Dux & Doukas (was: Monomachos)
Stewart, Peter
> From: "Serban Marin" <sma...@dnt.ro> <mailto:sma...@dnt.ro>
> Subject: Re: Monomachos
> Dear Prof Stewart,
> I really don't know where did you detect the below
> information. I has known that the assimiliation between
> "Doukas" and "dux" was entirely an invention belonging
> to the Western travellers to Byzantium. And nothing
> more. TheByzantine family name of Doukas was prior
> to the contacts with the Western institution of "dux".
> Excuse my ignorance, but I don't know anything about
> such a rank in theByzantine military structure.
> > Doukas is taken to derive from "doux", the Hellenized
> > version of the Latin "dux", a military rank in the Eastern
> > empire which anyone who studies Byzantine history
> > should be familiar with.
Please call me Peter (or Mr Stewart if you prefer), since the universities
of Australia are innocent of your polite charge -- I am not a professor.
It's a bit of a mystery why you & others refer to "Western travellers to
Byzantium" as the source of various questioned understandings or
misunderstandings about the Byzantine world -- please remember that there
were many "Westeners" in the medieval period who were born and lived their
entire lives in the Eastern Mediterranean as neighbours, friends, family
relations and/or rulers of Greek people. On this subject, I recommend that
anyone interested should read *Interaction of the "Sibling" Byzantine and
Western Cultures in the Middle Ages and Italian Renaissance (330--1600)* by
DJ Geanakopolos (New Haven & London, 1976).
As to the origin of the the name Doukas and the rank of dux, DI Polemis in
*The Doukai: A Contribution to Byzantine Prosopography* (London, 1968) wrote
(page 4):
"The cognomen of Doux-Doukas appears for the first time in c. 855 and no
doubt derived from the military rank of "dux", presumably held by the
founder of the house that flourished in that century.....The rank of "dux"
was not particularly widespread at that time and was applicable to those
army commanders who were in charge of rather remote military districts
falling outside the jurisdiction proper of the theme "strategoi".
Some references he cites for the military rank are:
JB Bury: *A History of the Eastern Roman Empire from the Fall of Irene to
the Accession of Basil I (AD 802--867)* (London, 1912), page 223
H Glykatzi-Ahrweiler: "Recherches sur l'administration de l'empire byzantin
aux IXe--Xe siècles", *Bulletin de Correspondence Hellénique* 84 (1960),
page 53
T Wasilewski: "Les titres de duc, de catépan et de pronoétès dans l'Empire
byzantin du IXe, jusqu'au XIIe siècle", *Actes du XIIe Congrès International
d'Etudes Byzantines* (Belgrade, 1964), II, pages 233-9.
Apparently we should be sparing in further exchanges on subjects related to
the name Monomachos, as Ivor West considers this a waste of SMG archive
space.
Peter Stewart
Omega
Christakis and George Paterakis (two Historians). Other historians say the
same.
After Phokas re-gained control of Crete in 961, "O Archontas tis Kritis",
was now named Stratigos and later Doukas - Katepano. These "Titles" were
later adopted by the Venetians. This does not mean or suggest that the
title Doukas was firstly used in Crete, however, it may suggest that the
name/title developed from "Stratigos" which means/translates "General".
The word DUX does not exist in Greek, and there is a difference (I believe)
between
the title Duke and Doukas, but I could be wrong.
Dr. George Tsambourakis
Omega Thoroughbreds
Tooborac, Victoria, Australia
e-Mail: om...@thoroughbreds.com.au
Web-Site: http://www.thoroughbreds.com.au
"Stewart, Peter" <Peter....@crsrehab.gov.au> wrote in message
news:BE9CF8DEAB7ED311B05E...@v003138e.crsrehab.gov.au...
D. Spencer Hines
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one
by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." -- Edmund
Burke -- Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents [April 23,
1770]
"You could not stand five minutes with that man [Burke] beneath a shed
while it rained, but you must be convinced you had been standing with
the greatest man you had ever seen." Samuel Johnson [1709-1784],
_Johnsonian Miscellanies [1897], edited by G.B. Hill, vol. 1, p.290
"On résiste à l'invasion des armées; on ne résiste pas à l'invasion des
idées."
Victor Hugo
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor
"Omega" <om...@thoroughbreds.com.au> wrote in message
news:w6_h6.13$nh7....@vic.nntp.telstra.net...
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Omega
Did you thought I disagreed?
Dr. George Tsambourakis
Omega Thoroughbreds
Tooborac, Victoria, Australia
e-Mail: om...@thoroughbreds.com.au
Web-Site: http://www.thoroughbreds.com.au
"D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote in message
news:3a885...@binarykiller.newsfeeds.com...
Pierre Aronax
Omega <om...@thoroughbreds.com.au> a écrit dans le message :
w6_h6.13$nh7....@vic.nntp.telstra.net...
> The word DUX does not exist in Greek, and there is a difference (I
believe)
> between
> the title Duke and Doukas, but I could be wrong.
You are wrong : the title of "doux" (in Greek) was in use in the Byzantine
time, and it is the transliteration of the Latine word "dux". Only one
example between hundreds, on the seal of the duke of Cyprus Konstantinos
Katakalon : "Graphôn sphragis Katakalôn Kônstantonou doukos Kupriôn,
prôtonôbellisimou" (imprint of the seal of Konstantinos Katakalon, Duke of
Cyprus, protonobellisimos). You must read more carefully Anna Komnena,
perhaps you could read something, for example, about the great duke (megas
doux) Evamthios Philokalos.
Pierre Aronax
Pierre Aronax <pierre...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message :
969tjb$ncj$1...@front4m.grolier.fr...
> about the great duke (megas
> doux) Evamthios Philokalos.
Typo error, this is Evmathios of course
Omega
right.
Anyway, Eumathios Philokalos was apointed "Military Governor" or "Doukas" or
"Stratopedarchis", I am not aware of the "Megas Doux" title.
The title Doukas existed some 200 years before Mr Philokalos was born.
Doux in Greek means nothing (to my knowledge).
D = NT; X = CHI. so it reads NTOUCH
Doukas on the other hand, it is written with D = Delta,
(Delta-Omicron-Ypsilon-Kappa-alpha-Sigma). 100% pure Greek.
If the word/title Doukas has evolved from Doux, than I am sure there must be
a few examples from the 7th, 8th and 9th centuries.
Dr. George Tsambourakis
Omega Thoroughbreds
Tooborac, Victoria, Australia
e-Mail: om...@thoroughbreds.com.au
Web-Site: http://www.thoroughbreds.com.au
"Pierre Aronax" <pierre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:969tjb$ncj$1...@front4m.grolier.fr...
Pierre Aronax
> Firstly, I said I could be wrong and I am still not convinced that I am
> right.
>
> Anyway, Eumathios Philokalos was apointed "Military Governor" or "Doukas"
or
> "Stratopedarchis", I am not aware of the "Megas Doux" title.
I know that it is absolutely vain to speak with you, but only for the game
and because you are amusing, I will do.
You know nothing about the title of "Megas Doux" for Evmathios Philokalis ?
Perhaps again his seal will convince you : "Theotoke boithei Eumethiô megalô
douki kai praitôr Ellados kai Peloponisou tô Philokali". He had the title of
megas doux and praitor (which is alsoa Byzantine title of Latine origin" in
a document of 25 August 1118.
I hope that when you say that you are not aware of the "Megas Doux" title,
it was only about this title for Philokalos, but that you know the title
himself. Because, of course, you are curious of Byzantine history and so
perhaps you have heard of Loukas Notaras.
> The title Doukas existed some 200 years before Mr Philokalos was born.
Examples ? Sources ? Anyway, it was the title of Doux, of which "Doukas" is
only a popular deformation. For exemple, Bardas Phokas who revolted during
Basil II's minority around 970 was an ex "doux" of Chaldea.
>
> Doux in Greek means nothing (to my knowledge).
> D = NT; X = CHI. so it reads NTOUCH
> Doukas on the other hand, it is written with D = Delta,
> (Delta-Omicron-Ypsilon-Kappa-alpha-Sigma). 100% pure Greek.
You knowledge is limited. ND is the way to transliterate the Latin D today,
in modern Greek, but it was not always the same: in the Byzantine period, it
was transliterated with a delta. So, "doux" (with a xi of course and not a
ki) is a Byzantine title, but it is no more "100 % pure Greek" than, for
example kaisar (transliteration of caesar). Speekink of "100 % pure Greek"
for an empire which was Roman in its origins and institutions is comical.
Omega
because you just simply have no answer.
It is obvious that I was not aware the Mr Philokalis did have the title of
Megas Doux.
Secondly, It is obvious and common knowledge that the word/title Doux did
exist in Europe and Byzantium. However, it is not obvious that the word
Doux, existed before the title Doukas.
The name/title Doukas exists since about 840.
Do you have any evidence that the title Doux was used before 840? and do
you have evidence that the name Doukas evolved from Doux before 840?
If you have, I lessen, if you don't there is no point arguing about it.
Dr. George Tsambourakis
Omega Thoroughbreds
Tooborac, Victoria, Australia
e-Mail: om...@thoroughbreds.com.au
Web-Site: http://www.thoroughbreds.com.au
"Pierre Aronax" <pierre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:96b43s$g1c$1...@front4.grolier.fr...
Serban Marin
You wrote:
> After Phokas re-gained control of Crete in 961, "O Archontas tis Kritis",
> was now named Stratigos and later Doukas - Katepano. These "Titles" were
> later adopted by the Venetians. This does not mean or suggest that the
> title Doukas was firstly used in Crete, however, it may suggest that the
> name/title developed from "Stratigos" which means/translates "General".
Which are the examples for the Venetians? I have never seen in any Venetian
chronicle or document the title of "strategos" for the Venetians themselves.
The one of "katepano" could be indeed put into connection with the
"capitano", or "capetanio", ecc. (depending on the century when the
respective chronicle was elaborated).
The "Duca" of Candia existed after 1204 (when the island of Crete was ceded
by Boniface of Montferrat to the Venetians), but the respective "duci"
(beginning with Jacomo Tiepolo) had very limited power, in comparison, for
instance, with the Venetian "podesta" in Constantinople.
But, coming back to "strategoi". I repeat: I am really interested if this
title really existed among the Venetians in the Aegean Arcipelago.
If yes, I need the sources.
Thanks in advance,
Serban Marin,
Bucharest, Romania,
sma...@dnt.ro
Omega
Dr. George Tsambourakis
Omega Thoroughbreds
Tooborac, Victoria, Australia
e-Mail: om...@thoroughbreds.com.au
Web-Site: http://www.thoroughbreds.com.au
"Serban Marin" <sma...@dnt.ro> wrote in message
news:017901c09545$bcc9d5c0$8f7de7c1@v0t8w0...
Stewart, Peter
> From: Omega [mailto:om...@thoroughbreds.com.au]
> Sent: Tuesday, 13 February 2001 11:43
> To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: Dux & Doukas (was: Monomachos)
>
>
> Firstly, I said I could be wrong and I am still not convinced
> that I am right.
I hope these lapidary words will never be lost from the smg archives.
Peter Stewart
Pierre Aronax
Serban Marin <sma...@dnt.ro> a écrit dans le message :
017901c09545$bcc9d5c0$8f7de7c1@v0t8w0...
Thanks God, I am not Dr Tambourakis, but I can try to answer to your
questions.
> > After Phokas re-gained control of Crete in 961, "O Archontas tis
Kritis",
> > was now named Stratigos and later Doukas - Katepano. These "Titles"
were
> > later adopted by the Venetians.
This has been discussed: in 8th and 9th centuries, Crete was under the
command of an archon (correct spelling of the word in that time, largely
attested by seals which are undisputable sources). The archon had usually
(at least in two cases) the dignity of imperial spatharios. A stratigos of
Crete is first mentioned in 767, but the validity of the source has been
debated. It certainly existed at the time of the Arab invasion (820'), but
it was an official distinct of the archon who still existed : both are
mentioned in a document dated of ca. 843.
After the reconquest of the island (961), the control of the island was
assured again by a stratigos, later by a doux (and *not* doukas) and
kapetano (the same person with the two titles).
> This does not mean or suggest that the
> > title Doukas
Again the correct form in Byzantine Greek is "doux" and in no way "doukas".
> was firstly used in Crete, however, it may suggest that the
> > name/title developed from "Stratigos" which means/translates "General".
Despite the fact that at that time the word "stratigos" had still the common
sense of "general", it was more precisely the title of the governor of a
theme, an administrative entity.
>
> Which are the examples for the Venetians? I have never seen in any
Venetian
> chronicle or document the title of "strategos" for the Venetians
themselves.
It was never used by the Venetians, despite the fact that some Venetians
received Byzantine dignities (but not functions) in the 11th and 12th
centuries.
> The one of "katepano" could be indeed put into connection with the
> "capitano", or "capetanio", ecc. (depending on the century when the
> respective chronicle was elaborated).
The office of captain of Crete ("capitaneus Crete" in Latin, "capitano di
Creta" in Italian) was created only in the and of the 14th century. It is
very difficult to see it as a resurrection of the Byzantine kapetano,
because the word is common in Italian.
> The "Duca" of Candia existed after 1204 (when the island of Crete was
ceded
> by Boniface of Montferrat to the Venetians), but the respective "duci"
> (beginning with Jacomo Tiepolo) had very limited power, in comparison, for
> instance, with the Venetian "podesta" in Constantinople.
Not absolutely true in the beginning : the first "duche" (plural of duca)
were in fact very similar to the podesta of Constantinople and were in
charge of the conquest of the island. But of course they were in function
for a limited time (as was in fact the podesta at Constantinople).
>
> But, coming back to "strategoi". I repeat: I am really interested if this
> title really existed among the Venetians in the Aegean Arcipelago.
It did not.
Omega
I only quote the comments found in book.
Katepano and Capitano are written differently, spelled differently, and
probably have different meanings.
Only loosers loose their temper.
And for your information, there are no Greek words ending in "x" (read
"ksi").
Only words taken from Latin or other languages do, for example: DUX, SPHINX,
etc.
But you knew that.
Dr. George Tsambourakis
Omega Thoroughbreds
Tooborac, Victoria, Australia
e-Mail: om...@thoroughbreds.com.au
Web-Site: http://www.thoroughbreds.com.au
"Pierre Aronax" <pierre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:96ci8b$ali$1...@front6m.grolier.fr...
Pierre Aronax
Omega <om...@thoroughbreds.com.au> a écrit dans le message :
wZki6.21$w3....@vic.nntp.telstra.net...
> And for your information, there are no Greek words ending in "x" (read
> "ksi").
> Only words taken from Latin or other languages do, for example: DUX,
SPHINX,
Really ? So for example "anax" (genitive "anaktos" : master, king) is not a
Greek word. What a pity for Agamemnon... Or perhaps Homer does not speaks
well Greek ? Never say never...
More seriously, I think that all this questions of spelling that obsess you
depend of what kind of Greek we have in mind. You don't seem to realise that
the Greek that you are speaking is not exactly the same than the Greek
spoken by the Byzantine.
Pierre Aronax
> It appears to me that you deliberately try to manipulate what I am saying
You are able to do that yourself
> because you just simply have no answer.
>
> It is obvious that I was not aware the Mr Philokalis did have the title of
> Megas Doux.
Exact, I misread your previous post. My apologize on that point.
> Secondly, It is obvious and common knowledge that the word/title Doux did
> exist in Europe and Byzantium.
It was obvious for us, not for you. I quote your words again : "I really
don't know where did you detect the below information. I has known that the
assimiliation between Doukas and dux was entirely an invention belonging to
the Western travellers to Byzantium."
I am very happy to see that you have change your mind.
> However, it is not obvious that the word
> Doux, existed before the title Doukas.
"Doukas" is *not* the correct form for the title, which is "doux". If you
think different, quote an official document where appears such a title.
> The name/title Doukas exists since about 840.
> Do you have any evidence that the title Doux was used before 840?
The institution of the doux (latin: dux) goes back to the administrative
reforms of Diocletian and Constantine in the 4th century: in that time the
doux was, in the Greek Orient as in the Latin Occident, the military
governor of the
province.
> and do
> you have evidence that the name Doukas evolved from Doux before 840?
For this, I do not see what kind of evidence one can expect to find. That is
only an hypothesis, as always with etymology of surnames, but which is very
rational and which was adopted by D. Polemis, the historian who had studied
the family of the Doukai (cf. quotation of his book in an earlier post by Mr
Stewart).
Serban Marin
----- Original Message -----
From: Pierre Aronax <pierre...@hotmail.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 2:10 AM
Subject: Re: Dux & Doukas (was: Monomachos)
>
Dear Pierre Aronax,
All your above corrections are not to my post, but to Dr. Tsambourakis's
one. I agree almost to all of them. But I still believe that there is a
missunderstanding. Both "doux" and "Doukas" existed and co-existed. First,
as a title, and the second, as a family name. There was no connection
between them. There were only the Western that, later, made the confusion.
> >
> > Which are the examples for the Venetians? I have never seen in any
> Venetian
> > chronicle or document the title of "strategos" for the Venetians
> themselves.
>
> It was never used by the Venetians, despite the fact that some Venetians
> received Byzantine dignities (but not functions) in the 11th and 12th
> centuries.
It is my belief, also. There were some doges or sons of the Doge (like
Giustiniano Partecipazio, Pietro Tradonico, Orso Partecipazio, Pietro
Candiano, or later Domenico Selvo. I mention them from memory but I could
give you more info, if you're interested) who received titles like "ipathos"
or "prothospatarios" or "prothovestiarios" from different emperors in
Constantinople, during the 10th-11th centuries, not the 12th.
It is true that some Venetian chronicles (extremely few, but among them it
is the very spread one written by Marino Sanudo the Young) consider that
also Orio Malipiero (Mastropiero) (1178-1192) received the title of
"prothospatarios". This could be the only example for the 12th century.
And you are right: they were only dignities, but not functions. The
Byzantines were clever enough to understand that the Venetians were very
sensitive to dignities (and also, to saints' bodies) and offered them
constantly, receiving in exchange the Venetian naval support (against the
Saracens, and then against the Normans in the Southern Italy).
> > The "Duca" of Candia existed after 1204 (when the island of Crete was
> ceded
> > by Boniface of Montferrat to the Venetians), but the respective "duci"
> > (beginning with Jacomo Tiepolo) had very limited power, in comparison,
for
> > instance, with the Venetian "podesta" in Constantinople.
>
> Not absolutely true in the beginning : the first "duche" (plural of duca)
> were in fact very similar to the podesta of Constantinople and were in
> charge of the conquest of the island. But of course they were in function
> for a limited time (as was in fact the podesta at Constantinople).
Are you sure about "duche" for the Venetian dialect? I would buy, first and
foremost, "doxi", "dogi" or - as I said above - "duci".
About the similarity between the "duca di Candia" and the "podesta' of
Constantinople", there are many things to be discussed. At least
theoretically, the difference existed to a significant extent. The "Duca" in
Crete was a kind of governor, while the "podesta" in Constantinople was
rather an ambassador to the Latin Emperor.
Also practically, there was a difference, at least at the beginning of the
Venetian domination in Romania. Since Marino Zen (the first podesta) was
elected by the Venetian merchants and population inside of Constantinople
(and only then confirmed by the central power in Venice), Jacomo Tiepolo
(the duca in Candia) was directly named from Venice.
