e., rankings of patriarchal seats) as well as provinces and dioceses. All this justifies their value and their place in the church.... patriarchs, metropolitans, and bishops therefore everywhere respect the name of the emperor... For Christians there is no church without emperor.Emperor and Church are closely connected. The Christians battle against the heretics and the most orthodox emperor is at the same time defender of the church." [[12]]The emperor and the patriarch each sent an "apokrisarios" (envoy) to Russia, who should both represent the same position, so that it might be clear to the Grand Prince that emperor and church constituted a unity.[[13]]
Bayazit was beside himself with rage when faced with the new emperor's successes. He pointed out to him that he had no power outside the "city" and began systematically to tie the empire off from the Balkans. Manuel had to consent to a treaty in which it was specified that a quarter for Turkish merchants should be set up with its own Kadi (a Moslem learned man and magistrate).[[14]] At first Manuel succeeded in taking advantage of the sultan's involvements to reestablish control over Thessaloniki and parts of Macedonia.[[15]] The sultan knew that help could come only from Hungary and in 1393 conquered Thessaly and Bulgaria and began the siege of Constantinople, the longest in the city's history, which was to last from 1394 to 1402. In the city hunger and despair prevailed. In 1395 the sultan built the fortress of Anadolu Hisar on the Turkish side of the Bosporus. Bulgaria became the first Ottoman Turkish province in Europe. The sultan wished to show who was boss, and in the winter of 1393/94 summoned Manuel, his nephew John VII, and Theodore, Despot of the Morea, as well as Prince Stefan Lazarevic of Serbia to Serres, where he at first wanted to kill them all. Some Byzantine officers were blinded. Finally they were able to return home; only Theodore was to take part in the conquest of Europe. He succeeded in escaping, however, and hastened to Mistras, in order to organize the defense of the Morea. The events in Serres confirmed Manuel's opinion that the Turks were not amenable to any kind of reasoning. Later demands by the sultan to appear before him were declined by the emperor.
Now Manuel sought military aid against the Turks, first from Pope Boniface IX and King Sigismund of Hungary. [[16]] Sphrantzes, the historian in the emperor's service, repors that the initiative originated with King Sigismund: Dukas on the other hand mentions that the emperor wrote to the Pope and the kings of Hungary and France in this matter.[[17]] Relief from the West was the only hope for Byzantium. At the end of 1395 Manuel sent his envoy Manuel Philanthropenus to King Sigismund; at the beginning of 1396 he concluded a treaty with him in which he obligated himself to equip ten ships at his own expense and three at the king's expense for the crusade.[[18]] The crusade of the Hungarian king Sigismund of Luxemburg ended on September 25, 1396 in the battle of Nicopolis in a complete fiasco.[[19]] According to the panegyric of Isidore of Monemvasia the Hungarian king fled on imperial galleys across the Black Sea to Constantinople, where he met with Manuel and then returned to Hungary. Manuel sent a manuscript message to the Venetian council, putting Byzantium in the hands of the Signorie. But Venice, which already in the fourteenth century viewed Byzantium as a "lost outpost," abandoned Byzantium to its fate. It was ready "to use Byzantium as a pawn, to surrender it as a concession to the Turks," if it could thereby be assured of controlling the southern Aegean.[[20]] This first test of strength between the Ottomans and western Europe hardly brought Byzantium any respite. In vain Manuel sent appeals for help to the Pope, the Doge of Venice, and the kings of France, England, and Aragon, as well as the Grand Prince of Moscow.[[21]] A rumor circulated that John VII had made an offer to the French king to sell him his claim to the Byzantine throne. The siege of Constantinople dragged on. In return for the construction of a mosque and the appointment of a Kadi it was lifted.[[22]] Before the end of 1399 Manuel turned even to the Mongolian ruler Tamerlane for help against the Ottomans.[[23]] The French marshal Boucicaut, who had taken part in the battle of Nicopolis, in 1399 broke through the Turkish blockade of the Dardenelles with 1200 soldiers and arrived in Constantinople to the rejoicing of the populace. He persuaded the emperor to accompany him on his return trip to Europe.
The emperor's trip to Europe, to the centers of political power, caused considerable excitement. The weak Holy Roman king Wenceslas was not among the personalities whom the emperor wanted to visit. On December 10, 1399 the emperor embarked on a voyage to Venice, Padua, Vicenza, Pavia, Paris and London to get help. John VII, regent of Selymbria, had lost the sultan's favor, because he had not betrayed the capital into Turkish hands. Presumably Boucicaut arranged his reconciliation with Manuel. At all events the emperor did not quite trust his nephew, since he left his family behind with his brother in Mistras. Patriarch Matthew I supported John VII as regent of the empire, primarily during the siege of Constantinople in 1401. The emperor's first stop was in Italy. Pope Boniface XII on May 27, 1400 ordered the payment of a "crusade-tithe" for emperor Manuel against the "perfidious Bayazit." For him this was a means of strengthening his prestige vis-a-vis the pope of Avignon.[[24]] Giangaleazzo Visconti took advantage of the opportunity to bring as a teacher to Pavia and Milan, in 1400, the Byzantine scholar Manuel Chrysoloras, who had been on diplomatic missions in Venice in 1394/95 and 1396, and had begun his activity as a humanistic teacher in Florence in 1397. Charles VI of France received the emperor with great pomp in Paris in June 1400 and similarly Henry IV in December 1400 in London. The western Roman king, Wenceslas, son of Charles IV, was as little engaged against the Turks as his father had been. The emperor employed Constantinopolitan relics and holy objects to win over the princes of Europe. He included even Spain in his plans of union.[[25]] In the Aragonese archives there are still some few letters preserved in which military support is to be purchased with relics. In Milan he made the acquaintance of Peter Philagris, a Greek, who later became pope as Alexander V. Manuel's travels brought him just as little success as the previous ones which his father had undertaken. The highly educated emperor gained much sympathy in Europe. Unlike his father he offered neither a personal "conversion" nor a union with the Papacy. John VII kept his position at home. In 1400 he received the news that the Mongols had invaded Asia Minor. For Byzantium they were welcome allies against the Turks. During his absence Manuel II had appointed his nephew John VII co-regent. While the emperor was still in Paris, news arrived of Bayazit's overwhelming defeat in the battle of Ankara (1402), which afforded Byzantium a chance to catch its breath. Tamerlane (died 1405), the ruler of Samarkand, had defeated the rising Ottoman Empire and held it in check until his death. The emperor did not return home from Europe until 1403, and had failed to secure either financial or political help.
