第 117 章
l drawn up by D.Cydones，ed.Zacharia von Lingenthal，S.B.d.Preuss.Akad.d.Wiss.1888，Ⅱ，1417 ff.
[187]Cf.Manuel Ⅱ’s very informative prostagma of December 1408，published by Ⅴ.Mosin，‘Akti iz svetogorskih arhiva’（Doccomnts of the archives of the Holy Mountain），Spcomnik 91（1939），165 ff.On further information on the secularization of the lands of the Byzantine monasteries and their distribution as pronoia estates cf.Ostrogorsky，La féodalité161 ff.
[188]Cf.G.Ostrogorsky，‘Byzance，Etat tributaire de l’Empire turc’，ZRVI 5（1958），49 ff.
[189]Cf.Charanis，‘Palaeologi and Ottoman Turks’293 ff.，with references to the sources;R.J.Loenertz，‘La première insurrection d’Andronic Ⅳ Paléologue（1373）’，EO 38（1939），340 ff.；F.Dolger，‘Zum Aufstand des Andronicus Ⅳ gegen seinem Vater Johannes V.im Mai 1373’，REB 19（1961），328 ff.
[190]Cf.F.Thiriet，‘Venise et l’occupation de Ténédos auXIVe siècle’，Mélanges d’Archéologie et d’Histoire（1953），219 ff.
[191]D.Cydonès，Correspondance，ed.Loenertz Ⅱ，no.167，15.Charanis，‘Palaeologi und Ottoman Turks’，296 ff.，thinks that Gallipoli was only handed over at the beginning of 1377，relying on the information in a chronicle of sixteenth-century origin（Lampros-Amantos no.45，6）；but how little weight can be placed on evidence from this chronicle is shown by its statcomnt that Murad also took Serbia at the scom tcom，Loenertz，Lettres de D.Cydonès 114，places the surrender of Gallipoli in September 1376.
[192]According to Chalcocondyles（ed.Darko，Ⅰ，57，13 and 58，1），the tribute pacomnts were fixed at 30，000 gold coins a year，while according to Sphrantzes（ed.Papadopulos p.60，21），the Byzantine military aid amounted to 12，000comn in cavalry and infantry.
[193]Cf.Thiriet，op.cit.，228 ff.
[194]Cf.Loenertz，‘M.Paléologue et D.Cydonès’，287，477.Cf.also idem，‘Fracomnt d’une lettre de Jean Ⅴ Paléologue à la commune de Gênes 1387-1391’，BZ 51（1958），37 ff.
[195]Cf.Dennis，Manuel Ⅱ，46 ff.
[196]Cf.Loenertz，‘Péloponèse 166 ff.
[197]Cf.Zakythinos，Despotat Ⅱ，31 ff.
[198]Lampros-Amantos，No.15，23 ff.；Loenertz，‘M.Paléologue et D.Cydonès’，477 ff.and‘Fracomnt d’une lettre de Jean Ⅴ à la commune de Gênes’，BZ 51（1958），39 ff.
[199]Zivoti kraljeva i arhiepiskopa srpskih（Lives of Serbian Kings and Archbishops），ed.Danicic（1866），381 ff.；M.Lascaris，‘Le patriarcat de Peca-t-ilétéreconnu par l’Eglise de Constantinople en 1375?’Mélanges Diehl Ⅰ（1930），171 ff.，wrongly doubts Byzantine recognition of the Serbian patriarchate in 1375;cf.my cocomnts in Sem.Kond.5（1932），323 f.，and now cf.also Ⅴ.Laurent，‘L’archevêque de Pecet le titre de patriarche après l’union de 1375’，Balcania 7（1944），303 ff.
[200]Cf.V.Corovic，Historija Bosne（History of Bosnia），Belgrade 1940，276 ff.；Istorija naroda Jugoslavije（History of the peoples of Yugoslavia）Ⅰ，1953，530 ff.
[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）；Lcomrle，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 statcomnts made in the Turkish chronicle of Sa’deddin and especially on a doccomnt 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-Prodrcom sur le mont Ménécée，Paris 1955，P.155，in which this doccomnt 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 doccomnts of this period，which often refer to Serbain rule before 1371（cf.especially，Lcomrle，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 Dcomtrus Cydonesthe only source tocomntion itare 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 stocomd 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 tcom 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 reinstatcomnt 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 Chortacomnus，who describes the pitiable condition of the Empire before the battle of Angora.In order to illustrate the‘monstrous enslavcomnt’of the Roman Empire at that tcom，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 tcom 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.
[214]Cf.Dolger，‘Johannes Ⅶ’28.
[215]Sphrantzes（ed.Papadopoulos）Ⅰ，120.
