PART II - F The TURCO-ANATOLIAN SYMBIOSIS
Chapter 18
Turks and Byzantines
(Eleventh - Twelfth Centuries)
NEVRA NECPOLU
When the Byzantine emperor Ioannes II Komnenos led
an army to Lake Pousgouse (Beyflehir Gl) in 1142 with the
intention of liberating the lakes islands from Turkish rule, the
Greek islanders refused to open their gates to him. According
to the twelfth-century Byzantine historian Ioannes Kinnamos,
the local inhabitants, who engaged in trade relations with their
Turkish neighbors in Konya, did not wish to yield the islands to
the emperor, for by long time and usage they were united in
their views with the Turks.1 Relating the same event, another
Byzantine historian of the period, Niketas Choniates, made the
following observation:2
Church in Cheboksarskoye
These islands were inhabited by colonies of Christians
in capital of Chuvashistan
who crossed Ikonion [Konya] in their barks and light
republic during the Easter
boats and, by mingling with the Turks, not only strength-
celebrations .
ened their mutual bonds of friendship but also main-
tained strong commercial ties. Allied with their neigh-
There are about two mil-
bors, they looked upon the Romans [i.e., Byzantines] as
lion Chuvash Turks living
their enemies. Thus custom, reinforced by time, is
in Chuvashistan who are
stronger than race and religion.
believed to be
pagans once and were
A striking example of the new modus vivendi established
forced to convert into
in parts of Anatolia after the Turkish conquest and settlement,
orthodoxy by the Russians
the incident recorded above reveals some fundamental
in cc XVI century.
aspects of this phenomenon. Above all, it highlights the bonds
of solidarity that were formed between native Greeks and the
Turkish newcomers through neighborly relations, in particular
through trade, which transcended their distinct ethnic and reli-
gious affiliations.
The arrival and settlement of the Turks in Anatolia dur-
ing the eleventh century precipitated the political fragmenta-
tion of this region, which had long maintained unity under the
rule of the Byzantine Empire. As large numbers of Turkish
tribes infiltrated the peninsula in successive waves and started
organizing themselves around separate principalities (begliks
or emirates), Anatolia was divided up and transformed into a
battleground between Byzantine and Turkish forces. The politi-
cal and military situation was complicated further by the inter-
nal problems of the Byzantine Empire, particularly the struggle
for independence from central authority led by the local mag-
nates of Anatolia, who sometimes entered into alliances with
various Turkish powers. At the end of the eleventh century, the
First Crusade introduced to this already complex environment
yet another elementnamely, the Frankish knights, some of
whom founded their own states on eastern Anatolian soil.
Within such an unstable setting, Byzantines and Turks not only
engaged in military conflicts against each other, but certain
groups from each side often joined forces in common action
against rival parties.3 However short-lived and ephemeral such
alliances may have been, recurring instances of joint military
ventures were instrumental in the formation of bonds of soli-
darity between the native Greek and Turkish communities.
Thus, in combination with other factorssuch as trade rela-
tions, intermarriages, and religious and cultural interactions
medieval Anatolia witnessed a high degree of coexistence and
symbiosis, despite the ongoing Byzantine-Turkish wars. The
late eleventh and twelfth centuries, which saw the initial
stages of this process, proved to be the formative period when
the roots were planted for better-known developments of the
later Seljuk and Ottoman eras.4
At one extreme in this volatile setting stood certain indi-
viduals or groups, among both Turkish and Byzantine subjects,
who chose, or were compelled, to change sides rather than
simply maintain a state of coexistence with the other. The
identities of several Turks who established themselves at the
Byzantine court and held important positions there have come
down to us. 5 Some of these were people introduced into
Byzantine imperial service as war captives, while others were
voluntary refugees. A notable figure from the former group is
aka Beg (called Tzachas in Byzantine sources), who briefly
served among the Byzantines before establishing his own emi-
3
TURKS AND BYZANTINES

rate centered on zmir (Smyrna) on the Aegean. aka had been
brought to Constantinople as a prisoner of war and presented
to Emperor Nikephoros III Botaneiates (1078-1081), who grant-
ed him, along with many other gifts, the title of protonobelissi-
mos. However, upon the accession of Alexios I Komnenos
(1081-1118), aka fell from favor. 6 It might be tempting, but
nevertheless wrong, to seek the cause of his fall in his Turkish
descent, for several other Turkssome of whom rose to promi-
nent positionsare attested at the court of Alexios I.