The first result of the battle of Ankara was that the siege of Constantinople was lifted. Demetrius Chrysoloras, John Kananos, and Joseph Bryennios saw in the good outcome of the siege new proofs of the protection of the city by the mother of God. On this occasion Manuel composed a dramatic piece, an imaginative construct of what Timur (=Tamerlane) might say to a person in so humiliating a situation as the sultan now found himself in. This sultan, who so long as things went well for him, made great proud speeches and was intolerable with his threats, actually now was trundled around in a cage.[[26]] The emperor remained entirely within the limits of rhetorical routine with this piece of literature which was popular in Byzantium. His viceroy sent presents to the victorious Timur, who reacted with the demand that the tribute which had hitherto been paid to the Ottomans be paid henceforth to him.[[27]]
The Anatolian possessions of the Turks were now under the control of Tamerlane. Bayazit's eldest son, Suleiman, met with John VII in August, 1402. In February 1403 he concluded a peace treaty on the Gallipoli peninsula in which he gave back Thessaloniki, the Chalkidiki with Athos, and the islands Skiathos, Skopelos, and Skyros as well as a strip of the Black Sea coast. The European possessions of the Turks in "Rumeli" with their capital at Adrianople were in turn recognized by Byzantium. Byzantium no longer owed tribute to the Turks, and Suleiman swore to become a vassal of the emperor.[[28]] Here it was decided who the Turkish barons were, who should surrender Thessaloniki to the Byzantines. This was the Byzantine empire's last political success. Manuel found out about it only in the following month in Venice. It appears that during a stop-over in Gallipoli in June 1403 he confirmed John VII's treaty with the Turks, but with one stipulation: John VII had to transfer his base to Thessaloniki, where he remained until his death in 1407. [[29]]
The treaty of Gallipoli was, as we have said, the last significant political success of the Byzantine empire. Paying tribute was a thing of the past: between 1379 and 1402 Byzantium had paid 690,000 hyperpyra (or 345,000 ducats) to the Ottomans. The treaty of Gallipoli provided Byzantium an additional short chance to catch its breath. At first Manuel held on to the idea of winning over the Christian states of Europe to a crusade, but nevertheless accepted the treaty. In accordance with Byzantine custom Suleiman is specifically addressed as "son" in a letter from Manuel in 1404.[[30]] He refrained from any aggressive moves against Byzantium. Among the Ottomans, the disagreements among Bayazit' s sons continued. When Musa put pressure on Byzantium, Manuel II called upon Mehmet for help. He used the opportunity to bring the Ottoman empire together under single control. Musa is said even to have offered the emperor the Turkish provinces in Europe. The final winner was Mehmet I (reigned 1413-21), with Manuel's support, who maintained peace with Byzantium, even after the collapse of Tamerlane's empire. In 1412/13 Manuel supported him in the war against his brother Musa. In 1413 Mehmet confirmed the peace treaty of Gallipoli with Byzantium, which regained further territories on the Black Sea.[[31]] In 1408 Manuel's son Andronicus became Despot of Thessaloniki. With an eye to restoring the city walls the emperor, the patriarch, and finally Joseph Bryennius delivered speeches in which it was emphasized that God would not desert the city, unless the Byzantines themselves just sat there with their hands folded.
The relaxation of the situation could be seen in the fact that Manuel for the first time could leave the capital and travel to Thessaloniki (in 1407) and to the Peloponnesus (1414/16), where he supported his nephew Theodore II as Despot of the Morea. When en route through Macedonia he found among the suffragan bishops of Thessaloniki an ideal candidate for bishop of Walachia - the area was already under Turkish influence -, he sent him to Constantinople and instructed the patriarch to ordain him. This led to conflict between emperor and patriarch, who wanted to gain for the church more independence from the state in view of the political situation. When the patriarch Matthew died the emperor wanted to assure himself of the church's obedience; so he called a synod, at which the rights of the emperor in the church, and the new patriarch, Joseph I were both confirmed. The Byzantine panegyrist John the Replete (Chortasmenos) composed an encomium on the emperor when he returned. The situation of the surrounded empire was for the moment consolidated -- without any help from the West. In 142l Manuel crowned his son John as co-emperor.
Manuel knew that Byzantium was lost without the West. Therefore he sought political support in Europe. The "Autokrator" of Byzantium could not get very far with the conciliar movement, which wanted to limit the Pope's position in the West. For the Byzantines a general council on the model proposed by the "conciliarists" of the early fifteenth century was not the correct means for reform and for reunification in the faith. On Christmas 1409 Manuel congratulated Alexander V (chosen pope by the council of Pisa) on his election and reminded him how they had met in 1400 in Milan. He expressed hope for a union of churches and sent the diplomat John Chrysoloras to him.[[32]] (He had already sent his uncle Manuel[[33]] to France to collect money appropriated for the crusade.[[34]] At the beginning of the year 1410 Manuel proposed to the Venetians that they join together in separating the Turks in Europe from those in Asia. The most serene republic, however, rejected the idea, since the sultan's power was already too great. [[35]]
The emperor of the West had very little contact with the emperor of the East in the late middle ages. Manuel remained in touch by letter with Sigismund of Luxemburg (reigned 1410-37) who had in the meantime been elected to the Holy Roman throne. In 1411 an embassy led by Manuel Chrysoloras met with Sigismund to discuss a projected union with him. Now Sigismund proclaimed a crusade to the emperor.[[36]] The Holy Roman and Byzantine empires, he said, were a single state; after the fashion of the ancient emperors one could seek helpers in both parts of it and share responsibilities. He wanted to break through from Hungary to the Peloponnesus -- a utopian plan, which Sigismund never could have brought to pass. He also requested his imperial brother to propose a time and place for a council.[[37]] The emperor, who preferred to concentrate on foreign relations, seems primarily also to have underestimated the economic position of the Turks. Economic problems were of little interest to the theologically educated emperor.
In 1412, in his second letter, Sigismund informed the emperor of the
resumption of the war with Venice and reminded him of how much sorrow the
republic of St. Mark had inflicted on Byzantium since 1204. Byzantium should
let trade with Venice become paralyzed -- an illusory plan in view of the
military situation of the empire. But there was no longer any talk of a
Crusade.[[38]] In June 1414 there were negotiations
at Trino between Sigismund and the pope, in which the participation of
Byzatium in the council was considered. For that reason Manuel had sent
John Chrysoloras to Sigismund as envoy.[[39]] In
the summer of 1414 the king answered Manuel's epistle in a third preserved
letter, and made known his intention of helping Byzantium after the end
of the Council of Konstanz. He reported about the summoning of the council,
to which the emperor should send Manuel Chrysaloras. [[40]]
The former Byzantine possessions, whose recovery by the Crusaders might
be expected, should revert to Byzantium. His offer that he was ready
to step aside and hand sovereignty over to Manuel, if that brought about
a reunification of the churches, admittedly must not have been meant seriously.