Afterwards, while the Dukes of Candia were in a permanent fighting status
against the always revolted Greeks in the island, permanently behaving as
"conquistadores", the Podestas in Constantinople had not a policy against
any population, acting simply as ambassadors (a very powerful one, but
still).
>
> >
> > But, coming back to "strategoi". I repeat: I am really interested if
this
> > title really existed among the Venetians in the Aegean Arcipelago.
>
> It did not.
This was also my impression. But I was really confused by Dr. Tsambourakis's
posts.
All the best,
Serban Marin
You wrote:
> To be honest with you, I don't know what Katepano means. it could be from
> KATA-EPANO which freely translated means "in charge"
>
Interesting, since you also asserted that this title (like others) was
retaken by the Venetians. It sounds good, but without any source, it's
nothing more than fantasy.
> I have never seen Venetians or anybody else using the title "Strategos"
> although
> the Venetians have been using the title "Stratioti" for "Greek
professional
> soldiers".
OK! This was my opinion, too. Actually, the fact that the Venetians used
this title for the Greeks has nothing to do with any possible
'transgression' of it to the Venetians!
> The book refers to the title Doukas, but I have never seen Venetians using
> the title unless Doukas was changed to Duke.
Which book? I don't remember we talking about any particular book!
The first Venetian "Doge" was registered to the middle of the 8th century:
Deusdedit (742-755), although the tradition accredits the idea theat the
first one was Paulicius (Pauluccio Anafesto - some chronicles putin him into
corelation with the Falier family) (697-717). In the Venetian case I don't
believe that the name of "Doge" have anything to do with the Doukas, but
with the Western title of "dux". In the Venetian dialect, the sound "g" from
the word of "Doge" sounds closer to the "x" from "Dux" than "k" from
"Doukas".
>
> My impression/translation of the word Doukas is: A person in
charge/control
> of an outpost/remote area. That means both in charge of the army as well
as
> the local Government. That's "my" interpretation.
Not bad! I also think that the "Doge di Venetia" (the Duke of Venice)
residing right in Venice has its origins (as title) in the Western
institution. On the contrary, the "Duca di Candia" (the Duke of Crete) comes
from the former Byzantine institution in Crete.
That's the difference! Otherwise, it was not quite possible to have to
Venetian "dukes" at the same time!
Serban Marin,
Bucharest, Romania,
sma...@dnt.ro
>
> Dr. George Tsambourakis
> Omega Thoroughbreds
> Tooborac, Victoria, Australia
> e-Mail: om...@thoroughbreds.com.au
> Web-Site: http://www.thoroughbreds.com.au
> ----- Original Message -----
Pierre Aronax
> one. I agree almost to all of them. But I still believe that there is a
> missunderstanding. Both "doux" and "Doukas" existed and co-existed. First,
> as a title, and the second, as a family name.
I agree of course, I never said that the family of the Doukai did not
existe,
only that "doukas" is not a correct form for the title "doux".
> There was no connection
> between them. There were only the Western that, later, made the confusion.
On that point, one can only say that the must serious historian who studied
this family think that this etymology is not impossible and that Doukas may
well be a deformation of doux. I am not competent to judge his opinion.
> There were some doges or sons of the Doge
[omitted]
> who received titles like "ipathos"
> or "prothospatarios" or "prothovestiarios" from different emperors in
> Constantinople, during the 10th-11th centuries, not the 12th.
Since 1082, all the doges had the dignity of protosevastos, and all the
patriarch of Grado the dignity of hypertimos. The doges effectively used
this title in the 12th century: for example in 1122 Domenico Michiel styled
himself "Domenico Michiel, by the Grace of God Duke of Venice, Dalmatia and
Croatia and imperial protosevastos" ("Dominico Michaeli, Dei gratia Venecie,
Dalmatie atque Chroatie duci et imperiali protosevasto"); see also the
chrysobull of Emperor Isaac II Angelos of 1189, where is cited "the
most noble doge of Venice, most loyal to our Empire, Orio Mastropiero, who
received the dignity of protosevastos from our sublimity" ("a nobilissimo et
imperii nostri fidelissimo duce Venetie, Aurio Magistropetro, qui dignitate
protosevasti a nostra sublimitate decoratus est").
>
> It is true that some Venetian chronicles (extremely few, but among them it
> is the very spread one written by Marino Sanudo the Young) consider that
> also Orio Malipiero (Mastropiero) (1178-1192) received the title of
> "prothospatarios". This could be the only example for the 12th century.
Orio Mastropiero (and not Malipiero, that's an other family) was
protovestiarios : see above.
> Are you sure about "duche" for the Venetian dialect? I would buy, first
and
My mispelling. It is "duchi", normal plural for "duca".
> foremost, "doxi", "dogi" or - as I said above - "duci".
> About the similarity between the "duca di Candia" and the "podesta' of
> Constantinople", there are many things to be discussed. At least
> theoretically, the difference existed to a significant extent. The "Duca"
in
> Crete was a kind of governor, while the "podesta" in Constantinople was
> rather an ambassador to the Latin Emperor.
No, he was the governor of the Venetian possession in the Latin Empire,
including 1,5 quarter of Constantinople. You are confusing with the baillo,
who was what who describe, but after the end of the Latin Empire in 1261.
>
> Also practically, there was a difference, at least at the beginning of the
> Venetian domination in Romania. Since Marino Zen (the first podesta) was
> elected by the Venetian merchants and population inside of Constantinople
> (and only then confirmed by the central power in Venice), Jacomo Tiepolo
> (the duca in Candia) was directly named from Venice.
I agree on that point.
> Afterwards, while the Dukes of Candia were in a permanent fighting status
> against the always revolted Greeks in the island, permanently behaving as
> "conquistadores", the Podestas in Constantinople had not a policy against
> any population, acting simply as ambassadors (a very powerful one, but
> still).
No, the podesta had also to manage with the Venetian possession in the
Empire.
D. Spencer Hines
derives from those Podestas? <g>
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one
by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." -- Edmund
Burke -- Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents [April 23,
1770]
"You could not stand five minutes with that man [Burke] beneath a shed
while it rained, but you must be convinced you had been standing with
the greatest man you had ever seen." Samuel Johnson [1709-1784],
_Johnsonian Miscellanies [1897], edited by G.B. Hill, vol. 1, p.290
"On résiste à l'invasion des armées; on ne résiste pas à l'invasion des
idées."
Victor Hugo
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor
"Pierre Aronax" <pierre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:96gefq$lto$1...@front7.grolier.fr...
Pierre Aronax
> The first Venetian "Doge" was registered to the middle of the 8th century:
> Deusdedit (742-755),
According to the chronicle of John the Deacon (ca. 1000), the first duke
(doge) of Venice of Venetian origin is Orso (726-737), who take the power
when Venetians rejected temporary the authority of the Byzantine Emperor,
the iconoclast Leo III.
> although the tradition accredits the idea that the
> first one was Paulicius (Pauluccio Anafesto - some chronicles putin him
into
> corelation with the Falier family) (697-717).
The duke Paulitio is attested by a document of 840, so posterior to his
time. From this document, one can conclude that Paulitio was contemporaneous
with the Lomgobardian King Liutprand (712-744). If we trust again the
chronicle of John the Deacon, he was also contemporaneous of the Emperor
Anastasios (+ 716), so must have governed between 712 and 716. But was it
really duke of Venice as say John the Deacon, that's another question.
Anyway, he was a "duke" as Byzantin governor of the area : as we have seen,
duke was a title of the Byzantin administration, and of course in the Latin
part of the Empire the title was in Latin (dux) rather than in Greek (doux).
> In the Venetian case I don't
> believe that the name of "Doge" have anything to do with the Doukas, but
> with the Western title of "dux".
No, it is only the maintenance of the Byzantine administrative title.
> Not bad! I also think that the "Doge di Venetia" (the Duke of Venice)
> residing right in Venice has its origins (as title) in the Western
> institution.
No, it is of Byzantine origin.
> On the contrary, the "Duca di Candia" (the Duke of Crete) comes
> from the former Byzantine institution in Crete.
> That's the difference! Otherwise, it was not quite possible to have to
> Venetian "dukes" at the same time!
The two titles used by the Venetian administration were, in Latin, "dux" for
the doge and "duca" or "ducha" for the duke of Crete; the last has nothing
to do with the family of the Doukai, it is only a Latinised form of the
Italian "duca".
Serban Marin
Dear Dr Tsambourakis,
You wrote:
> On the other hand, the Latin word Capitano if it was evolved from the
Greek
> equivalent word, than that word is Kapetanios (or Capetanios). Read in as
in
> Latin.
"Capitano" is not Latin, but Italian.
> Katepano could be Kapetano misspelled.
It is a possibility. And I consider it as being reasonable.
>
> Agree, but the first unit was a Greek "soldiers of fortune" unit. In
fact,
> now the word "stratioti" exists as surname.
It also represented a surname in the middle ages. For instance, I simply
remember to Greek general that reconquered Constantinople in 1261: Alexius
Strategopoulos.
> As far as Doge is concern, I never considered it to mean the same as Duke.
Come on! It was the same as "dux", but in the Venetian dialect. In the
Venetian more ancient chronicles, the term is written "doxie".
> My reasons are:
> Doge and Doukas are not intermixed. A Doge is a Doge, A Duke is a Duke and
> Doukas is Doukas.
It's OK, with the specification that - among these three - it was only
"Doukas" meaning a surname.
> Doge was a short term appointment, in many cases two years.
Totally untrue! The two-year-mandate was specific for the Genoese (and only
later, beginning with 1528), but not for the Venetians at all. In Venice,
the function of Doge, theoretically and practically, was for life.
> Doge was in charge of a city (like Venice) or large place and not of an
> outpost.
> The "title" if it could be called a title, was not inheritery.
It was not inheritery, except the first Venetian centuries, when there were
some "Dogi", imitating the Byzantine model (formally, Venice still belonged
to the Eastern Empire, fact accepted by Charlemagne in 812), who proclaimed
their sons as co-Doge (especially in Partecipazio, Candiano, and Orseolo
families).
But why this title could not be considered as a title?
Robert S Baxter
Katepan derives from katepano combining kata with the adverb epano meaning
from above, used to designate commanders and governors. Term used from 9th
century.
The term doux from the Latin dux was used from the time of Diocletian to
designate a military commander. It fell out of use and was revived in the
10th century.
Doukas, feminine Doukaina is from doux, meaning general and for the Doukas
family amounts to a translation of the Armenian title, sparapat, meaning
general. But it cannot be proved the family was Armenian.
See Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium.
Bob
Omega
> from above, used to designate commanders and governors. Term used from
9th
> century.
Thanks for this.
> The term doux from the Latin dux was used from the time of Diocletian to
> designate a military commander. It fell out of use and was revived in the
> 10th century.
Thanks for this too.
> Doukas, feminine Doukaina is from doux, meaning general and for the Doukas
> family amounts to a translation of the Armenian title, sparapat, meaning
> general. But it cannot be proved the family was Armenian.
Doukaina is being used as feminine for Doukas for 1000 years and it will
never change.
If it is right or wrong that's another story.
That Doukas means general that's news to me, nothing is impossible.
I assume that Sparapat does translate to "general", as far as Armenian
origin,
nothing is impossible.
Dr. George Tsambourakis
Omega Thoroughbreds
Tooborac, Victoria, Australia
e-Mail: om...@thoroughbreds.com.au
Web-Site: http://www.thoroughbreds.com.au
"Robert S Baxter" <rsba...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:00a601c097b4$3da7f9e0$64dc...@msy.bellsouth.net...
Serban Marin
> Since 1082, all the doges had the dignity of protosevastos, and all the
> patriarch of Grado the dignity of hypertimos. The doges effectively used
> this title in the 12th century: for example in 1122 Domenico Michiel
styled
> himself "Domenico Michiel, by the Grace of God Duke of Venice, Dalmatia
and
> Croatia and imperial protosevastos" ("Dominico Michaeli, Dei gratia
Venecie,
> Dalmatie atque Chroatie duci et imperiali protosevasto"); see also the
> chrysobull of Emperor Isaac II Angelos of 1189, where is cited "the
> most noble doge of Venice, most loyal to our Empire, Orio Mastropiero, who
> received the dignity of protosevastos from our sublimity" ("a nobilissimo
et
> imperii nostri fidelissimo duce Venetie, Aurio Magistropetro, qui
dignitate
> protosevasti a nostra sublimitate decoratus est").
I do not pretend to be the exclusive expert on this domain. I simply took my
information from some Venetian chronicles (around 100). According to their
great majority, the titles received by the Doges or their sons or nephews or
grandsons were "ipatoi", "protosevastoi" or, more often, "protosebastoi".
The first mentioned one was the Doge Giustiniano Partecipazio (827-829), who
called himself "Ivstinian Participatio Imperial Ipato Dose de Veniesia",
proving thus that he was prouder of his imperial title given from
Constantinople than even the one of "Duke of Venice".
After him, the others that received Byzantine dignities put them after the
title of "Doxie di Vinexia". When I say others, I refer to: Pietro Tradonico
(836-864), Orso II Partecipazio (864-881) ("protospatario"), Pietro Tribuno
(Trasdomenico) (888-912) ("protospatario"), the son of Orso III Partecipazio
(912-931) (called Pietro) ("protospatario"), the son of Pietro II Candiano
(932-939) (called also Pietro) ("protospatario"), Vitale Falier (1084-1096)
("protospatario"), Ordelaffo Falier (1102-1118) ("protospatario"), Orio
Malipiero (Mastropietro) (1178-1192) ("protospatario"). These are the ones
presented by Marino Sanudo's chronicle.
Other chronicles give other examples, for instance introducing Domenico
Selvo (1070-1084), and ommiting Giustiniano Partecipazio and some other
changings. What is for certain is that M. Sanudo's chronicle is unique
presenting V. Falier and O. Maistropietro!!! This unicity made me believe
that the process had stopped no later than Domenico Selvo (1070-1084)! But,
everything is perfectible!
For instance, the chronicle of Enrico Dandolo (to be not confounded with the
omonymous Doge - 1192-1205, or with the more famous doge and chronicler
Andrea Dandolo - 1343-1354) does not mention any Byzantine dignity for the
Doges.
I hope that in the near future to take all the chronicles that I researched
by now and to establish what Doge received a Byzantine dignity and who did
not.
Now, returning to your claim: I am really intrigued by the case of Domenico
Michiel (1118-1129). I would like to know the source(s), please!
And also the chrysobull of Isaac II Angelos, promoting O. Maistropietro to
the rank of protosevastos... Since it is in Latin, it made me think about
Andrea Dandolo, but I did not detect it there. Should it be in "Historia
Ducum Venticorum" (edited in MGH)? I'm going to check it!
>
> >
> > It is true that some Venetian chronicles (extremely few, but among them
it
> > is the very spread one written by Marino Sanudo the Young) consider that
> > also Orio Malipiero (Mastropiero) (1178-1192) received the title of
> > "prothospatarios". This could be the only example for the 12th century.
>
> Orio Mastropiero (and not Malipiero, that's an other family) was
> protovestiarios : see above.
Actually, I relied upon the Venetian tradition, once again. Some of them
(not many)wrote "Mastropietro oppure Malipiero" (Malpiero). But it is
possible that you be right.
> > About the similarity between the "duca di Candia" and the "podesta' of
> > Constantinople", there are many things to be discussed. At least
> > theoretically, the difference existed to a significant extent. The
"Duca"
> in
> > Crete was a kind of governor, while the "podesta" in Constantinople was
> > rather an ambassador to the Latin Emperor.
>
> No, he was the governor of the Venetian possession in the Latin Empire,
> including 1,5 quarter of Constantinople. You are confusing with the
baillo,
> who was what who describe, but after the end of the Latin Empire in 1261.
But still, the podesta, beside this dignity, was considered as being the
second person in power immediately after the Latin emperor, or even equal to
him/her. It is also the Venetian tradition that says so.
After Enrico Dandolo's death, from his title of "Dux Venetiae, Dalmatiae
atque Croatiae et Dominus quartae partis et dimidiae tocius Imperii
Romaniae", the first podesta (M. Zen) preserved for himself the second part,
that is "Dominus ...". So, 3/8 parts of the entire empire!
Theoretically, you are right: the podesta was nothing more than the governor
of the Venetian possessions. But practically... Nobody today is to deny that
the Latin Empire of Constantinople was a "Venetian empire". At least, nobody
is to be shocked hearing it!
>
> >
> > Also practically, there was a difference, at least at the beginning of
the
> > Venetian domination in Romania. Since Marino Zen (the first podesta) was
> > elected by the Venetian merchants and population inside of
Constantinople
> > (and only then confirmed by the central power in Venice), Jacomo Tiepolo
> > (the duca in Candia) was directly named from Venice.
>
> I agree on that point.
>
So, finally, we have an agreement.
All the best, and please, don't forget me with the sources about the D.
Michiel's and O. Maistropiero's cases.
Pierre Aronax
> I hope that in the near future to take all the chronicles that I
researched
> by now and to establish what Doge received a Byzantine dignity and who did
> not.
You must remember that the most part of the Venetian Chronicles are very
modern, that they often copied (sometimes inaccurately) other Chronicles for
the ancient periode, and that they sometimes invented some pieces of
information. For example, the Chronicle of Marino Sanudo, who lived at the
end of the 15th century, is not a reliable source for events of the
10th-12th centuries : there are other informer more convincing. The
chronicle of John the Deacon is more sure for the 10th century because
he wrote at the end of this period. One can not simply combined facts given
by different chronicles, but must examine if the writer may really have had
access to original data.
>
> Now, returning to your claim: I am really intrigued by the case of
Domenico
> Michiel (1118-1129). I would like to know the source(s), please!
The source is the document itself, of november 1121, published in the book
of L. Lanfranchi, "Famiglia Zusto", Venice,1955, document n° 8.
> And also the chrysobull of Isaac II Angelos, promoting O. Maistropietro to
> the rank of protosevastos...
No, that is not the purpose of the chrysobull, which only allude to this
promotion in the sentence I have quoted.
> Since it is in Latin, it made me think about
> Andrea Dandolo, but I did not detect it there. Should it be in "Historia
> Ducum Venticorum" (edited in MGH)? I'm going to check it!
Again, the source is the document itself: the chrysobull (or more exactly is
"original" Latin traduction, the Greek version being lost), published by
Tafel and Thomas, "Urkunden zu älteren Handels- und Staatsgeschichte der
Republick Venedig, tome I, Wien, 1856, document n° 76.
Original documents are of course always more reliable than chronicles.
Especially, when you have an original document of the 12th century, it is
far more truthfull than what can say a chronicler of the 14th century like
Andrea Dandolo.
> > > It is true that some Venetian chronicles (extremely few, but among
them
> it
> > > is the very spread one written by Marino Sanudo the Young)
> > Orio Mastropiero (and not Malipiero, that's an other family) was
> > protovestiarios : see above.
>
> Actually, I relied upon the Venetian tradition, once again. Some of them
> (not many)wrote "Mastropietro oppure Malipiero" (Malpiero). But it is
> possible that you be right.