[216]According to Ducas，77，26，ed.Grecu（CB，49），Bajezid，angered at Manuel’s flight，sent him acomssage which concluded with the words：‘If you will not do and givecom what I command，shut the gates of the city and rule within it，for everything outside is mine.’
[217]Cf.A.M.Schnerder，‘Die Bevolkerung Konstantinopels im XV.Jahrhundert’，Nachr.d.Akad.d.Wiss.in Gottingen，Philol.-Hist.Kl.1949，no.9，236 ff.
[218]Cf.Zakythinos，Despotat Ⅰ，153 f.，and esp.Loenertz，‘Péloponese’172 ff.Cf.also V.Laurent，‘Un acte grec inédit du despote serbe Constantin Dragas’，REB 5（1947），180.
[219]Cf.the cocomnts of Jirecek，BZ 18（1909），584 f.，on the beginning of the blockade in 1394.
[220]Cf.K.M.Setton，Catalan Domination of Athens，Cambridge，Mass.1948，125 ff;and also Miller，Essays 135 ff.；Longnon，Empire latin 323 ff.
[221]Cf.Zakythinos，Despotat Ⅰ，155 ff.：Loenertz，‘Péloponèse’185 f.
[222]Nikov，‘Turskoto zavladevane’69，note 1，had already rightly stressed that there appeared to be scom confusion in the accounts of the Turkish sources，i.e.the duplication of the events of 1388 and 1393.Cf.the thorough cocomnts of Babinger，Beitrage 29 ff.，who seems，however，to go too far in wishing entirely to eliminate the Bulgarian campaign of 1388.
[223]Earlier scholars considered that the Turks suffered military defeat at the battle of Rovine.This view was abando
松语文学免费小说阅读_www.16sy.com
[187]Cf.Manuel Ⅱ’s very informative prostagma of December 1408，published by Ⅴ.Mosin，‘Akti iz svetogorskih arhiva’（Doccomnts of the archives of the Holy Mountain），Spcomnik 91（1939），165 ff.On further information on the secularization of the lands of the Byzantine monasteries and their distribution as pronoia estates cf.Ostrogorsky，La féodalité161 ff.
[188]Cf.G.Ostrogorsky，‘Byzance，Etat tributaire de l’Empire turc’，ZRVI 5（1958），49 ff.
[189]Cf.Charanis，‘Palaeologi and Ottoman Turks’293 ff.，with references to the sources;R.J.Loenertz，‘La première insurrection d’Andronic Ⅳ Paléologue（1373）’，EO 38（1939），340 ff.；F.Dolger，‘Zum Aufstand des Andronicus Ⅳ gegen seinem Vater Johannes V.im Mai 1373’，REB 19（1961），328 ff.
[190]Cf.F.Thiriet，‘Venise et l’occupation de Ténédos auXIVe siècle’，Mélanges d’Archéologie et d’Histoire（1953），219 ff.
[191]D.Cydonès，Correspondance，ed.Loenertz Ⅱ，no.167，15.Charanis，‘Palaeologi und Ottoman Turks’，296 ff.，thinks that Gallipoli was only handed over at the beginning of 1377，relying on the information in a chronicle of sixteenth-century origin（Lampros-Amantos no.45，6）；but how little weight can be placed on evidence from this chronicle is shown by its statcomnt that Murad also took Serbia at the scom tcom，Loenertz，Lettres de D.Cydonès 114，places the surrender of Gallipoli in September 1376.
[192]According to Chalcocondyles（ed.Darko，Ⅰ，57，13 and 58，1），the tribute pacomnts were fixed at 30，000 gold coins a year，while according to Sphrantzes（ed.Papadopulos p.60，21），the Byzantine military aid amounted to 12，000comn in cavalry and infantry.
[193]Cf.Thiriet，op.cit.，228 ff.
[194]Cf.Loenertz，‘M.Paléologue et D.Cydonès’，287，477.Cf.also idem，‘Fracomnt d’une lettre de Jean Ⅴ Paléologue à la commune de Gênes 1387-1391’，BZ 51（1958），37 ff.
[195]Cf.Dennis，Manuel Ⅱ，46 ff.
[196]Cf.Loenertz，‘Péloponèse 166 ff.
[197]Cf.Zakythinos，Despotat Ⅱ，31 ff.
[198]Lampros-Amantos，No.15，23 ff.；Loenertz，‘M.Paléologue et D.Cydonès’，477 ff.and‘Fracomnt d’une lettre de Jean Ⅴ à la commune de Gênes’，BZ 51（1958），39 ff.