Likewise in this letter there was no talk of a crusade. Sigismund named
Manuel Chrysaloras and his nephew John counts palatine and received them
among his courtiers. In 1416 Manuel mediated between Sigismund and the
Republic of Venice, but without result. At the beginning of the year 1420
Manuel tried once more futilely, through his envoy John Eudaimonoioannes,
to negotiate peace between Sigismund and Venice.[[41]]
At the Council of Konstanz, which took place with Sigismund's authoritative participation and was supposed to end the strife among the three popes, the Byzantine ambassadors Nicholas Eudaimonoioannes, his son Andronicus, and Joseph Bladynteros, who had arrived in Konstanz on March 3, 1415, presented a plan for union and sought support against the Turks.[[42]] They called for an ecumenical council in Constantinople at the Pope's expense. Manuel Chrysoloras had come to Konstanz with the envoys, perhaps without official mandate. [[43]] He died, however, in mid-April 1415 in Konstanz. The envoys exceeded their mandate, however, with the result that the agreement which they brought with them to Constantinople found no acceptance there. In February 1416 the "bringing back of the Greeks" was dropped from the agenda of the council. Manuel was more interested in political progress."The emperor viewed the union, or better the threat of a union, as a way of putting political pressure on the Turks, but did not promise himself success from any council, since he realized that at such a synod, the fighting would be with open vizors, and two very different church systems would collide : the old "Constantinian" and the western papal; a failed union council however would have the fatal consequence of depriving the emperor of one of the effective threats against the Ottomans."[[44]] He was no longer concerned with the union of churches.[[45]] In March 1416 Manuel sent a new embassy to Konstanz, to advise on the subjects of church union and measures of aid, but as a result of Sigismund's absence the negotiations were postponed until after his return from Spain.[[46]] The envoys finally presented the -- unfortunately now lost -- thirty-six articles of the emperor and the patriarch. However they rejected negotiations so long as the Latin church was without a pope. A pope was always an easier partner for the emperor than a "democratic" council. After the election of Pope Martin V new negotiations were started between the Roman king Sigismund and pope which had as a result the initiation of dynastic connections between the emperor's sons and Italian princely houses. Before February 1419 Manuel sent his envoy John Bladynteros to Pope Martin V, whom he informed that the council would have to meet in Constantinople.[[47]] The Council of Konstanz shows that the conciliar idea found little response in the eastern church.
The treaty of November 1419 between Venice and the Turks, freed the Turks' hands to proceed against Byzantium and Hungary. They now besieged the Hungarian Black-Sea harbor Kilia. When Mehmet I in 1421 requested permission to travel from Europe to Asia via Constantinople, Manuel rejected the plan of murdering him and personally accompanied him. Up to his death in 142l he kept the peace with Byzantium. The war party in Byzantium, to which John VIII belonged, rebuked Manuel for not having murdered Mehmet at a favorable opportunity, and injected itself into the quarrel for the succession among the Turks. In the summer of 1421 there was a new treaty between the pretender Mustafa and Byzantium, which received some territories in the Chalkidike and on the Black Sea and promised military aid to the sultan.[[48]] Murat II, one of Bayazit's sons, wanted to renew the peace treaty with Byzantium and even hand over Kallipolis (Gallipoli), according to the historian Chalkokondyles.
But things turned out otherwise; Byzantium again bet on the wrong pretender. In Constantinople there was now generational conflict. Manuel wanted to maintain the peace; but his son John bet on the war party, supported Mutafa, and lost. "Do what you please. For I, my son, am old and close to death. The empire, however, and all that pertains to it, have I relinquished to you," Sphrantzes reports Manuel as saying.[[49]] Also Chalkokondyles mentions the conflict, as John tossed his father's warning to the winds. Mustafa crossed the Bosporus on Genoese ships, but was beaten by his brother Murat at the beginning of the year 1422. Manuel withdrew from the plague into the cloister of Peribletos as a monk.
After the death of Mehmet I, his brother Murat II (reigned 1421-51) resumed the aggressive policy of Bayazit. The collusion of John with the Turkish pretender Mustafa provided the sultan with the pretext to impose a complete blockade on Constantinople. In 1421 Manuel II, now aged seventy-one, gave over a great part of his power to his eldest son. John VIII, on the other hand, though his marriage with Sophia of Montserrat and the espousal of his brother Theodorus II to Cleopa Malatesta, tried in the same year to win new allies in Italy. From June to September 1422 Constantinople was besieged for the third time by the Turks. The fortifications of the city nonetheless held up to the Turkish pressure. The historian John Kananos reports how the elderly and seriously ill emperor, who could no longer mount his horse, was represented by his son on campaign. At the end of September the defeated Mustafa, whose guardian Manuel II had been, came to Constantinople and confirmed the treaty of Gallipoli. On October 1, 1422, Manuel II suffered a stroke that resulted in paralysis. He handed the government over to his son John VIII.[[50]] Andronicus, Manuel's youngest son went to Genoese-controlled Pera, and from there he betook himself to the Ottoman encampment, as pretender to the throne, on the model of John VII.[[51]] Another son, Demetrius, left the capital and went to Hungary. In 1423 Thesaloniki was lost once more, irretrievably; the despot Andronicus sold it to the Venetians.[[52]] In 1430 the Turks conquered the important harbor city for good. In 1424 Murat concluded a new treaty with Byzantium, which again became tribute-paying. In 1423 John traveled by way of Venice and Milan to Ofen (Budapest), in order to negotiate with Sigismund of Luxemburg about support for Byzantium.[[53]] This put Sigismund into an awkward situation, as he was at the same time negotiating an armistice in regard to his quarrel with the Hussites. So no help could be expected from him, either. In 1419 the theologian Joseph Bryennius delivered several addresses in the emperor's presence, establishing him as carrier-out of the Testaments, and later turning against the papacy's efforts at union.
The old emperor admonished his son not to give up any fundamental Byzantine positions in negotiating union with the papacy. He dissuaded him from stirring the western powers up for a new crusade, as this would lead to a new confrontation with the Turks. When Pope Martin V sent the Franciscan Antonio di Masa to Constantinople, the emperor was already seriously ill and his son busy with defensive measures The patriarch answered the pope's questions and articulated the old Byzantine concepts and reservations vis a vis the papacy. The emperor informed the pope in November 1422 that the council absolutely had to take place in Constantinople[[54]]. The important matter was speedy help against the Turks; then one could worry about union.[[55]] On his deathbed Manuel recommended to his son, admittedly to keep the Latins hoping for the prospect of union, so as to obtain military help, but at the same time to demand a council, so as to drag things out and not to run the risk of a church union without popular support. It was clear to him that two quite different chuch systems stood facing each other. Only in the west was there a lively debate between conciliarism and the pope's primacy; for the orthodox church this was a closed question. Likewise the historian George Sphrantzes emphasizes this skepticism on the part of the emperor, who was concerned only with a purely political solution to the conflict and wanted to set aside pope and council.[[56]] The aged emperor was worried about his son's ambition, and warned him against irritating the sultan. According to Sphrantzes one day when John left his father's bedside with a grim expression, he is supposed to have said that in another age his son would perhaps have been a great ruler. But now that the empire needed a good administrator in view of the external situation, John would possibly deliver the fatal blow to the empire. Sultan Murat feared nothing so much as the hanky-panky about church union, in which he saw the prerequisite for western military aid to Byzantium.[[57]] On July 21 1425, the old emperor died in Constantinople, after dictating his will to Sphrantzes. He was buried in the monastic church of the Pantokrator. Bessarion of Trapezus, later to be famous, pronounced the eulogy. Manuel's grave was later destroyed by the Turks, just like all the other graves of the house of the Palaiologoi.