Again, a chronicle of the 14th or 15th century who speak on facts of the
12th
century. It could be interresting of course, but when they exist, original
documents and more ancient chronicles must absolutely been preferred. In his
acts, the doge Orio is always called Mastropietro (Mastropetrus in Latin),
never Malipiero. It is most likely the Malipiero family (Maripetro in Latin)
who
latter create this confusion to praise its own origin. But in the 12th
century the Malipiero were not a ducal family, they were on a lower social
status.
> > > About the similarity between the "duca di Candia" and the "podesta' of
> > > Constantinople", there are many things to be discussed. At least
> > > theoretically, the difference existed to a significant extent. The
> "Duca"
> > in
> > > Crete was a kind of governor, while the "podesta" in Constantinople
was
> > > rather an ambassador to the Latin Emperor.
> >
> > No, he was the governor of the Venetian possession in the Latin Empire,
> > including 1,5 quarter of Constantinople. You are confusing with the
> baillo,
> > who was what who describe, but after the end of the Latin Empire in
1261.
>
> But still, the podesta, beside this dignity, was considered as being the
> second person in power immediately after the Latin emperor, or even equal
to
> him/her.
I think I don't say the contrary. Nevertheless, the podesta was certainly
not equal to the emperor, nor was he with the doge who, the exceptionnal
case of the election of Zeno/Zen excepted, appointed him for a limited
period.
> It is also the Venetian tradition that says so.
> After Enrico Dandolo's death, from his title of "Dux Venetiae, Dalmatiae
> atque Croatiae et Dominus quartae partis et dimidiae tocius Imperii
> Romaniae", the first podesta (M. Zen) preserved for himself the second
part,
> that is "Dominus ...". So, 3/8 parts of the entire empire!
Nervertheless, the title was also adopted by the doge himself since the end
of 1207 or the beginning of 1208 : the doge Pietro Ziani did not still use
the title in December 1207, but in February 1208 he styled himself "We,
Pietro Ziani, by the grace of God Duke of Venice, Dalmatia and Croatia and
Lord of the quarter and half part of the Empire of Romania" ("nos Petrus
Çiani, Dei gratia Venetie, Dalmatie atque Chroatie dux, quarte partis et
dimidie totius Romanie imperii dominator") (Document published in the book
by Tafel and Thomas, volume II, document n° 179). The title was used until
the middle of the 14th century.
> Theoretically, you are right: the podesta was nothing more than the
governor
> of the Venetian possessions. But practically... Nobody today is to deny
that
> the Latin Empire of Constantinople was a "Venetian empire". At least,
nobody
> is to be shocked hearing it!
I am not shocked but I think it is untrue. The emperor Henri of Hainaut
(died 1216) was never a Venetian puppet but one of the most powerfull prince
of the area. It is only in the last periode of the Empire that it became
more and more dependant of the Venetians. But the podesta himself, appointed
only for two years, was no more at this time than the executor of the orders
of the metropolitan authorities.
> > > Also practically, there was a difference, at least at the beginning of
> the
> > > Venetian domination in Romania. Since Marino Zen (the first podesta)
was
> > > elected by the Venetian merchants and population inside of
> Constantinople
> > > (and only then confirmed by the central power in Venice), Jacomo
Tiepolo
> > > (the duca in Candia) was directly named from Venice.
> >
> > I agree on that point.
> >
>
> So, finally, we have an agreement.
But we will have more than one I hope :)
Robert S Baxter
No etymology for Katakalon in the ODB or suggestion for a meaning. ODB calls
Katakalon a noble lineage from the 10th century. The possible meanings for
kalon or kalwn from my Liddell and Scott are kalos, beautiful, or kalws or
kalos, with accent aigu on the alpha, meaing rope. Doesn't make much sense
to me.
Regards,
Bob
Omega
There were many families with members that used/had the title Katakalon
Some of these families were:
Marianos Mavros and his brother Nikos Mavros ----> Mavros-Katakalon
Konstantinos Euphorbenos - ---> Euphorbenos - Katakalon
Tarchaniotis -----> Tarchaniotis - Katakalon
etc. etc..
It just happens that all the above had links with the army, and were if I
remember well, "Generals"
serving under John I Komninos.
(The word itself can have many meanings it all depends how you use it and
how spell it,
Kalon means "Good", "welfare".
Kallos means "Good at heart", "Nice", "Beautiful", "charming".
Kalos (o=omega) means "well", "right"
Kalos (tone on "a") means "corn", "Bunion"
Kalos (o=omega; tone on"a") means "cable"
and "Kata Kalon" does not make any sense.
Dr. George Tsambourakis
Omega Thoroughbreds
Tooborac, Victoria, Australia
e-Mail: om...@thoroughbreds.com.au
Web-Site: http://www.thoroughbreds.com.au
"Robert S Baxter" <rsba...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:003901c0986a$d1515ea0$64dc...@msy.bellsouth.net...
Serban Marin
> > The first Venetian "Doge" was registered to the middle of the 8th
century:
> > Deusdedit (742-755),
>
> According to the chronicle of John the Deacon (ca. 1000), the first duke
> (doge) of Venice of Venetian origin is Orso (726-737), who take the power
> when Venetians rejected temporary the authority of the Byzantine Emperor,
> the iconoclast Leo III.
I considered Deusdedit as being the first duke AFTER the period when Venice
had been governed not by Dukes, but by "maestri di cavallieri" (magister
militum), named by the Byzantines (namely by the Iconoclast Leo III). The
retaking of the title of "Duke" by Deusdedit (742) coincides with the death
of Leo III and the enthroning of his son, Constantine V "the Coponym" in
Constantinople (741-775).
But you are right. Orso I (726-737) Partecipazio (or Particiaco, according
to later versions; the same versions establish the connection between the
Partecipazios and the Badoer family) was a kind of "ancestor" for Deusdedit,
in the sense of the Venetian independency.
>
> > although the tradition accredits the idea that the
> > first one was Paulicius (Pauluccio Anafesto - some chronicles putin him
> into
> > corelation with the Falier family) (697-717).
>
> The duke Paulitio is attested by a document of 840, so posterior to his
> time. From this document, one can conclude that Paulitio was
contemporaneous
> with the Lomgobardian King Liutprand (712-744). If we trust again the
> chronicle of John the Deacon, he was also contemporaneous of the Emperor
> Anastasios (+ 716), so must have governed between 712 and 716. But was it
> really duke of Venice as say John the Deacon, that's another question.
> Anyway, he was a "duke" as Byzantin governor of the area : as we have
seen,
> duke was a title of the Byzantin administration, and of course in the
Latin
> part of the Empire the title was in Latin (dux) rather than in Greek
(doux).
I am really interested to know the respective document (in case it is not a
false one). Actually, the entire Venetian tradition considers Paoluccio
(Paulitio) as the first Doge, elected - they say - by a council of the
"tribuni maritimi".
I did not thoroughgo in the beginnings of Venetian history, but the dialogue
with you determined me to involve a bit. Thanks!
>
> > On the contrary, the "Duca di Candia" (the Duke of Crete) comes
> > from the former Byzantine institution in Crete.
> > That's the difference! Otherwise, it was not quite possible to have to
> > Venetian "dukes" at the same time!
>
> The two titles used by the Venetian administration were, in Latin, "dux"
for
> the doge and "duca" or "ducha" for the duke of Crete; the last has nothing
> to do with the family of the Doukai, it is only a Latinised form of the
> Italian "duca".
>
Agree! And in the Venetian dialect there were "doxie" or "doxe" for the
central power in the lagoons, and "duca" or "ducha" for the Venetian
representative in Candia.
Of course, the latter has nothing to do with the Byzantine family of
"Doukas", but, this time, it comes from the former Byzantine "dukes" of
Crete.
Serban Marin
> > It also represented a surname in the middle ages. For instance, I simply
> > remember to Greek general that reconquered Constantinople in 1261:
Alexius
> > Strategopoulos.
>
> Strategopoulos and Stratiotis are not the same words and have not the same
> meaning.
Yes, they don't have the same meaning. But the same stemm. You are right!
> I mean the title Doge have the same meaning as the title Duke. It could,
> that because the title Duke was more widely used, it gives me the
impression
> that a Duke
> was more powerful than a Doge.
It doesn't work. The "Doge" was a "Duke", but in a different language (the
Venetian one). That the Venetian Dukes were more powerful than other dukes
in the Middle Ages there is another story. But, theoretically, they were
equal.
Practically, the denomination of the Venetian "dukes" was not the only one.
There are some chronicles, and also "avvisi" coming from different Venetian
ambassadors (in Constantinople, Vienna, Prague etc.) during the 16th-17th
centuries that appeal to the Venetian "duke" as "Serenissimo Prencipe".
>
>
> You are wrong, all Venetian Doge appointments in Crete from 1206 - 1666
were
> two year
> appointments and none was passed from father to son (although some stayed
in
> the "family".
> All appointment were made in Venice. I understand, with out being an
> expert,
> that it was common practice. I understand that special laws were passed
for
> Doge
> appointments in new territories and for Crete it was every two years.
In Crete there was no "Doge", but "Duca". Let's make a clear delimitation
between the "Doge" who resided in the metropolis (Venice) and the "Duca" in
Candia that was nothing more than the representative of the first one.
>
> Dr. George Tsambourakis
> Omega Thoroughbreds
> Tooborac, Victoria, Australia
> e-Mail: om...@thoroughbreds.com.au
> Web-Site: http://www.thoroughbreds.com.au
Serban Marin,
Bucharest, Romania,
sma...@dnt.ro
Pierre Aronax
Omega <om...@thoroughbreds.com.au> a écrit dans le message :
JZij6.6$no....@vic.nntp.telstra.net...
> It must have been a title.
> There were many families with members that used/had the title Katakalon
>
> Some of these families were:
> Marianos Mavros and his brother Nikos Mavros ----> Mavros-Katakalon
> Konstantinos Euphorbenos - ---> Euphorbenos - Katakalon
> Tarchaniotis -----> Tarchaniotis - Katakalon
"Katakalon" is *not* a title, it is only a surname, now and then used by
members of other family in addition of their own surname, which is a regular
custom in Byzantium.
Pierre Aronax
Serban Marin <sma...@dnt.ro> a écrit dans le message :
003001c0980b$095fa820$2e7de7c1@v0t8w0...
> > According to the chronicle of John the Deacon (ca. 1000), the first duke
> > (doge) of Venice of Venetian origin is Orso (726-737), who take the
power
> > when Venetians rejected temporary the authority of the Byzantine
Emperor,
> > the iconoclast Leo III.
>
> I considered Deusdedit as being the first duke AFTER the period when
Venice
> had been governed not by Dukes, but by "maestri di cavallieri" (magister
> militum), named by the Byzantines (namely by the Iconoclast Leo III).
It seems in fact that the title of Duke was already in use in the period
when governors where appointed by Byzantium : see the case of Paulitio. But
the documentation is very slight and the chronicles are useless for this
period.
> The
> retaking of the title of "Duke" by Deusdedit (742) coincides with the
death
> of Leo III and the enthroning of his son, Constantine V "the Coponym" in
> Constantinople (741-775).
mispelling, it is "Copronym" (Kopronymos in Greek).
> But you are right. Orso I (726-737) Partecipazio (or Particiaco, according
> to later versions; the same versions establish the connection between the
> Partecipazios and the Badoer family) was a kind of "ancestor" for
Deusdedit,
> in the sense of the Venetian independency.
>
> >
> > > although the tradition accredits the idea that the
> > > first one was Paulicius (Pauluccio Anafesto - some chronicles putin
him
> > into
> > > corelation with the Falier family) (697-717).
Absolutely without foundation. Again, this sort of appropriation of the
ancient doges by aristocratic families of the latter Middle Ages are only
legendary.
> >
> > The duke Paulitio is attested by a document of 840, so posterior to his
> > time. From this document, one can conclude that Paulitio was
> contemporaneous
> > with the Lomgobardian King Liutprand (712-744). If we trust again the
> > chronicle of John the Deacon, he was also contemporaneous of the Emperor
> > Anastasios (+ 716), so must have governed between 712 and 716. But
[snipe]
>
> I am really interested to know the respective document (in case it is not
a
> false one).
Nobody never suspected the famous "Pact of Lothaire" ("Pactum Lotharii") to
be false ! In the paragraph n° 26 of this treaty, there is a mention of a
delimitation of the boundaries of Civitanova, a city which is part of the
Dukedom of Venice, made in the time of Liutprand, King of the Longobards,
between the Duke Paulitio and a "magister militum" Marcello. The historians
discussed to know if Paulitio was a Longobard official and Marcello a
Byzantine, or if they were both Byzantine. You can find the text of the
"Pactum Lotharii" for example in R. Cessi, "Documenti relativi alla storia
di Venezia anteriori al Mille", volume I, Padoue, 1942, document n° 55.
This pact was know from John the Deacon who allude to it in his chronicle,
but it is difficult to understand if the precisions he gives about Paulitio
(that he was Duke of Venice and contemporaneous of Anastasios II) are real
or invented, because Paulitio lived in the 8th century and John wrote at the
end of the 10th century. John the Deacon certainly partly deformed the
reality : for example, he wrote that the delimitation of boundaries was made
between the King Liutprand and the Duke Paulitio, which is not exactly what
is said in the "Pactum Lotharii".
> Actually, the entire Venetian tradition considers Paoluccio
> (Paulitio) as the first Doge, elected - they say - by a council of the
> "tribuni maritimi".
It is a reconstruction by the historiography of the origin of Venice, in
accordance with the politic conceptions of their time. Propaganda !
> I did not thoroughgo in the beginnings of Venetian history, but the
dialogue
> with you determined me to involve a bit. Thanks!
>
> >
> > > On the contrary, the "Duca di Candia" (the Duke of Crete) comes
> > > from the former Byzantine institution in Crete.
> > > That's the difference! Otherwise, it was not quite possible to have to
> > > Venetian "dukes" at the same time!
> >
> > The two titles used by the Venetian administration were, in Latin, "dux"
> for
> > the doge and "duca" or "ducha" for the duke of Crete; the last has
nothing
> > to do with the family of the Doukai, it is only a Latinised form of the
> > Italian "duca".
> >
>
> Agree! And in the Venetian dialect there were "doxie" or "doxe" for the
> central power in the lagoons, and "duca" or "ducha" for the Venetian
> representative in Candia.
Yes. The word is used to designe all type of Duke (for exemple the Duke of
Milano was also a "Ducha" for the Venetians : a little courtyard in Venice
is called "corte del Ducha" in memory of the Sforza).
> Of course, the latter has nothing to do with the Byzantine family of
> "Doukas", but, this time, it comes from the former Byzantine "dukes" of
> Crete.
Yes probably. The two titles, Doge and Ducha, were in fact of Byzantine
origin. But the Byzantine tradition of the title "doux"/"dux" itself take is
source in the administrative organisation of the late Roman Empire, and that
is also from that point that come the Western title of Duke ("dux"). So
eventually the title of Doge and the Western title of Duke have a common
ancient origin, but the first is not issued of the second.
Omega
the position in Crete was DOGE and not Douke, from the beginning to the
end..
I will check to see if they give any references.
Omega
To be accepted as a Surname, it must have been first a nickname
and Nicknames always make sense, mean something.
Katakalon means nothing.
Dr. George Tsambourakis
Omega Thoroughbreds
Tooborac, Victoria, Australia
e-Mail: om...@thoroughbreds.com.au
Web-Site: http://www.thoroughbreds.com.au
"Pierre Aronax" <pierre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:96lnin$jbj$2...@front7m.grolier.fr...
Serban Marin
1041 - He defends Messina against the Arabians, the last Bizantine citadel
in Sicily.
1048 - He defeats Ibrahim, Togrul-beg's brother in the regions of Armenia
(Vaspurakan), rejecting the Seldjoukides.
1057 - Together with other generals (isaac Komnenos, Constantine Doukas,
John Doukas, Michael Burtzes) and with the Patriarch Michael Kerularios, he
agrees to a common action against the Emperor Michael VI.
By the way, is there any connection between this Kekaumenos and the writer
Kekaumenos, who wrote (between 1075 and 1078) his "Counsils and stories"?
> Some of these families were:
> Marianos Mavros and his brother Nikos Mavros ----> Mavros-Katakalon
> Konstantinos Euphorbenos - ---> Euphorbenos - Katakalon
> Tarchaniotis -----> Tarchaniotis - Katakalon
>
> etc. etc..
>
> It just happens that all the above had links with the army, and were if I
> remember well, "Generals"
> serving under John I Komninos.
>
> (The word itself can have many meanings it all depends how you use it and
> how spell it,
>
>
> Kalon means "Good", "welfare".
> Kallos means "Good at heart", "Nice", "Beautiful", "charming".
> Kalos (o=omega) means "well", "right"
>
> Kalos (tone on "a") means "corn", "Bunion"
> Kalos (o=omega; tone on"a") means "cable"
>
> and "Kata Kalon" does not make any sense.
>
> Dr. George Tsambourakis
> Omega Thoroughbreds
> Tooborac, Victoria, Australia
> e-Mail: om...@thoroughbreds.com.au
> Web-Site: http://www.thoroughbreds.com.au
Serban Marin,
Bucharest, Romania,
sma...@dnt.ro
Serban Marin
> You must remember that the most part of the Venetian Chronicles are very
> modern, that they often copied (sometimes inaccurately) other Chronicles
for
> the ancient periode, and that they sometimes invented some pieces of
> information. For example, the Chronicle of Marino Sanudo, who lived at the
> end of the 15th century, is not a reliable source for events of the
> 10th-12th centuries : there are other informer more convincing. The
> chronicle of John the Deacon is more sure for the 10th century because
> he wrote at the end of this period. One can not simply combined facts
given
> by different chronicles, but must examine if the writer may really have
had
> access to original data.
>
It's all right. But, from one point of view, there are two ways of making
history: the reconstruct the events (and, congratulations, you do it like an
expert) or to approach the tradition, to search for the myths and legends
(that is why I try to do).
So, try to understand me. I am only attempting to note what remained in the
Venetian tradition after the centuries (as you name them, the "modern"
sources).
Of course they present a lot of inaccuracies. But exactly these inaccuracies
are the ones that preoccupies, and - normally - to answer to the question:
why those accuracies were retaken by the chroniclers, and how did they
evoluate during the centuries etc.
In connection with this, I extremely need the "raw material", that is the
reality, the facts, the events, in order to compare it with the
interpretations given by the later (sometimes, very later) chronicles. That
is why I thank you again. All your comments have helped me a lot. And I also
wait for the others.
Coming back to the 'raw materials', I have to specify that the source that
you make many referrals, namely Giovanni Diacono, is not exactly the first
Venetian chronicle known by now. I think about "Chronicon Gradense" and
"Chronica Altinate", see "Origo Civitatem Italie seu Veneticorum (Chronicon
Altinate et Chronicon Gradense)", a cura di Roberto Cessi, volume unico,
Roma: Tipografia del Senato, 1933.
> >
> > Now, returning to your claim: I am really intrigued by the case of
> Domenico
> > Michiel (1118-1129). I would like to know the source(s), please!
>
> The source is the document itself, of november 1121, published in the book
> of L. Lanfranchi, "Famiglia Zusto", Venice,1955, document n° 8.