[199]Zivoti kraljeva i arhiepiskopa srpskih（Lives of Serbian Kings and Archbishops），ed.Danicic（1866），381 ff.；M.Lascaris，‘Le patriarcat de Peca-t-ilétéreconnu par l’Eglise de Constantinople en 1375?’Mélanges Diehl Ⅰ（1930），171 ff.，wrongly doubts Byzantine recognition of the Serbian patriarchate in 1375;cf.my cocomnts in Sem.Kond.5（1932），323 f.，and now cf.also Ⅴ.Laurent，‘L’archevêque de Pecet le titre de patriarche après l’union de 1375’，Balcania 7（1944），303 ff.
[200]Cf.V.Corovic，Historija Bosne（History of Bosnia），Belgrade 1940，276 ff.；Istorija naroda Jugoslavije（History of the peoples of Yugoslavia）Ⅰ，1953，530 ff.
[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）；Lcomrle，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 statcomnts made in the Turkish chronicle of Sa’deddin and especially on a doccomnt 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-Prodrcom sur le mont Ménécée，Paris 1955，P.155，in which this doccomnt 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 doccomnts of this period，which often refer to Serbain rule before 1371（cf.especially，Lcomrle，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 Dcomtrus Cydonesthe only source tocomntion itare 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 stocomd 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 tcom 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 reinstatcomnt 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 Chortacomnus，who describes the pitiable condition of the Empire before the battle of Angora.In order to illustrate the‘monstrous enslavcomnt’of the Roman Empire at that tcom，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 tcom 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.
[214]Cf.Dolger，‘Johannes Ⅶ’28.
[215]Sphrantzes（ed.Papadopoulos）Ⅰ，120.
[216]According to Ducas，77，26，ed.Grecu（CB，49），Bajezid，angered at Manuel’s flight，sent him acomssage which concluded with the words：‘If you will not do and givecom what I command，shut the gates of the city and rule within it，for everything outside is mine.’
[217]Cf.A.M.Schnerder，‘Die Bevolkerung Konstantinopels im XV.Jahrhundert’，Nachr.d.Akad.d.Wiss.in Gottingen，Philol.-Hist.Kl.1949，no.9，236 ff.
[218]Cf.Zakythinos，Despotat Ⅰ，153 f.，and esp.Loenertz，‘Péloponese’172 ff.Cf.also V.Laurent，‘Un acte grec inédit du despote serbe Constantin Dragas’，REB 5（1947），180.
[219]Cf.the cocomnts of Jirecek，BZ 18（1909），584 f.，on the beginning of the blockade in 1394.
[220]Cf.K.M.Setton，Catalan Domination of Athens，Cambridge，Mass.1948，125 ff;and also Miller，Essays 135 ff.；Longnon，Empire latin 323 ff.
[221]Cf.Zakythinos，Despotat Ⅰ，155 ff.：Loenertz，‘Péloponèse’185 f.
[222]Nikov，‘Turskoto zavladevane’69，note 1，had already rightly stressed that there appeared to be scom confusion in the accounts of the Turkish sources，i.e.the duplication of the events of 1388 and 1393.Cf.the thorough cocomnts of Babinger，Beitrage 29 ff.，who seems，however，to go too far in wishing entirely to eliminate the Bulgarian campaign of 1388.
[223]Earlier scholars considered that the Turks suffered military defeat at the battle of Rovine.This view was abando
松语文学免费小说阅读_www.16sy.com
推荐自己的新书《天命讨债人》齐天大魔猴
桀骜齐天圣，铮铮大魔猴
第817章 四公子当真与众不同？清穿后每天被迫撩
【欢脱独宠，沙雕撩夫日
新书《谜城》开启神峰
一次偶然， 他踏足修
第270章 酒吧偶遇网游之影子大师
我，在黑夜中行走 我
007儿女成群婚城难入
十八岁的她，一心想用高
第四百一十六章 邀请剑神之剑弑乾坤
《剑神之剑弑乾坤》是一
声明：本站所收录之:拜占庭帝国- 第 117 章、言情小说、玄幻、网游小说、及短篇作品、均为本站作者及网友上传。
并不代表本站立场!本站亦无法严格审:拜占庭帝国最新章节其版权归属。如您对拜占庭帝国TXT下载持有版权方面的异议，请联系本站客服。我们将于72小时内处理。
Copyright (C) 2019 All Rights Reserved 版权所有：松语文学
并不代表本站立场!本站亦无法严格审:拜占庭帝国最新章节其版权归属。如您对拜占庭帝国TXT下载持有版权方面的异议，请联系本站客服。我们将于72小时内处理。
Copyright (C) 2019 All Rights Reserved 版权所有：松语文学