Manuel's writings have been preserved for posterity in spite of the conquest and destruction of Constantinople. Of particular interest is his attitude toward Islam. After his enthronement in March 1391 Manuel II still had to perform military service for the sultan in Asia Minor from June 1391 to January 1392 as a vassal of the Turks.[[58]] As part of it he not only had to support the sultan against the Selcuks, but as an especial humiliation he had to aid his mortal enemy with the conquest of Philadelphia, the last Byzantine hold-out in in Asia Minor, particularly since his father had had to tear down the new fortification in Constantinople shortly before his death. The emperor, who on the coins still bore the title King and Autokrator, was as a vassal of course subject to the sultan's orders on campaign -- the sultan who amused himself at banquets, while the emperor discussed Islam with the Kadi. From October to December of 1391, the emperor enjoyed the hospitality of the Mudarri (=Kadi) at Ankara and his two sons. A moslem born to Christian parents acted as interpreter between the emperor and the Kadi. The result of this was the "Twenty-six Dialogues with a Persian," which are dedicated to his brother Theodore I. Presumably the emperor took notes at the time of the conversations. [[59]] Apart from the emperor's writings there is no independent proof for the conversations' ever taking place. They must represent a mixture of fact and fiction. At the end the Kadi declared himelf ready to come to Constantinople and continue the conversation with Manuel. With this work, which must have come into being between the end of the campaign and the break with Bayazit (1392-94) and which by 1399 had received its final editing, Manuel made an important contribution to the knowledge of Islam on the part of the Christians.[[60]] The twenty-six dialogues are preserved in four manuscripts, of which Ambros. L74 sup. (487) dates to the fifteenth century.[[61]]
The theological quarrel of the Byzantines with Islam has a long tradition. [[62]] John of Damascus, Theophanes the Confessor, Nicetas Choniates, Bartholomew of Edessa and Demetrius Kydones made important contributions to it. [[63]] The emperor relied on the Apology of Christianity against Islam by his maternal grandfather, John VI Cantacuzenus.[[64]] That in turn rested on the "Confutatio Alchorani" by the Dominican friar Ricoldo of Montecroce (died 1320), which Demetrius Kydones had translated into Greek.[[65]] Grandfather and grandson thus remained entirely within the framework of traditional Byzantine anti-Islamic polemics. It is noteworthy that the emperor does not use the concept of Sarakenoi (Saracens), customary in Byzantine terminology. [[66]]
Even the Turks were impressed by Manuel' s courage and demeanor. He was also an extremely well educated man, who kept in touch with the important intellectuals Demetrius Kydones and the last Byzantine philosopher Georgios Gemistios Plethon.[[67]] Like all important Byzantine emperors, Manuel was also involved in the politics of the state church. He concerned himself with the reform of the monasteries, and transferred to the University of Constantinople any money which could be freed up. About 1400 he gave the university its final shape. Higher education was assigned to one of four chief directors. It was now referred to as "Katholikon Mouseion." The emperor concentrated its buildings around the monastery of St. John the Baptist in Petra, where there was a distinguished library, which was made available to the students. The emperor transferred the patriarchal academy to the Studios-Monastery in Constantinople (today Imrahor Camii), where there was likewise a good library. Joseph Bryennios who was himself a Studite monk, became its director. Bryennios, who taught exegesis at the patriarchal academy, at the university covered the field of philosophy. Numerous Italians visited the university, where Bessarion and George Scholarios studied.[[68]]
The emperor's authoritarian line in the politics of the state church is remarkable.[[69]] Although both he and Bryennios abjured Latin theology, they supported Latin studies. Whatever happened, he did not want to give up his position of influence in the church. As early as 1398 there were disputes at the synod concerning the emperor's authoritarian procedures. In 1415 the metropolitan Matthew of Medela declared that the emperor had been tyrannizing the church for the preceding twelve years or so. The quarrel grew until in 1409 Matthew and other critics were deposed and interned. The grand logothete Syropoulos reports concerning the confirmation of his father's imperial prerogatives at the synod of 1416 for the church, "For me, who admire this remarkable emperor in all things and consider myself incapable of praising him adequately, there is this one thing, which I cannot agree with, because it is unworthy of his virtue and his wisdom, as of a contrite heart -- that he has enslaved God's church."[[70]] Syropoulos also reports that Manuel insisted on the right to convene a council. Patriarch Euthymios gave thought to a reform of the relationships between state and church, but his death gave the emperor a chance to have the earlier agreements confirmed by the synod.[[71]]
Even as emperor Manuel remained a man of letters. Sometimes he complained that his political obligations kept him from developing his artistic and intellectual inclinations. After the death of his brother Theodore I of Mistras in 1407, the emperor composed a funeral oration on his brother,[[72]] which was directed to the humanist Manuel Chrysoloras, who composed a "position paper" in response, in which he promised himself salvation of the empire through reform of the school and educational system.[[73]] The Paris manuscript Cod. Gr.3041 was in Manuel's possession and contains corrections in his own hand to his tractate on education, as well as a large number of letters. The first part of the manuscript consists of a corpus of sixty-three letters, among them twenty to his teacher Demetrius Kydones, eight to Demetrius Chrysoloras and five to his brother, the humanist Manuel Chrysoloras, who came to Florence in 1396 in order to teach Greek there and in 1415 represented the Byzantine Empire at the council of Konstanz and made particularly significant contributions to the early humanistic efforts in Italy.[[74]] Chrysoloras, acting on Manuel's behalf, presented to the monastery of St. Denis a manuscript with works attributed to Dionysius (=Denis) the Areopagite, containing pictures of Manuel and his family, as well as of Chrysoloras (Musée du Louvre, Ivoires A53, fol. 1.) One letter is addressed to the Italian humanist Guarino. Further the manuscript contains a series of tractates, such as a discourse on the Louvre's tapestries, [[75]] which he had been able to study when he visited Paris, a psalm on the death of Bayazit, a tractate on marriage,[[76]] and a discourse on the siege of Thessaloniki. Of Manuel's lament on the metropolitan Gabriel of Thessaloniki, who died between 1416 and 1419, only a few references are preserved.[[77]]
Seven "Orationes ethico-politicae," addressed to
John VIII belong to the category of "Mirrors for Princes," (i.e.,
a sort of instruction book for medieval crown princes) as does an
address to loyal subjects.[[78]] About the
same time he was writing the "Mirror for Princes" for his successor, in
a hundred chapters which are connected by acrostics.[[79]]In
this piece the author employs all the old worn clichees and commonplaces.