>
> > And also the chrysobull of Isaac II Angelos, promoting O. Maistropietro
to
> > the rank of protosevastos...
>
> No, that is not the purpose of the chrysobull, which only allude to this
> promotion in the sentence I have quoted.
Thanks again for these examples. Actually, I don't think I'll have the
possibility to look for Lanfranchi's book, since I won't be in Venice in the
near future.
>
> > Since it is in Latin, it made me think about
> > Andrea Dandolo, but I did not detect it there. Should it be in "Historia
> > Ducum Venticorum" (edited in MGH)? I'm going to check it!
>
> Again, the source is the document itself: the chrysobull (or more exactly
is
> "original" Latin traduction, the Greek version being lost), published by
> Tafel and Thomas, "Urkunden zu älteren Handels- und Staatsgeschichte der
> Republick Venedig, tome I, Wien, 1856, document n° 76.
> Original documents are of course always more reliable than chronicles.
> Especially, when you have an original document of the 12th century, it is
> far more truthfull than what can say a chronicler of the 14th century like
> Andrea Dandolo.
See above.
> Again, a chronicle of the 14th or 15th century who speak on facts of the
> 12th
> century. It could be interresting of course, but when they exist, original
> documents and more ancient chronicles must absolutely been preferred. In
his
> acts, the doge Orio is always called Mastropietro (Mastropetrus in Latin),
> never Malipiero. It is most likely the Malipiero family (Maripetro in
Latin)
> who
> latter create this confusion to praise its own origin. But in the 12th
> century the Malipiero were not a ducal family, they were on a lower social
> status.
The same in the case of the Faliers, who put themselves into direct
connection with Paulitio Anafesto. Should it be the same for the Badoers
that pretend being the descendants of the Partecipazio? Or for the
Gradenicos - considered as having links with Pietro Tradomenico?
It is not my field, but it's interesting.
> > It is also the Venetian tradition that says so.
> > After Enrico Dandolo's death, from his title of "Dux Venetiae, Dalmatiae
> > atque Croatiae et Dominus quartae partis et dimidiae tocius Imperii
> > Romaniae", the first podesta (M. Zen) preserved for himself the second
> part,
> > that is "Dominus ...". So, 3/8 parts of the entire empire!
>
> Nervertheless, the title was also adopted by the doge himself since the
end
> of 1207 or the beginning of 1208 : the doge Pietro Ziani did not still use
> the title in December 1207, but in February 1208 he styled himself "We,
> Pietro Ziani, by the grace of God Duke of Venice, Dalmatia and Croatia and
> Lord of the quarter and half part of the Empire of Romania" ("nos Petrus
> Çiani, Dei gratia Venetie, Dalmatie atque Chroatie dux, quarte partis et
> dimidie totius Romanie imperii dominator") (Document published in the book
> by Tafel and Thomas, volume II, document n° 179). The title was used until
> the middle of the 14th century.
I checked it in Tafel and Thomas, and you are right (again!). The last doge
that used it was Andrea Dandolo.
> I am not shocked but I think it is untrue. The emperor Henri of Hainaut
> (died 1216) was never a Venetian puppet but one of the most powerfull
prince
> of the area. It is only in the last periode of the Empire that it became
> more and more dependant of the Venetians. But the podesta himself,
appointed
> only for two years, was no more at this time than the executor of the
orders
> of the metropolitan authorities.
Actually, I think that Henri I was the exception. His eleven years of
rulership (one year as regent and ten years as emperor) were indeed a
prolific period for the Latin empire. But, if on get into details, he/she
could find out that the feature of his policy was a defensive one. He simply
rejected the Bulgarians and Theodore Laskaris, and came to peace with them,
and also subdued Michael I Doukas Angelos the governor of Epirus. It gives
the impression that the new empire was still fighting for its own
survivance. In comparison with the very first intentions of the crusaders,
immediately after the Fourth Crusade. Let's make a comparison: was it
something different between the 1204-1205 (before the battle of Adrianople)
period and 1216 one? Just a question!
Anyway, after his death, the empire came into a continuous shade period. It
was expressly named as "tantum magni nominis umbra" (see "Annales S.
Iustinae Patavini", ed. P. Jaffe, MGH SS, vol. 19. A similar view, in
"Matthae Parisiensis Chronica Majora" (edited by H. R. Luard), vol. 4
(1876). [And in these cases, I make appeal to contemporary sources!]. This
is the depiction of the Latin Empire, characterising it between 1216 and
1261.
In connection with the Fourth Crusade, I have a question: when do you
suppose that this crusade came to an end? I already presented my attitude,
see:
http://www.geocities.com/serban_marin/ramusio01.html
or, if you are interested of the entire story of Paolo Ramusio about the
fourth crusade:
http://www.geocities.com/serban_marin/ramusioindex.html
although the entire site is under construction (I am a newcomer in the
club!).
> > > I agree on that point.
> > >
> >
> > So, finally, we have an agreement.
>
> But we will have more than one I hope :)
>
Keep hoping!
Omega
See also in ODB: KATAKALON KERUAMENOS
unless its a spelling error.
Dr. George Tsambourakis
Omega Thoroughbreds
Tooborac, Victoria, Australia
e-Mail: om...@thoroughbreds.com.au
Web-Site: http://www.thoroughbreds.com.au
"Serban Marin" <sma...@dnt.ro> wrote in message
news:001301c09864$c23245c0$0f7de7c1@v0t8w0...
Omega
Wright.
I have all Venetians that were appointed to "lead" in Crete as Duke's.
So I must have check that against some other records.
Some of the Dukes are:
Giacobo Tiepolo 1209-1211
Paul Quirini 1217 - 1219
Benedict Vetturi 1460-
Dolphin Vernier 1610 -
Bernard Vernier 1615 -1617
Giovanni Storloto
Leonardo Quirini
etc.
I have a complete list somewhere that I can't find.
--
Dr. George Tsambourakis
Omega Thoroughbreds
Tooborac, Victoria, Australia
e-Mail: om...@thoroughbreds.com.au
Web-Site: http://www.thoroughbreds.com.au
"Omega" <om...@thoroughbreds.com.au> wrote in message
news:88Bj6.1$uv....@vic.nntp.telstra.net...
Omega
--
Dr. George Tsambourakis
Omega Thoroughbreds
Tooborac, Victoria, Australia
e-Mail: om...@thoroughbreds.com.au
Web-Site: http://www.thoroughbreds.com.au
"Serban Marin" <sma...@dnt.ro> wrote in message
news:001301c09864$c23245c0$0f7de7c1@v0t8w0...
Pierre Aronax
> Sorry, but according to Greek Historians, and History books,
> the position in Crete was DOGE and not Douke, from the beginning to the
> end..
"Douke" ?? What's that new thing ?? The Venetian governor of Crete was Duke,
English translation of the Italian title "duca", written ordinary "ducha" in
Venetian. All other title is invention or mispelling.
Pierre Aronax
> Any suggestions when it all started?
> To be accepted as a Surname, it must have been first a nickname
> and Nicknames always make sense, mean something.
The family of Katakalon seems to begin its story at the end of the 10th or
the start of the 11th when some members appeared with the title of
magistros. Rapidly they jumped in the hierarchy. See for example Demetrios
Katakalon, who was anthypatos, patrice and katepano of Paradounavon (an area
on the lower Danube) during the 11th century, know by his seal.
By the way, Konstantinos Euphorbenos Katakalon, attestes from 1078 to 1108,
who became twice duke of Cyprus, well know by Anna Komnena, was more pride
of his Katakalon ascendancy than of the Euphorbenos one, because he has only
the former name on his seal : "Impress of the seal of Konstantinos
Katakalon, duke of Cyprus, protonobelissimos" ("Graphôn sphragis Katakalôn
Kônstantinou doukos Kypriôn, prôtonôbellisimou").
Omega
don't know if it was
a title or a name) was born about 840, and was a high ranging army officer,
maybe a General.
About 896, he replaced Nikiphoros Phokas as the General to fight the
"Magyars". (was it under the Emperor Leo?)
He was not very successful, because allegedly, he did not have the ability
of Phokas.
Than (896), he was known as General Katakalon. No first name mentioned.
If Katakalon was such a well known and highly respected name, why we know so
little about it?
Why there are no women call themself Katakalainena (or whatever you think
the feminine name is)?
Is it perhaps a name the was foreign to Greeks, spelled it according to the
way it sounded?
Dr. George Tsambourakis
Omega Thoroughbreds
Tooborac, Victoria, Australia
e-Mail: om...@thoroughbreds.com.au
Web-Site: http://www.thoroughbreds.com.au
"Pierre Aronax" <pierre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:96n0pk$kfi$1...@front6m.grolier.fr...
Omega
--
Dr. George Tsambourakis
Omega Thoroughbreds
Tooborac, Victoria, Australia
e-Mail: om...@thoroughbreds.com.au
Web-Site: http://www.thoroughbreds.com.au
"Pierre Aronax" <pierre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:96mv12$q5e$1...@front4m.grolier.fr...
Renia
Renia
Serban Marin
> > I considered Deusdedit as being the first duke AFTER the period when
> Venice
> > had been governed not by Dukes, but by "maestri di cavallieri" (magister
> > militum), named by the Byzantines (namely by the Iconoclast Leo III).
>
> It seems in fact that the title of Duke was already in use in the period
> when governors where appointed by Byzantium : see the case of Paulitio.
But
> the documentation is very slight and the chronicles are useless for this
> period.
So, isn't it a (small) possibility that the title of "Duke" be of Western
origin in the case of Venice?
>
> > The
> > retaking of the title of "Duke" by Deusdedit (742) coincides with the
> death
> > of Leo III and the enthroning of his son, Constantine V "the Coponym" in
> > Constantinople (741-775).
>
> mispelling, it is "Copronym" (Kopronymos in Greek).
It is not mispelling, but typing mistake. Come on, don't be so scrupulous, I
heared about Kopronymos since I was 18.
> > > > although the tradition accredits the idea that the
> > > > first one was Paulicius (Pauluccio Anafesto - some chronicles putin
> him
> > > into
> > > > corelation with the Falier family) (697-717).
>
> Absolutely without foundation. Again, this sort of appropriation of the
> ancient doges by aristocratic families of the latter Middle Ages are only
> legendary.
Don't blame the tradition! It also deserves to be studied!
>
> > >
> > > The duke Paulitio is attested by a document of 840, so posterior to
his
> > > time. From this document, one can conclude that Paulitio was
> > contemporaneous
> > > with the Lomgobardian King Liutprand (712-744). If we trust again the
> > > chronicle of John the Deacon, he was also contemporaneous of the
Emperor
> > > Anastasios (+ 716), so must have governed between 712 and 716. But
> [snipe]
"Lomgobardian"? Hmmm. It's my turn to be scrupulous, isn't it?
But thanks for recollecting me about "Pactum Lotharii".
> > Actually, the entire Venetian tradition considers Paoluccio
> > (Paulitio) as the first Doge, elected - they say - by a council of the
> > "tribuni maritimi".
>
> It is a reconstruction by the historiography of the origin of Venice, in
> accordance with the politic conceptions of their time. Propaganda !
Once again, don't blame the tradition! And neither the propaganda! Perhaps
there is somebody really interested to answer the question: Why and when
appeared this legend?
> > Agree! And in the Venetian dialect there were "doxie" or "doxe" for the
> > central power in the lagoons, and "duca" or "ducha" for the Venetian
> > representative in Candia.
>
> Yes. The word is used to designe all type of Duke (for exemple the Duke of
> Milano was also a "Ducha" for the Venetians : a little courtyard in
Venice
> is called "corte del Ducha" in memory of the Sforza).
Could you localize this "corte del Ducha"? Castello? Cannaregio? Dorsoduro?
...
>
> > Of course, the latter has nothing to do with the Byzantine family of
> > "Doukas", but, this time, it comes from the former Byzantine "dukes" of
> > Crete.
>
> Yes probably. The two titles, Doge and Ducha, were in fact of Byzantine
> origin. But the Byzantine tradition of the title "doux"/"dux" itself take
is
> source in the administrative organisation of the late Roman Empire, and
that
> is also from that point that come the Western title of Duke ("dux"). So
> eventually the title of Doge and the Western title of Duke have a common
> ancient origin, but the first is not issued of the second.
Take care! Some lines above you expressed some doubts about the Byzantine
origin. I quote you: "It seems in fact that the title of Duke was already in
use in the period
when governors where appointed by Byzantium : see the case of Paulitio."
My opinion is still this one: for the Venetians, the term of "Duke" was
implemented from the West. While the "Duca" of Candia from Byzantium.
But let's have a look to Cessi, "L'«investitura» ducale", Atti dell'Istituto
Veneto di scienze, lettere ed arti 126 (1967-1968): 251-294!
Serban Marin
I think that, regarding the beginnings of the Venetian "Duchy", both of us
forgot an element: the Exarchate of Ravenna. Actually, those magistri militi
were not appointed by Constantinople, but by the Exarchs, who theoretically
depended on Byzantium, but practically had the total power in the region.
The end of the institution of those "Maestri di Cavallieri" is to be in
connection with the fall of Ravenna under the Longobards in 751. It was only
then when Deusdedit (former magister militum in 739) was proclaimed as
"Doge".
Omega
--
Dr. George Tsambourakis
Omega Thoroughbreds
Tooborac, Victoria, Australia
e-Mail: om...@thoroughbreds.com.au
Web-Site: http://www.thoroughbreds.com.au
"Omega" <om...@thoroughbreds.com.au> wrote in message
news:QICj6.4$uv....@vic.nntp.telstra.net...
Renia
Renia
Pierre Aronax
Serban Marin <sma...@dnt.ro> a écrit dans le message :
016e01c09887$f3470a60$0f7de7c1@v0t8w0...
> I think that, regarding the beginnings of the Venetian "Duchy", both of us
> forgot an element: the Exarchate of Ravenna.
Right. "Appointed by Byzantium" is a way to speak not inexact but imprecise
to discribe the power of magistri militum and perhaps dukes of Venice. I
don't think that changes a lot of thing.
> Actually, those magistri militi
> were not appointed by Constantinople, but by the Exarchs, who
theoretically
> depended on Byzantium, but practically had the total power in the region.
I disagree : the exarch was really dependant of Byzantium until the end of
the institution.
> The end of the institution of those "Maestri di Cavallieri" is to be in
> connection with the fall of Ravenna under the Longobards in 751. It was
only
> then when Deusdedit (former magister militum in 739) was proclaimed as
> "Doge".
Hmm... That is not what is in the sources, where the proclamation of
Deusdedit as dux is dated of 742. An the dux of Venice was not the only one
at this time to have been dependent of the exarch and to become virtually
autonomous by his disparition (see for example the "ducatus" of Rome !).
Pierre Aronax
3A8F34BC...@cwcom.net...
> Perhaps it stems from the village in Greece called Katakali, which is off
the Greek mainland, through the Corinth Canal, and down along the coast
about half an hour. Out of interest, Lady Sarah Churchill used to live
there. Also in the Peloponese, is a place called Katakolon.
I think you are right when supposing that the surname "Katakalôn" is a
toponymic one. It signifies "from Kolonea" for the famous Byzantine
intellectual Michael Psellos, quoted by Alexander Kazhdan, "L'aristocrazia
bizantina dal principio dell'XI alla fine del XII secolo, Palermo 1997
[improved translation of the original book in Russian published in 1074], p.
319, note 463. Kazhdan mentions other etymologies proposed by modern
scholars for the surname, that he judges arbitrary, like "magician".
It must be Kolonea in Anatolia, and not Kolonea in Epirus, because Kazhdan
writes, p. 333, that the Katakalôn family was from Asia Minor.
Kazhdan, p. 365, gives a list of some members of the family with their
dignities and functions :
Demetrios Katakalôn, katepano of Paradounavon, that I have already
mentioned,
Konstantinos Katakalôn, the well know Duke of Cyprus,
John Katakalôn, tagmatophylax, 10th-11th century,
Niketas Katakalôn, koubikoularios, 9th-10th century,
Niketas Katakalôn, ostiarios,
Konstantinos Katakalôn, episkeptites of Rodantho, spatharokandidatos, 11th
century
Epiphanios Katakalôn, episkeptites of Rodantho, 10th-11th century.
One can adds (from Anna Komnena) :
Andronikos Katakalôn, one of the three young generals send by Alexis I
Komenos at the help of the city of Dadibra, in Paphalagonia, blockaded by
the Turks.
Kekavmenos Katakalôn, officer who take part of the rebellion of Nikephoros
Diogénès, Duke of Creta, against the Emperor Alexis I in 1094. He was
blinded.
Michael Katakalôn, officer who command in Philadelphia after the
reoccupation of the town in 1097.
Pierre Aronax
Serban Marin <sma...@dnt.ro> a écrit dans le message :
016c01c09887$f19bcb60$0f7de7c1@v0t8w0...
> Pierre Aronax wrote:
>
> > > I considered Deusdedit as being the first duke AFTER the period when
> > Venice
> > > had been governed not by Dukes, but by "maestri di cavallieri"
(magister
> > > militum), named by the Byzantines (namely by the Iconoclast Leo III).
> >
> > It seems in fact that the title of Duke was already in use in the period
> > when governors where appointed by Byzantium : see the case of Paulitio.
> But
> > the documentation is very slight and the chronicles are useless for this
> > period.
>
> So, isn't it a (small) possibility that the title of "Duke" be of Western
> origin in the case of Venice?
It seems to me doubtful : other area of Byzantine sovereignty which became
virtually autonomous during the 8th century, like the cities of Amalfi or
Naples, retained also the title of Duke for their governors, not because of
a "western" origin, but clearly to emphasize the link with the Byzantine
Empire and because Duke had become in Byzantium the most common title for
the governor of an important administrative division.
>
> >
> > Absolutely without foundation. Again, this sort of appropriation of the
> > ancient doges by aristocratic families of the latter Middle Ages are
only
> > legendary.
>
> Don't blame the tradition! It also deserves to be studied!
I don't blame anyone or anything. It is not a blame to take the legend for
what it is, and I certainly never said that it doesnt deserve to be studied,
but for what it is, and not as a piece of fact.
>
> > > Actually, the entire Venetian tradition considers Paoluccio
> > > (Paulitio) as the first Doge, elected - they say - by a council of the
> > > "tribuni maritimi".
> >
> > It is a reconstruction by the historiography of the origin of Venice, in
> > accordance with the politic conceptions of their time. Propaganda !
>
> Once again, don't blame the tradition! And neither the propaganda! Perhaps
> there is somebody really interested to answer the question: Why and when
> appeared this legend?
Interesting question, but that is an other one.
>
> Could you localize this "corte del Ducha"? Castello? Cannaregio?
Dorsoduro?
It is in the sestier of San Marco, no far from the Great Canal, next to the
Ca' del Duca (so named for the same reason) which is near the Palazzo
Falier.
> > > Of course, the latter has nothing to do with the Byzantine family of
> > > "Doukas", but, this time, it comes from the former Byzantine "dukes"
of
> > > Crete.
> >
> > Yes probably. The two titles, Doge and Ducha, were in fact of Byzantine
> > origin. But the Byzantine tradition of the title "doux"/"dux" itself
take
> is
> > source in the administrative organisation of the late Roman Empire, and
> that
> > is also from that point that come the Western title of Duke ("dux"). So
> > eventually the title of Doge and the Western title of Duke have a common
> > ancient origin, but the first is not issued of the second.