Even Isocrates is cited, a rare event in Byzantine literature. Compared
with earlier "Mirrors for Princes" the heavy use of theological pronouncements
is striking.[[80]] In total contrast to his
own practical action, the emperor stresses the fact that one should not
oppose oneself to the church's teachings. He likewise emphasizes that even
a ruler owes obedience to the church. God accepts gifts through the hands
of the poor. Manuel stresses free will and treats original sin and grace
through baptism. Men are slaves to sin. Manuel advises his son frequently
to examine his conscience. Man's goal lies in the hereafter. To the four
cardinal virtues he adds love (agape) and moderation (metriotes) and encourages
ascetic temperance. In the relation of state and church he emphasizes the
church's eternity, and warns against any confrontation with it. He compares
life to a sea voyage. As lawgiver and judge the emperor should emulate
the Judge of All, who should be for the emperor model, guideline, and law.
Just as in the sixty-eight preserved letters between 1383 and 1417 few
specific, day-to-day news items are to be found, so also in his theoretical
writings the emperor distances himself from every-day reality. The work
thus belongs to the genre of the customary medieval Byzantine "Mirrors
for Princes." It is preserved in Vienna manuscript gr. 89, from the estate
of Cardinal Bessarion of Trapezus, which also contains a bunch of other
writings by the emperor. The emperor's writings permit an excellent glimpse
into the mental world of the later Palaiologian period in the last decades
before the conquest of the empire by the Turks. Because of the partial
edition of the emperor's works in Migne's "Patrologia Graeca" (vol. 156),
they became a topic of discussion again in the nineteenth century. The
great monograph by John W. Barker in 1969 established a lasting monument
to this important emperor.
Bibliography:
Andreeva ,M.A.: "Zur Reise Manuels II. Palaiologos nach Westeuropa," in: Byzantinische Zeitschrift 34, (1934), 37-47
Atiya Aziz ,Suryal: The crusade of Nicopolis London 1934, ND London (ca. 1978)
Bakalopulos, A.: "Les limites de l' empire byzantin jusqu' à sa chute (1453)," in: Byzantinische Zeitschrift 55, (1962), 56-65
Baum, Wilhelm: Kaiser Sigismund. Konstanz, Hus und Türkenkriege, Graz-Wien-Köln 1993
________. "Europapolitik im Vorfeld der Frühen Neuzeit: König und Kaiser Sigismund vom Hause Luxemburg, Ungarn, Byzanz und der Orient," in: Europa in der frühen Neuzeit, Festschrift Günter Mühlpfordt, Bd. 1, hg. v. Erich Donnert, Weimar-Köln-Wien 1997, 13-43
Barker, John W.: "On the Chronology of the Activities of Manuel II Palaeologus in Morea in 1415," in: Byzantinische Zeitschrift 55, (1962), 39-55
________.: Manuel II. Palaeologus. 1391-1425. A study in late Byzantine Statesmanship, New Brunswick 1969
Beck, Hans Georg: "Byzanz und der Westen im Zeitalter des Konziliarismus," in: Die Welt zur Zeit des Konstanzer Konzils, (= Vorträge u. Forschungen 9), Konstanz-Stuttgart 1965, 134-148
Beckmann,Gustav: Der Kampf Kaiser Sigmunds gegen die werdende Weltmacht der Osmanen 1392-1437, Gotha 1902
Berger de Xivrey, J.: "Mémoire sur la vie et les ouvrages de l' empereur Manuel Paléologue," in : Mémoires de l' Institut de France, Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres XIX/2, Paris 1853, 1-201
Brandmüller, Walter: Das Konzil von Konstanz 1414-1418, Bd. 1, Paderborn 1991
The Cambridge Medieval History IV (2nd ed.): The Byzantine Empire, Pt. I: Byzantium and Its Neighbours, Cambridge 1966
Cirac-Estopanan, S.: Bilancio y Espana. La unión, Manuel II. Paleólogo y sus recuerdos en Espana, Barcelona 1952
Coche de la Ferté, Ètienne: Byzantinische Kunst, Freiburg-Basel-Wien 1982, 273
Congourdeau, Marie-Hélène: "Die byzantinische Kirche von 1274-1453," in: Die Geschichte des Christentums, Bd. 6: 1274-1449), Freiburg-Basel-Wien 1991, 132-204
________." Kirche und weltliche Macht in Byzanz - Patriarch und Kaiser," in: Die Geschichte des Christentums 6: 1274-1449, Freiburg-Basel-Wien 1991, 610-625
Dennis, G.T.: The reign of Manuel II. Palaeologus in Thessalonica 1382-1387, (= Or. Christ. Anal. 159), Rome 1960
________. "Four Unknown Letters of Manuel II Palaeologus," in: Byzantinische Zeitschrift 36, (1966), 35-40
Van Dieten, Jean Louis: "Politische Ideologie und Niedergang im Byzanz der Palaiologen," in: Zeitschr. f. histor. Forschung 6, (1979), 1-35
Dölger, Franz: "Die Familie der Könige" im Mittelalter," in: Byzanz und die europäische Staatenwelt, Darmstadt 1964,34-69
________. Regesten des oströmischen Reiches, Bd. 5 (1341-1453), München-Berlin 1965
Ducas: Historia Byzantina, ed. V. Grecu, Bukarest 1958
Ducellier, Alain: Chrétiens d' Orient et Islam au Moyen Age VIIe - XVe siècle, Paris 1996
Fenster, E.: Johannes VIII., in: Biograph. Lexikon z. Geschichte Osteuropas, Bd. 2, München 1976, 284-286
Finke, Heinrich: Acta Concilii Constantiensis, 4 Bde, Münster 1896/1926
Fögen, Marie Theres: "Das politische Denken der Byzantiner," in: Pipers Handbuch der politischen Ideen, Bd. 2: Mittelalter, München-Zürich 1993
Geschichte in Gestalten, hg. v. Hans Herzfeld, Bd. 3, Frankfurt 1969, 117
Göller, Emil: "Zur Geschichte Manuels II. von Byzanz," in: Römische Quartalschrift 15, (1901), 188-1912