>
> Take care! Some lines above you expressed some doubts about the Byzantine
> origin. I quote you: "It seems in fact that the title of Duke was already
in
> use in the period
> when governors where appointed by Byzantium : see the case of Paulitio."
I have no doubt that the title of Duke used by the Venetian rulers is of
Byzantine origin. The doubt is about its use before the time when this
rulers were elected in the lagune and no more appointed by Byzantium. An
other doubt, which is not mine but the doubt of all the modern historians of
Venice, is about Paulitio : was he, or was he not a Byzantine officer ? If
he was, it attests the use of the title at Venice before the beginning of
its formal autonomy (but Paulitio could have been Duke not only of Venice
but of a more great area, perhaps Duke of Istria and Venetia as it has been
suggested, this last being only lagunar Venetia of course). If he was not,
so he was a Longobardian Duke, but he had not Venice in his administrative
district and he can not be utilized to prove a Western origin of the
Venetian title of doge / dux. By the way, I must precise that it is
difficult to say what "Western" would mean here : it is not "Latin" (as
opposed to "Greek"), because the Venetians were clearly Latins, but they
were also subjects of the Byzantine Emperor. So "Western" must signified
"non-Roman", but in fact, as I said before, the use of the title of Duke in
the Barbarian kingdoms was also of Roman origin, as this Kingdoms
themselves. And in the Longobardian Kingdom it was probably more precisely
or Byzantine origin, the new State retaking the previous administrative
structures...
> My opinion is still this one: for the Venetians, the term of "Duke" was
> implemented from the West.
And I still think that you are wrong : see above.
> While the "Duca" of Candia from Byzantium.
> But let's have a look to Cessi, "L'«investitura» ducale", Atti
dell'Istituto
> Veneto di scienze, lettere ed arti 126 (1967-1968): 251-294!
Alas, I will not read that before a long time, because I do not know a
Library in Paris that has the complete collection of the Atti dell'Istituto
Veneto...
Pierre Aronax
> It's all right. But, from one point of view, there are two ways of making
> history: the reconstruct the events (and, congratulations, you do it like
an
> expert) or to approach the tradition, to search for the myths and legends
> (that is why I try to do).
> So, try to understand me. I am only attempting to note what remained in
the
> Venetian tradition after the centuries (as you name them, the "modern"
> sources).
> Of course they present a lot of inaccuracies. But exactly these
inaccuracies
> are the ones that preoccupies, and - normally - to answer to the question:
> why those accuracies were retaken by the chroniclers, and how did they
> evoluate during the centuries etc.
It is a very interesting and absolutely valid object of study of course, as
far as one does not misenterprated its sense and is absolutely conscious
that this study said to us far more about the Venetian aristocratic society
of the 14th-15th centuries than on the origins of Venice. For example, the
fact that we can retain from the chronicle is that Orio Mastropiero was
reputed in the 14th and 15th centuries to have been protospatharios, that
this strange title was still know by the Venetian historians and so that
they were interested by their Byzantine past. But we no by other sources
that Orio Mastropiero was in fact protovestiarios, probably nothing else,
and that is an indubitable fact.
> Coming back to the 'raw materials', I have to specify that the source that
> you make many referrals, namely Giovanni Diacono, is not exactly the first
> Venetian chronicle known by now. I think about "Chronicon Gradense" and
> "Chronica Altinate", see "Origo Civitatem Italie seu Veneticorum
(Chronicon
> Altinate et Chronicon Gradense)", a cura di Roberto Cessi, volume unico,
> Roma: Tipografia del Senato, 1933.
That's right, but the "Chronicon Gradense", as indicated by its name, was
assembled in the ambiance of the patriarcat of Grado, and the "Chronicon
Altinate" is a compilation of heterogeneous materials, some of which
effectively earliest. On the other hand, the Chronicle of John the Deacon is
the first historiographic composition emanated from the laic political
scene, with a precise, identified redactor (despite the fact that this
redactor was a deacon). So, it is far more interesting for the political
history, particularly when you remember that Giovanni had access to official
documents which he sometimes quotes in his chronicle (as for example the
Pactum Lotharii).
[...]
> > It is most likely the Malipiero family (Maripetro in Latin) who
> > latter create this confusion to praise its own origin. But in the 12th
> > century the Malipiero were not a ducal family, they were on a lower
social
> > status.
>
> The same in the case of the Faliers, who put themselves into direct
> connection with Paulitio Anafesto. Should it be the same for the Badoers
> that pretend being the descendants of the Partecipazio? Or for the
> Gradenicos - considered as having links with Pietro Tradomenico?
> It is not my field, but it's interesting.
It is certain in the first case because we know nothing of secure on
Paulitio. Idem for the connection between the Badoer and the Partcecipazio,
this last family being certainly extinct. In the last case, it is probably
the final homophony of the two surnames which inspired the assimilation.
> Actually, I think that Henri I was the exception.
The Latin Empire had only five Emperors (six including John of Brienne), so
each one was in some way an exception...
> His eleven years of
> rulership (one year as regent and ten years as emperor) were indeed a
> prolific period for the Latin empire. But, if on get into details, he/she
> could find out that the feature of his policy was a defensive one. He
simply
> rejected the Bulgarians and Theodore Laskaris, and came to peace with
them,
> and also subdued Michael I Doukas Angelos the governor of Epirus.
> It gives
> the impression that the new empire was still fighting for its own
> survivance.
Not so bad I think. I also reinforce the feudal cohesion of the Latin
Empire, strengthening his authority on the vassal Kingdom of Thessalonica,
where had aroused secessionist temptations, and putting in his direct
vassality the other Latin princes of Greece, like the lords of Central
Greece, the Duke of the Archipelago and the prince of Morea. Henri managed
also to realised a political synthesis between the Byzantine and the
Occidental heritages. With him, the Empire attained its larger territorial
extension. It can hardly be seen only as a defensive politic.
> In comparison with the very first intentions of the crusaders,
> immediately after the Fourth Crusade. Let's make a comparison: was it
> something different between the 1204-1205 (before the battle of
Adrianople)
> period and 1216 one? Just a question!
I don't undestand well the question.
> Anyway, after his death, the empire came into a continuous shade period.
Not immediately, I disagree. The reign of the King-Emperor John of Brienne
had still some twilights.
> It
> was expressly named as "tantum magni nominis umbra" (see "Annales S.
> Iustinae Patavini", ed. P. Jaffe, MGH SS, vol. 19. A similar view, in
> "Matthae Parisiensis Chronica Majora" (edited by H. R. Luard), vol. 4
> (1876). [And in these cases, I make appeal to contemporary sources!].
> This
> is the depiction of the Latin Empire, characterising it between 1216 and
> 1261.
Yes, but not sources from the area of activity of the Empire. And you said
yourself that it is a general judgment on all the period 1216-1261. It is
exact that the Empire was very weak at the end, I agree on that, but in it
did not happen immediately after Henri's death.
>
> In connection with the Fourth Crusade, I have a question: when do you
> suppose that this crusade came to an end?
But... 6 July 1439 of course :)
> I already presented my attitude,
> see:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/serban_marin/ramusio01.html
I read it, very interesting, thank you.
Omega
how all these
individuals were related.
and I mean: The brothers Mavros; Kekaumenos; Lekapinos; Euphorbenos;
Tarchaniotis, etc.
The only thing these people had in common is: The were all high ranking
officers, Generals.
Psellus and other constantly use the word "Katakalon" with out giving first
names.
> Demetrios Katakalôn, katepano of Paradounavon, that I have already
mentioned,
> Konstantinos Katakalôn, the well know Duke of Cyprus,
> John Katakalôn, tagmatophylax, 10th-11th century,
> Niketas Katakalôn, koubikoularios, 9th-10th century,
> Niketas Katakalôn, ostiarios,
> Konstantinos Katakalôn, episkeptites of Rodantho, spatharokandidatos, 11th
> century
> Epiphanios Katakalôn, episkeptites of Rodantho, 10th-11th century.
You use here a first name, and Katakalon as a "Surname". Of course you have
access
to documents that I don have. Speaking for myself, did never see in any of
the books
I have a "First Name" followed by "Katakalon".
Always "First Name" "Surname" "KATAKALON.
> One can adds (from Anna Komnena) :
> Andronikos Katakalôn, one of the three young generals send by Alexis I
Komenos
> at the help of the city of Dadibra, in Paphalagonia, blockaded by the
Turks.
I checked this name, and I was unable to find it in My copy. There is NO
reference,
and I couldn't find it in the text either.
> Kekavmenos Katakalôn, officer who take part of the rebellion of Nikephoros
> Diogénès, Duke of Creta, against the Emperor Alexis I in 1094. He was
> blinded.
The full name is Michael Kekaumenos Katakalon is an addition.
> Michael Katakalôn, officer who command in Philadelphia after the
> reoccupation of the town in 1097.
I can't find in my Alexiad copy this reference either.
As I said at the start, the 6 or 7 persons we know for sure that they were
carrying the Suffix Katakalon must be Inter related other wise carrying the
Word Katakalon at the end of their name does not make any sense.
and by the way, they all come from different parts of Byzantium.
--
Dr. George Tsambourakis
Omega Thoroughbreds
Tooborac, Victoria, Australia
e-Mail: om...@thoroughbreds.com.au
Web-Site: http://www.thoroughbreds.com.au
"Pierre Aronax" <pierre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:96p1nk$p0r$3...@front9.grolier.fr...
Renia
Renia
Pierre Aronax
> I haven't really been following this thread, but perhaps they weren't
related. Perhaps they were all from or of Katakolon or Katakali.
>
> Renia
Of course, it is not absolutely impossible, but I don't think so because it
is contrary to what we know of the Byzantine aristocracy. In the time when
lived this people, all aristocratic family had a surname and can be
indentified by its surname. Of course, sometimes they used more than a
surname (for example maternal and paternal surnames) which makes the
question more complicated. For the Katakalon of the IXe century that's
another story becuase effectively in that time the surnames were not all
fixed.
Stewart, Peter
> From: Omega [mailto:om...@thoroughbreds.com.au]
> Sent: Sunday, 18 February 2001 10:32
> To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: Dux & Doukas (was: Monomachos)
>
>
> <snip>
> why we know so little about it?
> Why there are no women call themself Katakalainena (or
> whatever you think the feminine name is)?
According to the well-known Tsambourakis "theory" of Byzantine naming
practice (which the doctor has never acknowledged to be in error), any women
of this family would NOT have called themselves by whatever Pierre Aronax
"thinks the feminine name is" -- so what can the doctor's question mean?
Peter Stewart
Omega
Catacalon
were "probably" from Paphlagonia or Armenia.
Kekaumenos was born in a place called Colonus.
Lekapinos was born in Lekapi
But all others were born in places that are not related to the word.
Anyway, if I am not mistaken, the village of "Katakali" in Peloponese took
its name from a Monastery.
Dr. George Tsambourakis
Omega Thoroughbreds
Tooborac, Victoria, Australia
e-Mail: om...@thoroughbreds.com.au
Web-Site: http://www.thoroughbreds.com.au
"Pierre Aronax" <pierre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:96pkdq$s5p$1...@front3m.grolier.fr...
Omega
--
Dr. George Tsambourakis
Omega Thoroughbreds
Tooborac, Victoria, Australia
e-Mail: om...@thoroughbreds.com.au
Web-Site: http://www.thoroughbreds.com.au
"Stewart, Peter" <Peter....@crsrehab.gov.au> wrote in message
news:BE9CF8DEAB7ED311B05E...@v003138e.crsrehab.gov.au...
Stewart, Peter
reliability of Dr Tsambourakis as a guide to any aspect of history or
historiography that is discussed here.
Peter Stewart
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Omega [mailto:om...@thoroughbreds.com.au]
> Sent: Sunday, 18 February 2001 7:25
> To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: Dux & Doukas (was: Monomachos)
>
>
> Sorry, but according to Greek Historians, and History books,
> the position in Crete was DOGE and not Douke, from the
> beginning to the
> end..
> I will check to see if they give any references.
>
> Dr. George Tsambourakis
> Omega Thoroughbreds
> Tooborac, Victoria, Australia
> e-Mail: om...@thoroughbreds.com.au
> Web-Site: http://www.thoroughbreds.com.au
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Omega [mailto:om...@thoroughbreds.com.au]
> Sent: Sunday, 18 February 2001 9:40
> To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: Dux & Doukas (was: Monomachos)
>
>
> I had a quick look in my personal records, and it appears that you are
> Wright.
> I have all Venetians that were appointed to "lead" in Crete as Duke's.
> So I must have check that against some other records.
>
> Some of the Dukes are:
>
> Giacobo Tiepolo 1209-1211
> Paul Quirini 1217 - 1219
> Benedict Vetturi 1460-
> Dolphin Vernier 1610 -
> Bernard Vernier 1615 -1617
> Giovanni Storloto
> Leonardo Quirini
> etc.
>
> I have a complete list somewhere that I can't find.
>
> --
> Dr. George Tsambourakis
> Omega Thoroughbreds
> Tooborac, Victoria, Australia
> e-Mail: om...@thoroughbreds.com.au
> Web-Site: http://www.thoroughbreds.com.au
> "Omega" <om...@thoroughbreds.com.au> wrote in message
> news:88Bj6.1$uv....@vic.nntp.telstra.net...
> > Sorry, but according to Greek Historians, and History books,
> > the position in Crete was DOGE and not Douke, from the
> beginning to the
> > end..
> > I will check to see if they give any references.
> >
Pierre Aronax
Omega <om...@thoroughbreds.com.au> a écrit dans le message :
_1Wj6.1$7C....@vic.nntp.telstra.net...
> I think, for your suggestion to be correct
Excuse me but what suggestion exactly ? I didn't suggest anything, I only
gave facts.
> Wright you must prove or suggest
> how all these
> individuals were related.
Of course, that is absolutely impossible : most part of these individuals
are know only by a slight mention, when it is not only by a seal dated
approximately. But we can suppose with a maximum of reliability that they
were related, when considering what we know of the Byzantine aristocracy of
the 10th-12th centuries and of its anthroponomical system.
> and I mean: The brothers Mavros; Kekaumenos; Lekapinos; Euphorbenos;
> Tarchaniotis, etc.
> The only thing these people had in common is: The were all high ranking
> officers, Generals.
>
> Psellus and other constantly use the word "Katakalon" with out giving
first
> names.
That is not true, many examples have been given since the beginning of this
thread which confirm that Katakalon is a surname and not a title.
>
> > Demetrios Katakalôn, katepano of Paradounavon, that I have already
> mentioned,
> > Konstantinos Katakalôn, the well know Duke of Cyprus,
> > John Katakalôn, tagmatophylax, 10th-11th century,
> > Niketas Katakalôn, koubikoularios, 9th-10th century,
> > Niketas Katakalôn, ostiarios,
> > Konstantinos Katakalôn, episkeptites of Rodantho, spatharokandidatos,
11th
> > century
> > Epiphanios Katakalôn, episkeptites of Rodantho, 10th-11th century.
>
> You use here a first name, and Katakalon as a "Surname". Of course you
have
> access
> to documents that I don have.
I have mentionned my source : the book by Kazhdan, who used reliable
material, particularly seals.
Speaking for myself, did never see in any of
> the books
> I have a "First Name" followed by "Katakalon".
> Always "First Name" "Surname" "KATAKALON.
I mentionned six examples quoted by Kazhdan from seals. Do you think that
Alexander Kazhdan was not able to read a seal ? An for the fact that
Katakalon is sometime placed after a surname, it only proves that the
individual person had two surnames, which is common in Byzantium for someone
who wants to recall a prestigious maternal ascendancy near his paternal one.
See the case of Konstantinos Euphorbenos Katakalon that I have mentionned
before : we know that he had the two surnames, but on his seal as duke of
Crete he retains only the surname "Katakalon", probably because it is the
more prestigious one or perhaps because he was more affectively involved
with this one.
>
> > One can adds (from Anna Komnena) :
> > Andronikos Katakalôn, one of the three young generals send by Alexis I
> Komenos
> > at the help of the city of Dadibra, in Paphalagonia, blockaded by the
> Turks.
>
> I checked this name, and I was unable to find it in My copy. There is NO
> reference,
> and I couldn't find it in the text either.
Exact, my mistake, this one is not in Anna Komnena but in Niketas Choniatis.
I have not a copy of Niketas at home and so I must go to the library to
quote exactly the sentences, which I have not done previously by lack of
time.
>
> > Kekavmenos Katakalôn, officer who take part of the rebellion of
Nikephoros
> > Diogénès, Duke of Creta, against the Emperor Alexis I in 1094. He was
> > blinded.
>
> The full name is Michael Kekaumenos Katakalon is an addition.
Hmm... possible, I don't recall well. Must verify.
>
> > Michael Katakalôn, officer who command in Philadelphia after the
> > reoccupation of the town in 1097.
>
> I can't find in my Alexiad copy this reference either.
Try Alexiade, edition by B. Leid, tome III, p. 27.
>
> As I said at the start, the 6 or 7 persons we know for sure that they were
> carrying the Suffix Katakalon must be Inter related other wise carrying
the
> Word Katakalon at the end of their name does not make any sense.
> and by the way, they all come from different parts of Byzantium.
How do you know that I would be happy to know. Or are you confusing the
place where he man held an office with the place where is family take its
origin ? Anyway, I have given other examples taken from the book of Kazhdan
who have only the surname "Katakalon".
Pierre Aronax
Omega <om...@thoroughbreds.com.au> a écrit dans le message :
lUYj6.22$7C....@vic.nntp.telstra.net...
> Perhaps I should point out that the first individuals carrying the "word"
> Catacalon
> were "probably" from Paphlagonia or Armenia.
>
> Kekaumenos was born in a place called Colonus.
It is Kolonea, mentionned in my previous post as the probable place of
origin of the Katakalontes, quoting Kazhdan who quoted Psellos. Other name
Archelais. It was the capitale of a theme. But it is neither in Armenia nor
in Paphlagonia, rather in the Pontos.
Omega
They know that when I am wrong, I publicly acknowledge it and apologise.
Perhaps that's the reason why so many send me messages of support privately
or ask
for my opinion or information.
You may try, driven by hate and racism, to damage me, but you will never
achieve that.
People world wide respect me for what I am and what I do.
Grow Up
Dr. George Tsambourakis
Omega Thoroughbreds
Tooborac, Victoria, Australia
e-Mail: om...@thoroughbreds.com.au
Web-Site: http://www.thoroughbreds.com.au
"Stewart, Peter" <Peter....@crsrehab.gov.au> wrote in message
news:BE9CF8DEAB7ED311B05E...@v003138e.crsrehab.gov.au...
D. Spencer Hines
What's that all about?
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one
by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." -- Edmund
Burke -- Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents [April 23,
1770]
"You could not stand five minutes with that man [Burke] beneath a shed
while it rained, but you must be convinced you had been standing with
the greatest man you had ever seen." Samuel Johnson [1709-1784],
_Johnsonian Miscellanies [1897], edited by G.B. Hill, vol. 1, p.290
"On résiste à l'invasion des armées; on ne résiste pas à l'invasion des
idées."
Victor Hugo
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor
"Omega" <om...@thoroughbreds.com.au> wrote in message
news:TuZj6.24$7C....@vic.nntp.telstra.net...
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Omega
anything.
Perhaps the misunderstanding is the use on my behalf of the word YOU.
As I already explained before, in one other message, YOU is not directed to
you personally but to all those that are involved. I assume that this is
not just
a message exchange between yourself and myself and that others read the
messages too.
> I mentioned six examples quoted by Kazhdan from seals. Do you think that
> Alexander Kazhdan was not able to read a seal ?
Unfortunately for me, I have not access to any of Kazhdan
books/scripts/seals etc.
Your earlier message regarding Kolonea sounds promising.
> An for the fact that
> Katakalon is sometime placed after a surname, it only proves that the
> individual person had two surnames, which is common in Byzantium for
someone
> who wants to recall a prestigious maternal ascendancy near his paternal
one.
Your comment does not apply to the names mentioned (by me) because
neither their mother nor their grandmother was surnamed Katakalon.
> > > Michael Katakalôn, officer who command in Philadelphia after the
> > > reoccupation of the town in 1097.
> > I can't find in my Alexiad copy this reference either.
>
> Try Alexiade, edition by B. Leid, tome III, p. 27.
I have the Penguin Classics book. I will try to find it later.
> > As I said at the start, the 6 or 7 persons we know for sure that they
were
> > carrying the Suffix Katakalon must be Inter related other wise carrying
the
> > Word Katakalon at the end of their name does not make any sense.
> > and by the way, they all come from different parts of Byzantium.
> How do you know that I would be happy to know. Or are you confusing the
> place where he man held an office with the place where is family take its
> origin ? Anyway, I have given other examples taken from the book of
Kazhdan
> who have only the surname "Katakalon".
Did I say "YOU WILL BE HAPPY TO KNOW"? I only pointed out that the
6 or 7 individuals I mentioned come from different parts.
I think it will be convincing if there is a direct link by marriage that
connects
two or more individuals with one surname Katakalon..
PS: I am not supporting any particular view (surname or title),
I am interested in the truth.
Dr. George Tsambourakis
Omega Thoroughbreds
Tooborac, Victoria, Australia
e-Mail: om...@thoroughbreds.com.au
Web-Site: http://www.thoroughbreds.com.au
"Pierre Aronax" <pierre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:96pnke$bsn$1...@front3m.grolier.fr...
Serban Marin
> >
> > So, isn't it a (small) possibility that the title of "Duke" be of
Western
> > origin in the case of Venice?
>
> It seems to me doubtful : other area of Byzantine sovereignty which became
> virtually autonomous during the 8th century, like the cities of Amalfi or
> Naples, retained also the title of Duke for their governors, not because
of
> a "western" origin, but clearly to emphasize the link with the Byzantine
> Empire and because Duke had become in Byzantium the most common title for
> the governor of an important administrative division.
I think that our debate is not quite clear. What exactly do we consider
Byzantium? What do we consider the West? Actually, both of them preserved
the Roman structures and institution, to a lesser or a higher degree.
My opinion is that the title of "dux", after being introduced in the 4th
century (am I right?) by the Romans, continued its existence in the West
and, although in a shade way, in Byzantium.
Below, you will assert that: "And in the Longobardian Kingdom it was
probably more precisely or Byzantine origin, the new State retaking the
previous administrative structures..." Of course that there are similarities
between the Longobardian and Byzantine structures, but IMHO the Longobards
represent the West.
I think it should be better to regard the things in another way: the both
"worlds" (West and Byzantium) have the same source: the Roman structures.
> > Don't blame the tradition! It also deserves to be studied!
>
> I don't blame anyone or anything. It is not a blame to take the legend for
> what it is, and I certainly never said that it doesnt deserve to be
studied,
> but for what it is, and not as a piece of fact.
Indeed.
> > Could you localize this "corte del Ducha"? Castello? Cannaregio?
> Dorsoduro?
>
> It is in the sestier of San Marco, no far from the Great Canal, next to
the
> Ca' del Duca (so named for the same reason) which is near the Palazzo
> Falier.
Thanks for the info, although I don't think that I'll be there in the near
future.
Serban Marin
> > > One can adds (from Anna Komnena) :
> > > Andronikos Katakalôn, one of the three young generals send by Alexis I
> > Komenos
> > > at the help of the city of Dadibra, in Paphalagonia, blockaded by the
> > Turks.
> >
> > I checked this name, and I was unable to find it in My copy. There is
NO
> > reference,
> > and I couldn't find it in the text either.
>
> Exact, my mistake, this one is not in Anna Komnena but in Niketas
Choniatis.
> I have not a copy of Niketas at home and so I must go to the library to
> quote exactly the sentences, which I have not done previously by lack of
> time.
>
It is not necessary to go the library, since Nicetas begins his "Annals"
begin with the rule of John II Komnenos (1118). So, the episode with
Andronikos Katakalon, placed under Alexius I, could not be found there out.
Except A. Komnena, the Alexius I's period is discussed only by John Zonaras,
Michael Glykas, Theodore Skutariotes,Michael Panaretos, and some illustrious
anonymous. Oh, I forgot Nikephoros Bryennios.
Good hunting,
Serban Marin
> It is a very interesting and absolutely valid object of study of course,
as
> far as one does not misenterprated its sense and is absolutely conscious
> that this study said to us far more about the Venetian aristocratic
society
> of the 14th-15th centuries than on the origins of Venice. For example, the
> fact that we can retain from the chronicle is that Orio Mastropiero was
> reputed in the 14th and 15th centuries to have been protospatharios, that
> this strange title was still know by the Venetian historians and so that
> they were interested by their Byzantine past. But we no by other sources
> that Orio Mastropiero was in fact protovestiarios, probably nothing else,
> and that is an indubitable fact.
It does not necessarily mean that the Venetian historians knew what did this
title consist in. From their point of view, it simply sounded good, so good
that it could "work" for a proper propaganda. Actually, I don't think that
an ordinary chronicler or historian made any difference between the
Byzantine titles, although they currently read Choniates or Akropolites.
> > Actually, I think that Henri I was the exception.
>
> The Latin Empire had only five Emperors (six including John of Brienne),
so
> each one was in some way an exception...
OK, let's put it in another way: the PERIOD of Henry I was an exception.
>
> > His eleven years of
> > rulership (one year as regent and ten years as emperor) were indeed a
> > prolific period for the Latin empire. But, if on get into details,
he/she
> > could find out that the feature of his policy was a defensive one. He
> simply
> > rejected the Bulgarians and Theodore Laskaris, and came to peace with
> them,
> > and also subdued Michael I Doukas Angelos the governor of Epirus.
> > It gives
> > the impression that the new empire was still fighting for its own
> > survivance.
>
> Not so bad I think. I also reinforce the feudal cohesion of the Latin
> Empire, strengthening his authority on the vassal Kingdom of Thessalonica,
> where had aroused secessionist temptations, and putting in his direct
> vassality the other Latin princes of Greece, like the lords of Central
> Greece, the Duke of the Archipelago and the prince of Morea. Henri managed
> also to realised a political synthesis between the Byzantine and the
> Occidental heritages. With him, the Empire attained its larger territorial
> extension. It can hardly be seen only as a defensive politic.
Let's face it: did his state look like an empire? I mean, did it have the
necessary prestige? Despite his offensives against Boril or Theodore I (that
finished with simply truces, and not with important territorial gains), I
still believe that the Latin empire was a defensive state.
Actually, after his rule, the Empire of Nicaea (as his traditional enemy)
was much stronger than in 1204-1205.
>
> > In comparison with the very first intentions of the crusaders,
> > immediately after the Fourth Crusade. Let's make a comparison: was it
> > something different between the 1204-1205 (before the battle of
> Adrianople)
> > period and 1216 one? Just a question!
>
> I don't undestand well the question.
In this case, I give my answer: Henry I simply regain the crusaders'
position from 1204-1205. He just cancelled - after many battles - the
catastrophic results of the Adrianople moment.
>
> > Anyway, after his death, the empire came into a continuous shade period.
>
> Not immediately, I disagree. The reign of the King-Emperor John of Brienne
> had still some twilights.
> > It
> > was expressly named as "tantum magni nominis umbra" (see "Annales S.
> > Iustinae Patavini", ed. P. Jaffe, MGH SS, vol. 19. A similar view, in
> > "Matthae Parisiensis Chronica Majora" (edited by H. R. Luard), vol. 4
> > (1876). [And in these cases, I make appeal to contemporary sources!].
> > This
> > is the depiction of the Latin Empire, characterising it between 1216 and
> > 1261.
>
> Yes, but not sources from the area of activity of the Empire. And you said
> yourself that it is a general judgment on all the period 1216-1261. It is
> exact that the Empire was very weak at the end, I agree on that, but in it
> did not happen immediately after Henri's death.
And I am still convinced that the Empire was very weak also under Pierre of
Courtenay (who actually never take into possession of the throne in
Constantinople, being captured by Theodore Angelos Doukas of Epirus),
Yolanda of Hainaut or Pierre de Courtenay (defeated by the Epirotes who took
Serres and Thessalonic; attacked in the suburbs of Constantinople itself by
the same Theodore Angelos; defeated by the Nicaeans at Poimanenon; expelled
from the Asia Minor etc.) Does this picture look like a triumphal one for
the Empire? These are the facts (and not the legends, this time) for the
period between 1217-1228. John of Brienne came as regent of the Empire in
1231 only as a result of the desperation.
>
> >
> > In connection with the Fourth Crusade, I have a question: when do you
> > suppose that this crusade came to an end?
>
> But... 6 July 1439 of course :)
And when you think about the Council of Florence being also a "perfidia
Graecorum"!
>
> > I already presented my attitude,
> > see:
> >
> > http://www.geocities.com/serban_marin/ramusio01.html
>
> I read it, very interesting, thank you.
Thank you too.
Stewart, Peter
> From: Omega [mailto:om...@thoroughbreds.com.au]
> Sent: Monday, 19 February 2001 10:38
> To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: Dux & Doukas (was: Monomachos)
>
>
uninformed opinion to the list, receiving and purporting to answer questions
from people who genuinely wish to learn something. And, of course, something
is exactly what Dr Tsambourakis does not know....
Peter Stewart
Stewart, Peter
> From: Omega [mailto:om...@thoroughbreds.com.au]
> Sent: Monday, 19 February 2001 11:07
> To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: Dux & Doukas (was: Monomachos)
>
>
> They know that when I am wrong, I publicly acknowledge it and
> apologise.
False -- you would not even acknowledge a simple error about the meaning of
the name Andersson, nonsensically claiming that this was a deliberate
mistake to gauge how many people were reading a thread in which you
relentlessly held to more substantial errors.
> Perhaps that's the reason why so many send me messages of
> support privately or ask for my opinion or information.
These misled people, supposing we can believe in their existence, clearly
need protecting from their ignorance if it is actually deeper than your own.
>
> You may try, driven by hate and racism, to damage me, but you
> will never achieve that.
I know and care nothing about your race -- buffoonery is universal and its
skin is usually too thin to discern a colour.
> People world wide respect me for what I am and what I do.
I hop they are not members of SGM, who have seen no evidence of
respectability in your inane and confused postings.
>
> Grow Up
This is highly inappropriate language-- for all you know, I may be a dwarf.
For my part, Dr Tsambourakis, I happily acknowledge the maturity of your
habit of avoiding direct questions and inconvenient facts.
Peter Stewart
Pierre Aronax
Serban Marin <sma...@dnt.ro> a écrit dans le message :
01ef01c099ef$9948ea60$087de7c1@v0t8w0...
I have the same opinion, I thank it was clear. Perhaps my English ? I resume
again : the Byzantine Empire and the Barbarian Kingdoms inherited the
political structures of the late Roman Empire. Among this structures was the
office of Duke (despite the fact that his exact attributions may have
evolved in somewhat different ways). In the Byzantine Empire (meaning all
territories, Latin as Greek, under the power of the Byzantine Emperor), the
Duke maintained is function of principal administrator of a provincial area.
That was the meaning of the title in Byzantine and post-Byzantine Italy :
administrator of territories which maintained a political dependency, at
least symbolic, with Byzantium, retained this title for their prime
magistrate as an heritage of the Byzantine imperial administrative system.
Among this territories was Venice, which was in no way an exception : see
the Dukedoms of Rome, Naples, Amalfi etc. which all remained "Byzantine"
territories after the 8th century and escaped the Longobardian conquest.
On the other hand, for the reason seen above (Roman inheritage) the title of
Duke was also used in the Barbarian Kingdoms, and specifically in the
Longobardian Kingdom, but this practice has no direct connection with what
precede (nevertheless, the Londobardians retake of course some political
structures of the Byzantine Italy, like administrative divisions, and it is
in that sense that I said that "in the Longobardian Kingdom [the title of
Duke] was probably more precisely or Byzantine origin"). At least that is
not here that we can find the origin of the Venetian ducal title.
I hope this time it is intelligible.
>
> I think it should be better to regard the things in another way: the both
> "worlds" (West and Byzantium) have the same source: the Roman structures.
Read again : that is exactly what I said... Excuse me if once more I quote
myself :
> But the Byzantine tradition of the title "doux"/"dux" itself
> take source in the administrative organisation of the late Roman Empire,
and
> that is also from that point that come the Western title of Duke ("dux").
and again in my last post :
> By the way, I must precise that it is
> difficult to say what "Western" would mean here : it is not "Latin" (as
> opposed to "Greek"), because the Venetians were clearly Latins, but they
> were also subjects of the Byzantine Emperor. So "Western" must signified
> "non-Roman", but in fact, as I said before, the use of the title of Duke
in
> the Barbarian kingdoms was also of Roman origin, as this Kingdoms
> themselves.
I think the last sentence was particularly clear. If you make no case in
your posts of all that have been said before, the exchange of ideas will
become difficult. As you can see, you tray to convince me of things that I
have already written. Of course, I agree with you...
Pierre Aronax
Serban Marin <sma...@dnt.ro> a écrit dans le message :
01f101c099ef$9b58dea0$087de7c1@v0t8w0...
> Pierre Aronax wrote:
> It is not necessary to go the library, since Nicetas begins his "Annals"
> begin with the rule of John II Komnenos (1118). So, the episode with
> Andronikos Katakalon, placed under Alexius I, could not be found there
out.
I know perfectly that, thank you; in fact, Niketas Choniatès begin more
exactly his narration with the last days of Alexios I Komnenos. But he also
sometimes refers to individuals who were already in activity under the reign
of Alexios and it was not absurd to think that, speaking of this
individuals, he may allude to events of his reign.
Nevertheless, in that case you are right and I must apologize to have quoted
this example partly from memory, which is not of good method : the siege of
Dadibra take place at the end of the 12th century, so the emperor must be
Alexios III Angelos and not Alexios I Komnenos. Anyway, it is better to
check the text and so finally I will have to go to the library..., when I
will found the time.
Pierre Aronax
> Pierre Aronax wrote:
>
>
> It does not necessarily mean that the Venetian historians knew what did
this
> title consist in.
Of course. The important thing was that it was an imperial Byzantine title,
that's all.
> From their point of view, it simply sounded good, so good
> that it could "work" for a proper propaganda. Actually, I don't think that
> an ordinary chronicler or historian made any difference between the
> Byzantine titles, although they currently read Choniates or Akropolites.
Do you think so ? I don't think they even read Greek for the most part of
them. There were some exceptions of course, like probably Marino Sanudo (the
older, of the 14th century, not Marino junior), and certainly Lorenzo de
Monacis which was necessarily in contact with Greek documents in his
professional practice; but he was not particularly pride of his knowledge of
the idiom of Homer, which is rather surprising for a pre-humanist, what the
majority of the Venetian chroniclers were not at all...
Hmm... I still don't agree but it is a subject to vast for this way of
discussion. It was not a more defensive or powerless State than was in that
time the Empire of Nicaea, not to speak, soon after, of the far more
ephemeral Empire of Thessalonica. Henri was a very prestigious prince, with
an ambitious and original political project. That's only with the great
victories of John Batatzès of Nicaea in the mid 20' that the Latin Empire
began its decline. But nothing was absolutely determinate for the destiny of
the Upper Romania before at least the death of the Bulgarian King Asen in
1241.
> Actually, after his rule, the Empire of Nicaea (as his traditional enemy)
> was much stronger than in 1204-1205.
Yes, but that was not difficult because in 1204-1205 the "Empire" of Nicaea,
which in fact was not even an Empire so have not the legitimacy of the
emperial title enjoyed by the Latin Empire, was certainly in an extrem state
of fragility.
> > > In comparison with the very first intentions of the crusaders,
> > > immediately after the Fourth Crusade. Let's make a comparison: was it
> > > something different between the 1204-1205 (before the battle of
> > Adrianople)
> > > period and 1216 one? Just a question!
> >
> > I don't undestand well the question.
>
> In this case, I give my answer: Henry I simply regain the crusaders'
> position from 1204-1205. He just cancelled - after many battles - the
> catastrophic results of the Adrianople moment.
Absolutely untrue. At the time of the battle of Adrianopolis, the Latins
were only masters of a very little part of the Romania. Henry managed not
only to regain this territories, but also to join under is authority all the
feudal states that the Crusaders had created in Greece during the following
period, of which some had been tempted by a political secession. That was
perhaps the most important part of his political and diplomatical activity.
A medieval State can not be cartographied like a modern State : Henry must
not only be seen as the master of territories in the north of the Aegean Sea
and Asia Minor, but as the leader of an impressive feudal State covering
almost all the classical Greece, as the suzerain of a King, a Prince and
some Dukes and Counts, which was far from being insignificant for his power
and prestige.
You mean probably Robert of Courtenay.
> (defeated by the Epirotes who took
Serres and Thessalonic; attacked in the suburbs of Constantinople itself by
> the same Theodore Angelos; defeated by the Nicaeans at Poimanenon;
expelled
> from the Asia Minor etc.) Does this picture look like a triumphal one for
> the Empire? These are the facts (and not the legends, this time) for the
> period between 1217-1228.
I agree on the facts, not on your twisted chronology. The capture of the
Emperor Peter by Theodoros Angelos in 1217 was no more than an audacious
kidnapping, certainly not a military triumph or a sign of the weakness of
the Latin Empire. The prestige of the Empire was intact at that time.
For the reign of Yolanda, it was very brief (1217-1219), but certainly not
unsuccessful : by marrying his daughter to the Emperor of Nicaea (still a
little State fighting to survive), she paralysed the danger that he may have
represented. The political project symbolized by this union was a modus
vivendi between the two Empires, and in fact at the beginning of his reign
Robert of Courtenay had good relations with Nicaea, until 1222 and the death
of Theodoros, his brother-in-law who wanted to reinforce their political
friendship by giving him his own daughter (by the way, it will have made
Robert an acceptable competitor for Theodoros succession...). In fact, the
death of Theodoros created more immediate difficulties for the Greek Empire
than for the Latin one, the brother of the late Emperor refusing to
recognize his son-in-law John Batatzès as his successor. Because Robert was
still a powerful monarch, he tried to interfere in the internal politic of
Nicaea, and it was the direct cause of his first military defeat, but only
in 1224, after five years or reign. The same year, the Kingdom of
Thessalonica was conquered by Theodoros Angelos (but that was not exactly a
defeat of the Emperor, rather of his vassal the King of Thessalonica). That
is why I think that it is only in the middle of the 20' that began the
decline of the Latin Empire, not before. So, your apocalyptic description is
exact, but not for the period 1217-1228 as you pretend, only for the four
years 1225-1228.