Hammer-Purgstall, Joseph v.: Geschichte des Osmanischen Reiches, Bd. 1, (= Veröff. d. Hammer-Purgstall-Gesellschaft A 1), Graz 1963
Haussig, Hans Wilhelm: Kulturgeschichte von Byzanz, Stuttgart, 2. Aufl. 1966
Helfer, Walter: Johannes VIII. Palaiologos. Eine monographische Dokumentation, phil. Diss., Wien 1969
Hoensch, Joerg K.: Kaiser Sigismund. Herrscher an der Schwelle zur Neuzeit 1368-1437, München 1996
Hunger, Herbert: Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner, (= Byzantinisches Handbuch V/!), München 1978
Jorga, Nicolae: Notes et Extraits pour servir à l' histoire des Croisades au Xve siècle, Paris 1899
________.: Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches, Bd. 1: bis 1451 (1908), ND Frankfurt 1990
Jugie, M.: "Le Voyage de l' empereur Manuel Paléologue en Occident (1399-1403)," in: Echos d' Orient 15, (1912), 322-332
Karayannopulos ,Johannes - Weiss Günther: Quellenkunde zur Geschichte von Byzanz (324-1453), Bd. 2/4, Wiesbaden 1982, 538f, Nr. 581
Khoury, Theodore: "Manuel Paléologue, Entretiens avec un Muselman. 7e Controverse", in: Sources Chrétiennes 115, Paris 1966
________. der theologische Streit der Byzantiner mit dem Islam, Paderborn 1969
Kretschmayr, Heinrich: Geschichte von Venedig, Bd. 2 (1920), ND Aalen 1964
Krumbach, Karl: Geschichte der byzantinischen Literatur, (= Handbuch d. klass. Altertumswiss. 9/1), München 1891
Les voyageurs dans l' empire ottoman (XIVe - XVIe siècles), hg. v. Stephanie Yerasimos, Ankara 1991
Loenertz R.-J.: Manuel Paléologue et Demetrius Cydones. "Remarques sur leurs corresponances," in: Echos d' Orient 36, 1937, 271-287; 474-487 u. 37, 1938, 107-129
________.. : Ecrits de Macaire Macres et de Manuel Paleologue dans les mss. Gr. 1107 et Crypten. 111, in : Orientalia Christiana Periodica 15, 1949, 185-193
________ : "Epitre aux moines David et Damien, 14166," , in : Studi bizantini e neoellenici 9, (1957), 294-304
Manuel Paleaologus: Opera, in: Patrologia Graeca, 156, 126-173 (die ersten beiden Dialoge über den Islam); 313-384 (Hypothekai basilikes agoges); 385-561 (Orationes ethico-politicae) u. 561-564; 577-580 (Diskurs über die Tapeten in Paris)
Manuel Palaeologus : Correspondence. Lettres de l' empereur, ed. E. Legrand, Paris 1893, reprinted 1962
________.: Dialoge mit einem Perser", hg. v. Erich Trapp, (= Wiener Byzantinistische Studien 2), Wien 1966
________.: The Letters, ed. by George T. Dennis, (= Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 8), Washington 1977
________. Funeral oration on his brother Theodore, Thessalonike 1985
________.: Dialogus de matrimonio, ed. C. Bevegni, Catania 1989
________. Dialogue with the Empress-Mother on Marriage, ed. A. Angelou, Wien 1989
Manuel II. Palaiologos: Dialog über den Islam und Erziehungsratschläge, übers. v. Raimund Senoner, Einleitung von Wilhelm Baum, CDROM, Klagenfurt 2001
Marinesco C.: Manuel II Paléologue et les rois d' Aragon, Commentaire sur quatre lettres inédites en Latin, expediées par la chancellerie byzantine, in: Académie Roumaine, Bulletin de la Section Historique 11, 1924, 192-206
Marinesco, C. : "De Nouveau sur les relations de Manuel Paleologue (1391-1425) avec l' Espagne," in : atti dello VIII Congresso Internazionale di studi Bizantini, I (= Studi bizantini e neoellenici 7), 1953, 420-436
________..:" Deux Empereurs byzantins en Occident : Manuel II et Jean VIII Paleologue," in : Compts-rendus de l' Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, Janvier-Mars 1957, Paris 1958, 23f
Matschke, Klaus-Peter: Die Schlacht von Ankara und das Schicksal von Byzanz, (= Forschungen zur mittelalterl. Geschichte 29), Weimar 1981
Matuz, Josef: Das Osmanische Reich. Grundlinien seiner Geschichte, Darmstadt, 2. Aufl., 1990
Moravsik, Gyula: Byzantium and the Magyars, Amsterdam 1970
Nagel, Tilmann: Timur der Eroberer und die islamische Welt des späten Mittelalters, München 1993
Nicol, Donald M.: The Last Centuries of Byzantium, London 1972
________. Der Niedergang von Byzanz, in: Fischer Weltgeschichte 13: Byzanz, Frankfurt 1973, 348-406
Norden, W.: Das Papsttum und Byzanz. Die Trennung der beiden Mächte und das Problem der Wiedervereinigung bis zum Untergang des byzantinischen Reiches (1453), Berlin 1903
Norwich, John Julius: Byzanz, Bd. 3: Verfall und Untergang 1071-1453, Düsseldorf-München 1998
Ostrogorski, Georg: Geschichte des byzantinischen Staates, München 1963, 478
The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, vol. 3, New York-Oxford 1991, 1291f (A.M.T., A.C.), 207-210
Peti,t L.: "Manuel II," in : Dictionnaire de Theologie catholique IV,2, Paris 1927, 1925-1932
Prosopographisches Lexikon der Paläologenzeit, Bd. 9, 1989, 101f, Nr. 21513
Regesta Imperii XI: Die Urkunden Kaiser Sigmunds (1410-1437), Innsbruck 1896
Reinert, Stephen W.: "Manuel II. Paleologus and his Müderris," in: The Twilight of Byzantium. Aspects of cultural and religious history in the late Byzantine empire, Princeton 1991, 39-51
________. Das Patriarchat von Konstantinopel, München 1970
________. Die Eroberung von Konstantinopel 1453, (= dtv4286), Frankfurt 1977
Sahas Daniel J.: "Saracens and the Syrians in the Byzantine Anti-Islamic Literature and before", in: Symposion Syriacum VII, (= Orientalia Christiana Analecta 256), Roma 1998, 387-408