> John of Brienne came as regent of the Empire in
> 1231 only as a result of the desperation.
For John of Brienne, I only spoke of some twilights, and I maintain : he try
to save whan can be saved.
> > > In connection with the Fourth Crusade, I have a question: when do you
> > > suppose that this crusade came to an end?
> >
> > But... 6 July 1439 of course :)
>
> And when you think about the Council of Florence being also a "perfidia
> Graecorum"!
I was only joking of course... And for the Council, one can say that it was
more likely a perfidia Latinorum.
If I can play again : around 1235, when the last crusaders of the 4th
Crusades captured by the Muslims in Syria were liberated and came back in
the West.
Pierre Aronax
Pierre Aronax <pierre...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message :
96pnke$bsn$1...@front3m.grolier.fr...
> > > Kekavmenos Katakalôn, officer who take part of the rebellion of
> Nikephoros
> > > Diogénès, Duke of Creta, against the Emperor Alexis I in 1094. He was
> > > blinded.
> >
> > The full name is Michael Kekaumenos Katakalon is an addition.
>
> Hmm... possible, I don't recall well. Must verify.
I verified and you are wrong again. You are confusing Kekavmenos Katakalon
(Alexiad, IX, 8, 4 and 9, 6) who take part in the rebellion of 1094 and was
exiled, with Michael Kekavmenos (Alexiad, XI, 5, 6 and XIII, 5, 1) who was
governor of Philadelphia and latter of Avlona and other places : there are
two different persons.
Pierre Aronax
Serban Marin <sma...@dnt.ro> a écrit dans le message :
001301c09864$c23245c0$0f7de7c1@v0t8w0...
> I should add the general Katakalon Kekaumenos:
1038 - Leader of the corps of the Armeniaks in the campaign of Maniakès in
Sicily
> 1041 - He defends Messina against the Arabians, the last Bizantine citadel
> in Sicily.
1042 - Take part in the defence of the Sacred Palace during the revolt
against Michael V.
1043 - He has a commandment in Paristrion with the title of vestès.
1045 ca - Duke of Iberia, with residence at Ani. He was still in post in
1048, but came back briefly in Constantinople in 1047
> 1048 - He defeats Ibrahim, Togrul-beg's brother in the regions of Armenia
> (Vaspurakan), rejecting the Seldjoukides.
1049-1050 - Take part in a campaign against against the Petchenegues with
the title of stratelat of the Orient (stratèlatès tès Anatolès). He was
captured and came back in Constantinople in 1053 only.
between 1054 and 1057 - Duke of Antioch with the dignity of magistros.
Deprived of this commandment by the Emperor Michael VI.
> 1057 - Together with other generals (isaac Komnenos, Constantine Doukas,
> John Doukas, Michael Burtzes) and with the Patriarch Michael Kerularios,
he
> agrees to a common action against the Emperor Michael VI.
As a reward, he was made curopalat by Isaac I Komnenos.
A Kékavmenos Katakalôn, cited by Anna Komnena, who was part of the revolt
of Nikephoros Diogenès in 1094 must be an other one, more young,
perhaps the grandson of the general.
> By the way, is there any connection between this Kekaumenos and the writer
> Kekaumenos, who wrote (between 1075 and 1078) his "Counsils and stories"?
The author of "Counsels and Stories" (this title is modern) give some
information on his family, but he is not always as clear as we could
expected. This genealogical data are examined by Paul Lemerle, "Prolégomènes
à une édition critique et commentée des Conseils et Récits de Kékauménos",
Bruxelles, 1960, p. 20-56.
Unfortunately, Kekavmenos does not says what was his first name, but he
gives some details about his life and social status : he played a part in
the repression of the Deljan's rebellion in 1041. He was in Constantinople
in 1042 when a revolution dethroned the Emperor Michael V Kalaphatès. At
some time, he was strategos of the theme of Hellas (= central Greece) with
residence at Larissa. He was so a Byzantine aristocrat, which mean a
professional soldier and administrator : the work of Kekavmenos is a very
composite one, but a part of it can be considered as a handbook of the
strategos (this part is named by the author himself a "strategikon").
Perhaps he take also part in an expedition in South Italian against the
Normans, and he finished to write under the reign of Michael VII and after
the death of the patriarch John Xiphilinos, so between 1075 and 1078.
About his father, he says only that he resided sometimes in Constantinople
but was not from this area. He died after 1067. He had perhaps a sister
married with a Nikoulitzas (Kekavmenos gives many details on this family),
but that point is absolutely not clear in the text.
His paternal grand-father was, like later Kekavmenos himself, strategos of
Hellas, with residence at Larissa, during three or, more probably,
approximately seven years. This must have been more or less around 976-983.
After that, he resided for some time in Constantinople. This grand-father,
probably of Georgian or Armenian origin, is identified by Lemerle with a
"Grègorios, patrikios and stratregos of Larissa and Macedonia, son of Smbat
Kèchkatzi the Iberian, patrikios" cited in a Greek inscription of 1006-1007
at Egrek, in the country of Tao, in Great Armenia, "Kekavmenos" being a
transcription or even a translation of "Kèchkatzi" (more correctly "Kisatsi"
in Armenian, "the Burnt": "Kekavmenos has the same meaning).
About his maternal family, Kekavmenos the author says that his mother was
the daughter of Dèmètrios Polémarchios, "képhalè" of a territory near
Servia, a place in Thessalia which he took to the Byzantine for the
Bulgarians, around 1000. Later, Démètrios Polémarchios rallied the Byzantine
party and received the dignity of patrice and the office of mystikos.
Nothing sure can be said about the relation between Kekavmenos and the
general Katakalôn Kekavmenos. It has even been suggested that they were the
same person, but that seems difficult because the careers are too different,
and the author seems to be younger. It is also difficult to identify KK with
the father of the author. But the both were in Constantinople in April 1042.
The conclusion of Lemerle is that a familial relationship may nevertheless
exists between Katakalôn Kekavmenos and Kekavmenos the author, but that
there are some arguments against this hypothesis, and in particular : 1)
Katakalôn K. was an homo novus (dixit Kedrenos), and Kekavmenos, grandson of
a strategos and patrikios, was not. 2) Katakalôn and Kekavmenos are two
surnames, and it is possible that the famous general was in fact a
Katakalôn, and a Kekavmenos only by maternal line (if that is true, he may
yet be a relative of the author, but they are not of the same family).
Some other members of the Kekavmenos family are cited by Lemerle :
John Kekavmenos (know only by a seal, without mention of title),
Basileios Kekavmenos (and of the 11th century), protospatharios,
prôtasékrétis and judge of the hippodrome, author of a poem
Michael Kekavmenos (floruit 1098-1108), know by Anna Komnena. This one
*could* be a son of the writter.
We can add to the list an other member of this family know by his seal :
Konstantinos Kekavmenos, protochancellor (protokangkellarios), second part
of the 11th century (cf. Laurent, "Corpus des sceaux de l'Empire byzantin",
II, N° 1158).
Kallinikos Kekavmenos, curopalat and monk, 11th century (cited by Alexander
Kazhdan, "L'aristocrazia bizantina dal principio dell'XI alla fine del XII
secolo, Palermo 1997, p. 366).
Adralesta Kekavmenos, spatharokandidatos, head of the Pantheon (a room of
the Sacred Palace), 11th century (Kazhdan, p. 291).
George Kekavmenos, teatcher at the school of the school of the Forty
Martyrs, 12th century (Kazhdan, p. 291).
So, it is clear that the family was important only in the 11th and the early
begining of the 12th century.
> > Some of these families were:
> > Marianos Mavros and his brother Nikos Mavros ----> Mavros-Katakalon
> > Konstantinos Euphorbenos - ---> Euphorbenos - Katakalon
> > Tarchaniotis -----> Tarchaniotis - Katakalon
> >
> > etc. etc..
> >
> > It just happens that all the above had links with the army, and were if
I
> > remember well, "Generals"
> > serving under John I Komninos.
> >
> > (The word itself can have many meanings it all depends how you use it
and
> > how spell it,
> >
> >
> > Kalon means "Good", "welfare".
> > Kallos means "Good at heart", "Nice", "Beautiful", "charming".
> > Kalos (o=omega) means "well", "right"
> >
> > Kalos (tone on "a") means "corn", "Bunion"
> > Kalos (o=omega; tone on"a") means "cable"
> >
> > and "Kata Kalon" does not make any sense.
*Again*, Katakalôn is a surname, and probably a toponymic one, meaning "from
Kolonea" : I have given the source (Photios, quoted by Kazhdan) in a
previous post.
Pierre Aronax
Niketas Choniatis, edition of J.-L. Van Dieten, Berlin, 1975, p. 474
Diadibra is blockaded by the Turks during four month without help from the
Emperor. The population deal with famine.
I translate the sentence : "A short time later, the Emperor send the defence
forces of the Mount Baba, commanded by three young men ("meirakes treis"),
Theodoros Branas, Andronikos Katakalôn et Theodoros Kazanès."
The Turks make an ambuscade and many soldiers are captured, among which two
of the three young generals.
Pierre Aronax
> Perhaps the misunderstanding is the use on my behalf of the word YOU.
> As I already explained before, in one other message, YOU is not directed
to
> you personally but to all those that are involved.
In that case, I suggest you to always precise WHO exactly is "you" because
the English tongue has some incongruities, and one is to not make the
distinction between singular and plural of the second person.
>
> > I mentioned six examples quoted by Kazhdan from seals. Do you think that
> > Alexander Kazhdan was not able to read a seal ?
>
> Unfortunately for me, I have not access to any of Kazhdan
> books/scripts/seals etc.
That's precisely why I quoted this examples for you. If you refuse to pay
attention to other facts than those which you have in your own library, even
when they are given to you, I don't see the use for you to ask questions on
a group.
>
> Your comment does not apply to the names mentioned (by me) because
> neither their mother nor their grandmother was surnamed Katakalon.
Hm... For my part I don't know, for example, who is the mother of
Konstantinos Euphorbenos Katakalon, not speaking of his grand-mothers. Do
you know that and if you know what is your source ?
Serban Marin
I also found it in Magoulias edition (1984), p. 260, under the rule of
Alexius III: "Not long afterwards, an imperial auxiliary force commanded by
three youths (Theodore Branas, Andronikos Katakalos, and Theodore Kazanes)
arrived and encamped on Mount Babas. As soon as the Turks learned of this,
they lay in ambush. Just before dawn, they attacked and pressed upon the
fleeing Romans. They slew some and captured others alive, among whom were
two of the commanders. [...]"
You are right and also, congratulations for your Greek! I wouldn't be able
to make such a good translation, that is why I always have to compare van
Dieten with this Magoulias edition!
Just one question: Nicetas does not mention which two generals were
captured. And this would remain a mystery for ever, before finding out new
testimonies about one of them three.
Serban Marin
>
> Serban Marin <sma...@dnt.ro> a écrit dans le message :
> 01f001c099ef$9a2c4580$087de7c1@v0t8w0...
> > Pierre Aronax wrote:
> >
> >
> > It does not necessarily mean that the Venetian historians knew what did
> this
> > title consist in.
>
> Of course. The important thing was that it was an imperial Byzantine
title,
> that's all.
>
> > From their point of view, it simply sounded good, so good
> > that it could "work" for a proper propaganda. Actually, I don't think
that
> > an ordinary chronicler or historian made any difference between the
> > Byzantine titles, although they currently read Choniates or Akropolites.
>
> Do you think so ? I don't think they even read Greek for the most part of
> them. There were some exceptions of course, like probably Marino Sanudo
(the
> older, of the 14th century, not Marino junior), and certainly Lorenzo de
> Monacis which was necessarily in contact with Greek documents in his
> professional practice; but he was not particularly pride of his knowledge
of
> the idiom of Homer, which is rather surprising for a pre-humanist, what
the
> majority of the Venetian chroniclers were not at all...
What about Marcantonio Coccio Sabellico?
As far as Fr. Thiriet asserted, it was also Gasparo Zancaruolo that lived in
Crete and, thus, was in the situation to have an idea about the Greek
language. Anyhow, Zancaruolo's paternity on the chronicle having the number
It. VII. 1274 and It. VI. 1275 at Marciana Library in Venice is seriously
put under a question mark by the Italian modern scholars. For the debate,
see: Lia Sbriziolo, "La Cronaca Zancaruola: dall'esilio dalla Biblioteca
Marciana al suo ritorno", Atti dell'Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed
Arti 128 (1969-1970); Fr. Thiriet, "Encore sur le pseudo (?) Zancaruolo", In
Memoria di Sofia Antoniadis, Venezia: Biblioteca dell'Istituto Ellenico di
Studi Bizantini e Postbizantini di Venezia, 1974; Giulio Zorzanello, "La
Cronaca Veneziana trascritta da Gasparo Zancaruolo (codice Marciana It. VII.
2570, già Phillipps 5215)", Archivio Veneto, ser. V, 114 (1980), and also A.
Carile, La cronachistica veneziana (secoli XIII-XVI) di fronte alla
spartizione della Romania nel 1204, Firenze: Leo S. Olschki, 1969
(eventually, I'm going to check for the pages).
But: the point is another one: Chonaites was translated in Latin and
Italian. I regret I didn't notice all the editions of Choniates in these
languages. When I was in Venice, I only used the one appeared in 1569, in
Italian, edited by Lodovico dolce and Agostino Ferentilli.
So, when I said, that they [=the Venetian chroniclers and historians]
currently read Choniates, I did not mean that they had read it in Greek
directly.
Exactly. And, in the condition that, being in contest with such a powerless
states, the Latin empire did not impose its supremacy, means something,
isn't it?
> Henri was a very prestigious prince, with
> an ambitious and original political project.
Which project? Except to assure the survivance... On the other side, indeed,
he was prestigious, and also for the Greek population in Constantinople. But
still...
> That's only with the great
> victories of John Batatzès of Nicaea in the mid 20' that the Latin Empire
> began its decline. But nothing was absolutely determinate for the destiny
of
> the Upper Romania before at least the death of the Bulgarian King Asen in
> 1241.
What is the connection between the two events?
>
> > Actually, after his rule, the Empire of Nicaea (as his traditional
enemy)
> > was much stronger than in 1204-1205.
>
> Yes, but that was not difficult because in 1204-1205 the "Empire" of
Nicaea,
> which in fact was not even an Empire so have not the legitimacy of the
> emperial title enjoyed by the Latin Empire, was certainly in an extrem
state
> of fragility.
Right. It was only in 1208 Theodore I was crowned as emperor. Before this,
in a first instance, the population in Nicaea refused the access of Theodore
in the city after 1204.
But the comparison could be put in a different way: why did the "Empire" of
Nicaea, in an extreme state of fragility, still resisted and became more on
more powerful? Why did not the Latins took advantage of their competitors'
frailty?
>
> > > > In comparison with the very first intentions of the crusaders,
> > > > immediately after the Fourth Crusade. Let's make a comparison: was
it
> > > > something different between the 1204-1205 (before the battle of
> > > Adrianople)
> > > > period and 1216 one? Just a question!
> > >
> > > I don't undestand well the question.
> >
> > In this case, I give my answer: Henry I simply regain the crusaders'
> > position from 1204-1205. He just cancelled - after many battles - the
> > catastrophic results of the Adrianople moment.
>
> Absolutely untrue. At the time of the battle of Adrianopolis, the Latins
> were only masters of a very little part of the Romania. Henry managed not
> only to regain this territories, but also to join under is authority all
the
> feudal states that the Crusaders had created in Greece during the
following
> period, of which some had been tempted by a political secession. That was
> perhaps the most important part of his political and diplomatical
activity.
The secession policy came to an end because of the momentary circumstances.
I have never denied Henri's political and diplomatical activity. But let's
do not overemphasize it!
> A medieval State can not be cartographied like a modern State : Henry must
> not only be seen as the master of territories in the north of the Aegean
Sea
> and Asia Minor, but as the leader of an impressive feudal State covering
> almost all the classical Greece, as the suzerain of a King, a Prince and
> some Dukes and Counts, which was far from being insignificant for his
power
> and prestige.
Which territories in Asia Minor? By the treaty of Nymphaion (1214), the
Latins only possessed the NorthWestern corner of Asia Minor, having as the
Southern limit the city of Adramyttium (nowadays, Edremit). After Henri's
death, in 1224 John Batatzes would expel the Latins, who remained in the
possession of only the city of Nicomedia (today, Izmit) and a small band in
front of Cosntantinople.
When you say "all the classical Greece", you mean of course the continental
part, don't you? Because the greatest part of the arcipelago were under
Veentian domination (not necessarily of Venice itself, as Signoria, but of
different Venetian families, like Sanudo, Gisi, Navagero, etc.).
Actually, as a partial conclusion, I consider that the Latin Empire came to
such rapidly to an end was because of demographic reasons, to a large
extent. Comments?
Of course yes. Robert de Courtenay (1221-1228), who took the crown after his
elder brother, Philippe (Count of Namur) had refused it. This is another
argument that the Constantinople throne was not very attractive!
>
> > (defeated by the Epirotes who took
> Serres and Thessalonic; attacked in the suburbs of Constantinople itself
by
> > the same Theodore Angelos; defeated by the Nicaeans at Poimanenon;
> expelled
> > from the Asia Minor etc.) Does this picture look like a triumphal one
for
> > the Empire? These are the facts (and not the legends, this time) for the
> > period between 1217-1228.
>
> I agree on the facts, not on your twisted chronology.
OK:
1221 - R. succeeded on the throne.
1222, March - He lost Serres (today, Serrai) in the favour of Theodore
Angelos
1224 - Anti-nicaean campaign (instigated by Alexius and Isaac, the two
brothers of Theodore I Laskaris) and the defeat at Poimanenon (today,
Goenen), by Batatzes. The lost of Asia Minor (except Nicomedia).
1224, Autumn - Theodore Angelos takes Thessalonic
1225 - The treaty of Pegai (nowadays, Bigha). The confirmation of the
territorial loses in Asia Minor and of some islands (Lesbos, Chios, Samos,
Ikaria) in the favour of Batatzes.
1226 - Batatzes fails in capturing Adrianople, but because of the opposition
of Theodore Angelos. The Latin Empire was not an important factor in the
region at all. What about the prestige? Only ten years after Henri's death!
1228 - R.'s visit to Rome (to solve a dispute with the barons. Actually, he
was involved in a love affair). He dies in Morea, on the coming back way.
> The capture of the
> Emperor Peter by Theodoros Angelos in 1217 was no more than an audacious
> kidnapping, certainly not a military triumph or a sign of the weakness of
> the Latin Empire.
One of the reasons that Pierre took the maritime way was not only to reach
Constantinople. He had troops with him and sieged (unfruitfully) Dyrrachion.
So, Theodore's action was a little bit more than an "audacious kidnapping".
Of course, the Epirote despote used his "perfidia", but it was not so easy
to take Pierre as prisoner from the middle of his army (because it had an
army with him!).
> The prestige of the Empire was intact at that time.
> For the reign of Yolanda, it was very brief (1217-1219), but certainly not
> unsuccessful : by marrying his daughter to the Emperor of Nicaea (still a
> little State fighting to survive), she paralysed the danger that he may
have
> represented.
Doesn't it sound as a truce? And isn't the truce a kind of symbol of
political deffensive?
> The political project symbolized by this union was a modus
> vivendi between the two Empires, and in fact at the beginning of his reign
> Robert of Courtenay had good relations with Nicaea, until 1222 and the
death
> of Theodoros, his brother-in-law who wanted to reinforce their political
> friendship by giving him his own daughter (by the way, it will have made
> Robert an acceptable competitor for Theodoros succession...).
That's new for me. Details?
> In fact, the
> death of Theodoros created more immediate difficulties for the Greek
Empire
> than for the Latin one, the brother of the late Emperor refusing to
> recognize his son-in-law John Batatzès as his successor. Because Robert
was
> still a powerful monarch, he tried to interfere in the internal politic of
> Nicaea, and it was the direct cause of his first military defeat, but only
> in 1224, after five years or reign. The same year, the Kingdom of
> Thessalonica was conquered by Theodoros Angelos (but that was not exactly
a
> defeat of the Emperor, rather of his vassal the King of Thessalonica).
That
> is why I think that it is only in the middle of the 20' that began the
> decline of the Latin Empire, not before. So, your apocalyptic description
is
> exact, but not for the period 1217-1228 as you pretend, only for the four
> years 1225-1228.
Sorry for the apocalyptic impression that I gave! Just substitute the
"apocalyptic" title with a deffensive policy.
>
> > John of Brienne came as regent of the Empire in
> > 1231 only as a result of the desperation.
>
> For John of Brienne, I only spoke of some twilights, and I maintain : he
try
> to save whan can be saved.
So, "saving" does not involve "fight to survive"?
>
> > > > In connection with the Fourth Crusade, I have a question: when do
you
> > > > suppose that this crusade came to an end?
> > >
> > > But... 6 July 1439 of course :)
> >
> > And when you think about the Council of Florence being also a "perfidia
> > Graecorum"!
>
> I was only joking of course... And for the Council, one can say that it
was
> more likely a perfidia Latinorum.
Judging upon the results (that the Greeks recognized only theoretically the
union, and their spiritual state was even more anti-Latin), it was still a
"perfidia Grecorum".
PS. I understood it was a joke. A good one, by the way.
> If I can play again : around 1235, when the last crusaders of the 4th
> Crusades captured by the Muslims in Syria were liberated and came back in
> the West.
>
OK, let's have an agreement: 1224, when the Latin Empire's policy is
definitely deffensive. But don't take it for granted.
Pierre Aronax
>
> I also found it in Magoulias edition (1984), p. 260, under the rule of
> Alexius III: "Not long afterwards, an imperial auxiliary force commanded
by
> three youths (Theodore Branas, Andronikos Katakalos, and Theodore Kazanes)
> arrived and encamped on Mount Babas. As soon as the Turks learned of this,
> they lay in ambush. Just before dawn, they attacked and pressed upon the
> fleeing Romans. They slew some and captured others alive, among whom were
> two of the commanders. [...]"
>
> You are right and also, congratulations for your Greek! I wouldn't be able
> to make such a good translation, that is why I always have to compare van
> Dieten with this Magoulias edition!
Unfortunately, we have not a translation of Choniates in French, which is a
pity because I don't read well Greek, despite what you kindly said. Is this
edition of Magoulias withe an English translation ?
>
> Just one question: Nicetas does not mention which two generals were
> captured. And this would remain a mystery for ever, before finding out new
> testimonies about one of them three.
Yes, we can only say that Andronikos katakalôn has 66 % of chance to have
been captured...
Pierre Aronax
From: Serban Marin <sma...@dnt.ro>
To: Pierre Aronax <pierre...@hotmail.com>
Cc: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2001 12:18 PM
Subject: Re: Dux & Doukas (was: Monomachos)
> What about Marcantonio Coccio Sabellico?
Hmm... I must confess I have not read Sabellico, not eaven in extracts.
> As far as Fr. Thiriet asserted, it was also Gasparo Zancaruolo that lived
in
> Crete and, thus, was in the situation to have an idea about the Greek
> language. Anyhow, Zancaruolo's paternity on the chronicle having the
number
> It. VII. 1274 and It. VI. 1275 at Marciana Library in Venice is seriously
> put under a question mark by the Italian modern scholars. For the debate,
> see: Lia Sbriziolo, "La Cronaca Zancaruola: dall'esilio dalla Biblioteca
> Marciana al suo ritorno", Atti dell'Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed
> Arti 128 (1969-1970); Fr. Thiriet, "Encore sur le pseudo (?) Zancaruolo",
In
> Memoria di Sofia Antoniadis, Venezia: Biblioteca dell'Istituto Ellenico di
> Studi Bizantini e Postbizantini di Venezia, 1974; Giulio Zorzanello, "La
> Cronaca Veneziana trascritta da Gasparo Zancaruolo (codice Marciana It.
VII.
> 2570, già Phillipps 5215)", Archivio Veneto, ser. V, 114 (1980), and also
A.
> Carile, La cronachistica veneziana (secoli XIII-XVI) di fronte alla
> spartizione della Romania nel 1204, Firenze: Leo S. Olschki, 1969
> (eventually, I'm going to check for the pages).
Paternity of Venetian Chronicles of the 14th-15th will always be a problem
because the name that they bear is not the name of an "author" in the sens
taht we give to this word. That is rather the name of the patrician for whom
they were composed, that verb meaning the rearrangement and reformulation of
an old canvas which is always the same, and with sometimes some new and more
personal elements. They were not literary works, but professional
instruments for the formation and the political duties of the patrician. Of
course, it changes with the end of the XVe century (Marino Sanudo), and the
works of humanists must be considered differently. Bur even the chronicle of
Lorenzo de Monachis, who was indeed a pre humanist, fit with this scheme.
> But: the point is another one: Chonaites was translated in Latin and
> Italian. I regret I didn't notice all the editions of Choniates in these
> languages. When I was in Venice, I only used the one appeared in 1569, in
> Italian, edited by Lodovico dolce and Agostino Ferentilli.
> So, when I said, that they [=the Venetian chroniclers and historians]
> currently read Choniates, I did not mean that they had read it in Greek
> directly.
You see longer than me. Because I am mostly interrested by Middle Ages, I
spoke essentialy of chronicles before 1500, and I don't think that Choniates
was part of the Greek traduction of the end of the 15th century. As far as I
know the first traduction is of 1562.
> Exactly. And, in the condition that, being in contest with such a
powerless
> states, the Latin empire did not impose its supremacy, means something,
> isn't it?
History is not so simple : that is not always the victory of the most
powerful on the weak. Otherwise, probably Christianism would never triumphed
:)
> > Henri was a very prestigious prince, with
> > an ambitious and original political project.
>
> Which project? Except to assure the survivance... On the other side,
indeed,
> he was prestigious, and also for the Greek population in Constantinople.
But
> still...
You miss my point. As I said, Henri had a complex political project, which
can be resumed like that : 1) Reinforce his authority on the Latins of
Greece in a structured feudal State. 2) Create a political synthesis between
the Byzantine imperial heritage and the Occidental tradition; and, indeed,
Henri was for his Greek subjects (which were far to be all inhabitants of
Constantinople) a basileus.
> > That's only with the great
> > victories of John Batatzès of Nicaea in the mid 20' that the Latin
Empire
> > began its decline. But nothing was absolutely determinate for the
destiny
> of
> > the Upper Romania before at least the death of the Bulgarian King Asen
in
> > 1241.
>
> What is the connection between the two events?
No direct connection. I mean only that between 1225 and 1241, no political
power was able to stabilize is position in the north of Greece. At that
time, the power was to take in that area, and finaly it was taken by Nicaea.
But it could have been other, for example, if the Latin empire had received
some help from the West at this particular moment. But latter, it was
clearly to late.
> > > Actually, after his rule, the Empire of Nicaea (as his traditional
> enemy)
> > > was much stronger than in 1204-1205.
> >
> > Yes, but that was not difficult because in 1204-1205 the "Empire" of
> Nicaea,
> > which in fact was not even an Empire so have not the legitimacy of the
> > emperial title enjoyed by the Latin Empire, was certainly in an extrem
> state
> > of fragility.
>
> Right. It was only in 1208 Theodore I was crowned as emperor. Before this,
> in a first instance, the population in Nicaea refused the access of
Theodore
> in the city after 1204.
> But the comparison could be put in a different way: why did the "Empire"
of
> Nicaea, in an extreme state of fragility, still resisted and became more
on
> more powerful? Why did not the Latins took advantage of their competitors'
> frailty?
See what I said before. You can considere that it was because it was the
sens of History. Or you can consider that it was because a complex machinery
of facts finally conduced to this result, but that, as the events have been
a little different, it can perfectly conduced to an other. It depends of you
philosophy of History.
> > > > > In comparison with the very first intentions of the crusaders,
> > > > > immediately after the Fourth Crusade. Let's make a comparison: was
> it
> > > > > something different between the 1204-1205 (before the battle of
> > > > Adrianople)
> > > > > period and 1216 one? Just a question!
> > > >
> > > > I don't undestand well the question.
> > >
> > > In this case, I give my answer: Henry I simply regain the crusaders'
> > > position from 1204-1205. He just cancelled - after many battles - the
> > > catastrophic results of the Adrianople moment.
> >
> > Absolutely untrue. At the time of the battle of Adrianopolis, the Latins
> > were only masters of a very little part of the Romania. Henry managed
not
> > only to regain this territories, but also to join under is authority all
> the
> > feudal states that the Crusaders had created in Greece during the
> following
> > period, of which some had been tempted by a political secession. That
was
> > perhaps the most important part of his political and diplomatical
> activity.
>
> The secession policy came to an end because of the momentary
circumstances.
Certainly not. It came to an end because Henry take military the control of
the Kingdom of Thessalonica in 1209 and defaited the Lombardian party, and
because diplomaticaly he assured his direct authority on the princes of
Greece, particularly the prince of Morea and the Duke of Athens who were
previously vassals of the King of Thessalonica, the crucial point being the
"parliament" of Ravenika in May 1209. It was a complete reorganisation of
the feudal pyramid in the Kingdom, reinforce by the concession of imperial
offices to the vassals (Geoffroy of Villehardouin was for example created
seneschal of Romania).
> I have never denied Henri's political and diplomatical activity. But let's
> do not overemphasize it!
I think you do the contrary, you minimize.
>
> > A medieval State can not be cartographied like a modern State : Henry
must
> > not only be seen as the master of territories in the north of the Aegean
> Sea
> > and Asia Minor, but as the leader of an impressive feudal State covering
> > almost all the classical Greece, as the suzerain of a King, a Prince and
> > some Dukes and Counts, which was far from being insignificant for his
> power
> > and prestige.
>
> Which territories in Asia Minor? By the treaty of Nymphaion (1214), the
> Latins only possessed the NorthWestern corner of Asia Minor, having as the
> Southern limit the city of Adramyttium (nowadays, Edremit).
That is of course this part of the Asia Minor what I had in mean. But you
seems to imply that the treaty of 1214 was a renounciation to some
territories in Asia Minor. That is not the case : during all his reign,
Henri maintained an offensive position in that area, and Theodoros always
manage to obtain a peace, one time with the help of the Pope ! In 1207,
Nicaea was saved only because Henri had to go back in Europe to fight
against the Bulgarians.
> After Henri's
> death, in 1224
Again, a statement like this one does not make any sense : Henry died in
1216, the militar victory of Batatzès take place in 1224 and the expulsion
of the Latins from the major part of their positions in Asia in 1225. That
is not "after Henri's death", that is nine years after !
> John Batatzes would expel the Latins, who remained in the
> possession of only the city of Nicomedia (today, Izmit) and a small band
in
> front of Cosntantinople.
> When you say "all the classical Greece", you mean of course the
continental
> part, don't you? Because the greatest part of the arcipelago were under
> Veentian domination (not necessarily of Venice itself, as Signoria, but of
> different Venetian families, like Sanudo, Gisi, Navagero, etc.).
No, I mean also the islands : they were conquered by Venetian citizens, that
is right, but they absolutely not became part of the possession of the
Venetian republic, no more than territories conquered by French became part
of the Kingdom of France : Marco Sanudo, the first Duke of the Archipelago,
became a vassal of Henri, exactly as the Prince of Morea do. The first
tentative of Venice to interfere in this seigneuries was only in the 1240'
and it was not a success. The feudal position of the islands existed as late
as the end of the 14th century. Only Crete was part of the Venetian
possessions.
> Actually, as a partial conclusion, I consider that the Latin Empire came
to
> such rapidly to an end was because of demographic reasons, to a large
> extent. Comments?
That is your point of view. For my part, I think that it is a too simple
explanation. In my opinion, the Latins in Greece were no more
demographically minority than were for example Normans in England after
1066. Indeed, the story may perfectly have been different, an Anglo-Saxon
Kingdom my have appeared in some provincial part of England and at the end,
after difficult beginnings, triumphed of the Norman kingdom.
Retrospectively, Historians of the 20th century will have explain that it
was an non viable political construction.
> >
> > You mean probably Robert of Courtenay.
>
> Of course yes. Robert de Courtenay (1221-1228), who took the crown after
his
> elder brother, Philippe (Count of Namur) had refused it. This is another
> argument that the Constantinople throne was not very attractive!
Disagree, it was : who would not have like to become an Emperor in the 12th
century. But Philip was involved in other matters, and had to manage to
assure his possession of the county of Namur. I think that was rather a
matter of personnal preference.
>
> OK:
> 1221 - R. succeeded on the throne.
In fact, it is the year of his arrival in Constantinople, but he must have
accept the succession at the end of 1219 or in 1220, and that must be
considered as the real beginning of his reign (otherwise, Pierre of
Courtenay was never empereur because he never arrived at COnstantinople).
> 1222, March - He lost Serres (today, Serrai) in the favour of Theodore
> Angelos
> 1224 - Anti-nicaean campaign (instigated by Alexius and Isaac, the two
> brothers of Theodore I Laskaris) and the defeat at Poimanenon (today,
> Goenen), by Batatzes. The lost of Asia Minor (except Nicomedia).
> 1224, Autumn - Theodore Angelos takes Thessalonic
> 1225 - The treaty of Pegai (nowadays, Bigha). The confirmation of the
> territorial loses in Asia Minor and of some islands (Lesbos, Chios, Samos,
> Ikaria) in the favour of Batatzes.
> 1226 - Batatzes fails in capturing Adrianople, but because of the
opposition
> of Theodore Angelos. The Latin Empire was not an important factor in the
> region at all. What about the prestige? Only ten years after Henri's
death!
Ten years ago, in 1991, Europe was very different of what it is today. It is
not an argument, except for poetic lamentations on the fugacity of the
empires.
> 1228 - R.'s visit to Rome (to solve a dispute with the barons. Actually,
he
> was involved in a love affair). He dies in Morea, on the coming back way.
>
> > The capture of the
> > Emperor Peter by Theodoros Angelos in 1217 was no more than an audacious
> > kidnapping, certainly not a military triumph or a sign of the weakness
of
> > the Latin Empire.
>
> One of the reasons that Pierre took the maritime way was not only to reach
> Constantinople. He had troops with him and sieged (unfruitfully)
Dyrrachion.
Theodore had no part in that.
> So, Theodore's action was a little bit more than an "audacious
kidnapping".
> Of course, the Epirote despote used his "perfidia", but it was not so easy
> to take Pierre as prisoner from the middle of his army (because it had an
> army with him!).
Indeed he has, but it has little to do with the military forces of the Latin
empire : it was an occidental one.
> > The prestige of the Empire was intact at that time.
> > For the reign of Yolanda, it was very brief (1217-1219), but certainly
not
> > unsuccessful : by marrying his daughter to the Emperor of Nicaea (still
a
> > little State fighting to survive), she paralysed the danger that he may
> have
> > represented.
>
> Doesn't it sound as a truce? And isn't the truce a kind of symbol of
> political deffensive?
Yes, but for the Latin empire or for the Nicaean one ? Yolanda wanted the
peace because of political reasons (her husband was in jail en perhaps
dead), Theodoros wanted it because he know that he was to weak to triumph.
In fact, after 1205, Theodoros always looked for peace (see above).
> > The political project symbolized by this union was a modus
> > vivendi between the two Empires, and in fact at the beginning of his
reign
> > Robert of Courtenay had good relations with Nicaea, until 1222 and the
> death
> > of Theodoros, his brother-in-law who wanted to reinforce their political
> > friendship by giving him his own daughter (by the way, it will have made
> > Robert an acceptable competitor for Theodoros succession...).
>
> That's new for me. Details?
Since the Komnenoi, the heredity had become an important (but not absolutely
determinant) factor in the imperial succession. At the end of the period of
the Angeloi, the marriage with a daughter of an emperor became clearly a way
to access to the throne : Alexis III designed like that is successor
(Andronikos Komnenos first, Theodoros Laskaris latter), Alexis V legitimise
his position by a marriage with an other daughter of Alexis III, Philip of
Hohenstaufen considered that he had a right to the imperial succession
because his wife was a daugther of Isaac II... It was the same at Nicaea :
Theodoros gave his daughter to John Batatzès. Being also the son-in-law of
Theodoros would have goven similary rights to Robert, except that John had
been designated has the successor (but this was not definitive and Robert
would have been a suitable competitor). That is certainly why this marriage
was impeached after the death of Theodoros.
I still disagree, and I think I gave good reasons for that.
> > > John of Brienne came as regent of the Empire in
> > > 1231 only as a result of the desperation.
> >
> > For John of Brienne, I only spoke of some twilights, and I maintain : he
> try
> > to save whan can be saved.
>
> So, "saving" does not involve "fight to survive"?
>
Yes, indeed.
> > > > > In connection with the Fourth Crusade, I have a question: when do
> you
> > > > > suppose that this crusade came to an end?
> > > >
> > > > But... 6 July 1439 of course :)
> > >
> > > And when you think about the Council of Florence being also a
"perfidia
> > > Graecorum"!
> >
> > I was only joking of course... And for the Council, one can say that it
> was
> > more likely a perfidia Latinorum.
>
> Judging upon the results (that the Greeks recognized only theoretically
the
> union, and their spiritual state was even more anti-Latin), it was still a
> "perfidia Grecorum".
> PS. I understood it was a joke. A good one, by the way.
>
> > If I can play again : around 1235, when the last crusaders of the 4th
> > Crusades captured by the Muslims in Syria were liberated and came back
in
> > the West.
> >
>
> OK, let's have an agreement: 1224, when the Latin Empire's policy is
> definitely deffensive. But don't take it for granted.
Don't know because if we go in that way, all the projects to help the empire
until 1261 (and eaven after) must be considered as part of this crusade.
The dread the conquest of COnstantinople was as long as the Middle Ages,
even perhaps longer. It still exist perhaps. But since the 19th, it is
become a Greek crusade :)
>