Schlumberger, G.: "Un Empereur de Byzance A Paris et Londres," in. Byzance et Croisades: Pages medievales, Paris 1927, 87-147, also separately, Paris 1916
Schreiner, Peter : "Hochzeit und Krönung Kaiser Manuels II. im Jahre 1392," in: Byzantinische Zeitschrift 60, (1967), 70-85
Silberschmidt ,Max: Das orientalische Problem zur Zeit der Entstehung des türkischen Reiches nach venezianischen Quellen, (= Beiträge z. Kulturgeschichte des Mittelalters u. der Renaissance 27), Leipzig-Berlin 1923
Todt, Klaus Peter: "Manuel II. Palaiologos," in: Biobibliographisches Kirchenlexikon 5, 1993, 728-731
Trapp, Erich: "Der Sprachgebrauch Manuels II. in den Dialogen mit einem Perser," in: Jb. d. Österr. Byz. Ges. 16, (1967), 189-197
Tusculum Lexikon griechischer u. latein. Autoren, 3. Aufl., München-Zürich 1982
Voordeckers, E.: "Les Entretiens avec un Perse de l' empereur Manuel II Paleologue," in: Byzantion 36, (1966), 311-317
Werner, Ernst: Die Geburt einer Großmacht. Die Osmanen (1300-1481), (= Forschungen zur mittelalterlichen Geschichte 32), Wien-Köln-Graz, 4. Aufl., 1985
Wirth, Peter: Grundzüge der byzantinischen Geschichte, Darmstadt, 3. Aufl. 1997
Zachariadou, Elizabeth A.: "Ottoman Diplomacy and the Danube Frontier (1420-1424)," in: Harvard Ukrainian Studies Okeanos, Cambridge 1983, vol. 7, 680-690
Notes:
[[1]]Tusculum Lexikon griechischer u. latein. Autoren, 3. Aufl., München-Zürich 1982, 498-500; The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, vol. 3, New York-Oxford 1991, 1291f (A.M.T., A.C.); Prosopographisches Lexikon der Paläologenzeit, (= hereafter: PLP) Bd. 9, 1989, 101f, Nr. 21513; Johannes Karayannopulos - Günter Weiss: Quellenkunde zur Geschichte von Byzanz (324-1453), Bd. 2/4, Wiesbaden 1982, 538f, Nr. 581; Karl Krumbach: Geschichte der byzantinischen Literatur, (= Handbuch d. klass. Altertumswiss. 9/1), München 1891, 207-210; Geschichte in Gestalten, hg. v. Hans Herzfeld, Bd. 3, Frankfurt 1969, 117; Encyclopaedia Britannica 7, 15. ed., 1993, 799 u. Klaus Peter Todt: "Manuel II. Palaiologos," in: Biobibliographisches Kirchenlexikon 5, 1993, 728-731
[[3]] John W. Barker: Manuel II. Palaeologus. 1391-1425. A study in late Byzantine Statesmanship, New Brunswick 1969, XIXf
[[4]]John Julius Norwich: Byzanz, Bd. 3: Verfall und Untergang 1071-1453, Düsseldorf-München 1998, 385f
[[5]]Marie-Hélène Congourdeau: "Die byzantinische Kirche von 1274-1453," in: Die Geschichte des Christentums, Bd. 6: 1274-1449), Freiburg-Basel-Wien 132-204, here 161
[[6]]G.T. Dennis: The reign of Manuel II. Palaeologus in Thessalonica 1382-1387, (= Or. Christ. Anal. 159), Rom 1960
[[7]]Herbert Hunger: Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner, (= Byzantinisches Handbuch V/!), München 1978, 149
[[8]]Donald M. Nicol: "er Niedergang von Byzanz," in: Fischer Weltgeschichte 13: Byzanz, Frankfurt 1973, 348-406, here393
[[9]]Georg Ostrogorski: Geschichte des byzantinischen Staates, München 1963, 478
[[10]]Peter Wirth: Grundzüge der byzantinischen Geschichte, Darmstadt, 3. Aufl. 1997, 153
[[11]] Etienne Coche de la Ferté : Byzantinische Kunst, Freiburg-Basel-Wien 1982, 273
[[12]] Marie-Hélène Congourdeau: "Kirche und weltliche Macht in Byzanz - Patriarch und Kaiser," in: Die Geschichte des Christentums 6: 1274-1449, Freiburg-Basel-Wien 1991, 610-625, hier 612
[[13]] ibid, Congourdeau (1991), 621 u. Franz Dölger: Regesten des oströmischen Reiches, Bd. 5 (1341-1453), München-Berlin 1965, 81, Nr. 3241
[[14]]Das dunkle Zeitalter. Spektrum der Weltgeschichte 1300-1400, Amsterdam 1989, 63f
[[15]]Josef Matuz: Das Osmanische Reich. Grundlinien seiner Geschichte, Darmstadt, 2. Aufl., 1990, 42
[[16]]Dölger V (1965), 82f, Nr. 3250f
[[17]]Aziz Suryal Atiya: The crusade of Nicopolis (1934), ND London (ca. 1978), 34
[[18]] Dölger V (1965), 83, Nr. 3255
[[19] Wilhelm Baum: Kaiser Sigismund. Konstanz, Hus und Türkenkriege, Graz-Wien-Köln 1993, 38-40
[[20]] Max Silberschmidt: Das orientalische Problem zur Zeit der Entstehung des türkischen Reiches nach venezianischen Quellen, (= Beiträge z. Kulturgeschichte des Mittelalters u. der Renaissance 27), Leipzig-Berlin 1923, 183
[[21]] Donald M. Nicol: The Last Centuries of Byzantium, London 1972, 320
[[22]] Joseph v. Hammer-Purgstall: Geschichte des Osmanischen Reiches, Bd. 1, (= Veröff. d. Hammer-Purgstall-Gesellschaft A 1), Graz 1963, 245f
[[23]] Dölger V (1965), 86, Nr. 3278
[[24]] Nicolae Jorga: Notes et Extraits pour servir a l' histoire des Croisades au Xve siècle, Paris 1899, 81
[[25]] S. Cirac-Estopanan: Bilancio y Espana. La unión, Manuel II. Paleólogo y sus recuerdos en Espana, Barcelona 1952
[[26]] Migne: Patrologia Graeca 156, 580-581
[[27]] Tilmann Nagel: Timur der Eroberer und die islamische Welt des späten Mittelalters, München 1993, 355
[[28]] Nicol (1972), 335 and Ernst Werner: Die Geburt einer Großmacht. Die Osmanen (1300-1481), (= Forschungen zur mittelalterlichen Geschichte 32), Wien-Köln-Graz, 4. Aufl., 1985, 196f
[[29]]Klaus-Peter Matschke: Die Schlacht von Ankara und das Schicksal von Byzanz, (= Forschungen zur mittelalterl. Geschichte 29), Weimar 1981, 47
[[30]]Franz Dölger: "Die Familie der Könige" im Mittelalter," in: Byzanz und die europäische Staatenwelt, Darmstadt 1964,34-69, hier 51
[[31]] Nicol (1972), 342 u. A. Bakalopulos: "Les limites de l' empire byzantin jusqu' à sa chute (1453)," in : Byzantinische Zeitschrift 55, (1962), 56-65, here 61
[[32]]Dölger V (1965), 97, Nr. 3326 u. PLP 12, 1994, 252, Nr. 31160
[[33]]PLP 12, 1994, 253, Nr. 31165
[[34]]Gustav Beckmann: Der Kampf Kaiser Sigmunds gegen die werdende Weltmacht der Osmanen 1392-1437, Gotha 1902, 27
[[36]]Heinrich Finke: Acta Concilii Constantiensis, 4 Bde, Münster 1896/1926, here Bd. 1, 391-394, Nr. 111 u. Dölger V (1965), 98, Nr. 3329
[[37]]Wilhelm Baum: "Europapolitik im Vorfeld der Frühen Neuzeit: König und Kaiser Sigismund vom Hause Luxemburg, Ungarn, Byzanz und der Orient", in: Europa in der frühen Neuzeit, Festschrift Günter Mühlpfordt, Bd. 1, hg. v. Erich Donnert, Weimar-Köln-Wien 1997, 13-43, here 24
[[38]] Finke I (1896), 394-399, Nr. 112
[[39]]Dölger V (1965), 99, Nr. 3339
[[40]] Finke I (1896), 399-401, Nr. 113; Regesta Imperii XI: Die Urkunden Kaiser Sigmunds (1410-1437), Innsbruck 1896, 435, Nr. 12248 u. Dölger V (1965), 99, Nr. 3339
[[41]]Dölger V (1965), 106, Nr. 3380
[[42]]Walter Brandmüller: Das Konzil von Konstanz 1414-1418, Bd. 1, Paderborn 1991, 151
[[43]] Dölger V (1965), 100, Nr. 3345
[[44]] Hans Georg Beck: "Byzanz und der Westen im Zeitalter des Konziliarismus," in: Die Welt zur Zeit des Konstanzer Konzils, (= Vorträge u. Forschungen 9), Konstanz-Stuttgart, 1965, 134-148, here 142
[[45]]W. Norden: Das Papsttum und Byzanz. Die Trennung der beiden Mächte und das Problem der Wiedervereinigung bis zum Untergang des byzantinischen Reiches (1453), Berlin 1903, 711f
[[46]]Jörg K. Hoensch: Kaiser Sigismund. Herrscher an der schwelle zur Neuzeit 1368-1437, München 1996, 241
[[47]]Dölger V (1965), 106, Nr. 3374
[[48]]Elizabeth A. Zachariadou: "Ottoman Diplomacy and the Danube Frontier (1420-1424)," in: Havard Ukrainian Studies Okeanos, Cambridge 1983, vol. 7, 680-690, here687
[[50]] E. Fenster: "Johannes VIII.", in: Biograph. Lexikon z. Geschichte Osteuropas, Bd. 2, München 1976, 284-286
[[51]] Nicolae Jorga: Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches, Bd. 1: bis 1451 (1908), ND Frankfurt 1990, 383
[[52]]Heinrich Kretschmayr: Geschichte von Venedig, Bd. 2 (1920), ND Aalen 1964, 273
[[53]] Walter Helfer: Johannes VIII. Palaiologos. Eine monographische Dokumentation, phil. Diss., Wien 1969, 57-64 u. Gyula Moravsik: Byzantiunm and the Magyars, Amsterdam 1970, 99f
[[54]]Dölger V (1965), 107, Nr. 3406
[[58]] Les voyageurs dans l' empire ottoman (XIVe - XVIe siècles), hg. v. Stephanie Yerasimos, Ankara 1991, 100
[[59]] Hans Wilhelm Haussig: Kulturgeschichte von Byzanz, Stuttgart, 2. Aufl. 1966, 499
[[60]] Stephen W. Reinert: "Manuel II. Paleologus and His Müderris," in: The Twilight of Byzantium. Aspects of cultural and religious history in the late Byzantine empire, Princeton 1991, 39-51, hier 41
[[61]]Erich Trapp: Manuel II. Palaiologos: Dialoge mit einem Perser", (= Wiener Byzantinistische Studien 2), Wien 1966; the seventh dialogue was edited by Theodore Khoury: Manuel Paléologue, Entretiens avec un Muselman. 7e Controverse, in: Sources Chrétiennes 115, Paris 1966. The first two dialogues were first edited in Migne: Patrologia Graeca 156, 126-173
[[62]]Alain Ducellier: Chrétiens d' Orient et Islam au Moyen Age VIIe - Xve siècle,, Paris 1996, 300ff
[[63]]Adel-Théodore Khoury: der theologische Streit der Byzantiner mit dem Islam, Paderborn 1969. Ludwig Hagemann: Christentum contra Islam. Eine Geschichte gescheiterter Beziehungen, Darmstadt 1999 does not treat Manuel's works.
[[64]]Migne: Patrologia Graeca154, 371-692
[[66]Daniel J. Sahas: "Saracens and the Syrians in the Byzantine Anti-Islamic Literature and before," in:Symposion Syriacum VII, (= Orientalia Christiana Analecta 256), Roma 1998, 387-408, hier 407
[[67]] Marie Theres Fögen: "Das politische Denken der Byzantiner," in: Pipers Handbuch der politischen Ideen, Bd. 2: Mittelalter, München-Zürich 1993, 61
[[68]]Steven Runciman: Die Eroberung von Konstantinopel 1453, (= dtv4286), Frankfurt 1977, 13
[[69]]Steven Runciman: Das Patriarchat von Konstantinopel, München 1970, 14f
[[70]]Hier zitiert nach: Congourdeau (1991), 616
[[71]]Jean Louis van Dieten: "Politische Ideologie und Niedergang im Byzanz der Palaiologen," in: Zeitschr. F. histor. Forschung 6, (1979), 1-35, here 3
[[72]] Manuel II. Palaeologus: Funeral oration on his brother Theodore, Thessalonike 1985
[[74]] Manuel II. Palaeologus: The Letters, ed. by George T. Dennis, (= Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 8), Washington 1977
[[75]]Migne: Patrologia Graeca 156, 577-580
[[76]]Manuel Palaiologos: Dialogus de matrimonio, ed. C. Bevegni, Catania 1989 u. A. Angelou: Manuel Palaiologos: Dialogue with the Empress-Mother on Marriage, Wien 1989
[[77]]Migne: Patrologia Graeca 156, 87, Nr. 22
[[78]] Migne, op. cit., 385-561 und 561-564
[[79]] ibid. 320-384: Hypothekai basilikes agoges
[[80]] Compare Byzantinische Fürstenspiegel, hg. v. Wilhelm Blum, (= Bibliothek der griechischen Literatur 14), Stuttgart 1981, 54-56
Copyright (C), Whilhelm Baum. This file may be copied on the condition that the entire contents, including the header and this copyright notice, remain intact.
For more detailed geographical information, please use the DIR/ORBAntique and Medieval Atlas below. Click on the appropriate part of the map below to access large area maps.