One of these was a man whom Byzantine sources call
Tatikios (Western sources render his name as Tatic, Tetigus,
Titidus, Tatinus, etc.), a second-generation Turk among the
Byzantines. Like aka, Tatikioss father had been a war captive
seized by Alexios Is father. While nothing further is known
about the father, sources inform us that Tatikios himself grew
up in the Byzantine palace together with Alexios, who was
about the same age. Following Alexioss accession, Tatikios
became megas primikerios, and his name later appears with
the joint title protoproedros in a document of 1094. So close
was he to the emperor that the two were polo partners. As a
personal guard and familiar of Alexios I, Tatikios was instru-
mental in suppressing Nikephoros Diogeness conspiracy
against the emperor in 1094. He was one of the most trusted
generals of his time, and besides leading many campaigns
(against Normans, the Turkish emir Ebul-Kasm, Pechenegs,
Cumans, etc.), he also played an active role during the First
Crusade. He was present at the siege of Nicaea (1097), after
which he accompanied the crusaders on their march across
Anatolia and acted as the emperors agent in charge of taking
over Byzantine towns recaptured from the Turks. Finally, in
1099, Tatikios was given command over an imperial fleet to
fight against the Pisans. On that occasion, he received the title
of most illustrious admiral (kephale periphanestate).
Although Tatikios owed his recognition and fame above all to
his military feats, Anna Komnene praised him also as a clever
orator and powerful man of action. Either Tatikios himself or
one of his descendants appears at some point to have married
into the Byzantine imperial family, which confirms the promi-
nence and distinction that this Turkish family of servile origin
attained at the Komnenian court. During the twelfth century, a
Michael Tatikios boasted about being the offspring of the
Komnenoi and the Tatikioi, while a Konstantinos Tatikios, who
may have been his brother, prepared a plot against Emperor
Isaakios II Angelos (1185-1195).8
During the reign of Alexios I, we encounter several other
Turks who went over to the Byzantines and held military posts
among them. These included a man called Siaous,9 the off-
spring of a Turkish father and Iberian (i.e., Georgian) mother.
Siaous was sent on an embassy to Constantinople in the mid-
1080s by the Great Seljuk Sultan Melikflah. He switched sides
during the negotiations and, as a sign of his allegiance to the
emperor, used a letter he carried from the sultan to trick some
Turkish military commanders into surrendering their fortresses
to the Byzantines. Siaous then converted to Christianity, was
made duke (doux) of Anchialos, and was offered some
unspecified gifts. In the following decade, a Turk named
Elchanes, 10 who had occupied the cities of Apollonias and
Kyzikos to the south of the Sea of Marmara was unable to
4 5
CHAPTER 18
Tribute prayers in Shah-i
Zindah (the Living King).
resist for long the military pressure of the Byzantines and sur-
The necropolis built by
rendered to them. Taking his closest relatives with him,
Timur around the Prophet
Elchanes went over to Alexios I, converted to Christianity, and
Mohammeds cousin
was rewarded with many gifts. Shortly afterward, others from
Qutham ibn-Abbass tomb
his retinue followed his example and entered Byzantine serv-
is very frequently visited by
ice. Among them was an unidentified man who received the
the public. Semerkand,
title of hyperperilampros and a certain Skaliarios, who also
Uzbekistan
became a Christian, later fought against the Cumans together
with Elchanes under the command of Tatikios, and died in
1108 while still serving in the Byzantine army.11
With the exception of Tatikios, whose family survived in
Byzantine service for at least four or five generations, it
remains unknown whether or not any of the other above-men-
tioned Turks maintained a continued family existence in
Byzantium, even though in the case of Elchanes it has been
seen that he brought with him some relatives. Yet we do pos-
sess further evidence that allows us to reconstruct accurately
the career of another Turkish family in Byzantine service
through three generations.
The first member of this family, called Ioannes Axouchos
(or Axouch) in Byzantine sources, was taken captive in his
childhood at Nicaea during the First Crusade and presented as
a gift to Alexios I by the crusading army. In a fashion reminis-
cent of the relationship between Tatikios and Alexios I,
Axouchos grew up in the Byzantine palace as the playmate
and companion of the emperors son Ioannes. Upon the latters
accession to the throne as Ioannes II Komnenos (1118-1143),
Ioannes Axouchos was appointed megas domestikos (com-
mander-in-chief) of the East and West; he also held the title of
sebastos. He was so revered that members of the imperial fam-
ily paid him obeisance, dismounting before him from their
horses. His reputation and influence extended far beyond mili-
tary matters, though, as suggested by his successful interven-
tion with the emperor on behalf of Michael Italikos, an intellec-
tual against whom slanderous charges had been brought dur-
ing the late 1130s. Indeed, along with his military endeavors,
Axouchos appears to have taken a genuine interest in philo-
sophical and theological issues. No doubt a convert to
Christianity during his early days in the Byzantine palace,
Axouchos is seen in his adult years making inquiries about
complex dogmatic questions, in response to which his con- spiring against him, he fell from favor and spent the rest of his have made a reentry into the Byzantine court, presumably
temporary Nikolaos of Methone (Modon) composed for him a years after 1167 in confinement as a monk. In addition to alle- under the Angelos dynasty, which succeeded the house of the
theological treatise. Axouchos survived Ioannes II, and was gations that Alexios engaged in sorcery and magical practices Komnenoi. Apart from his attribute, the Fat (Pachys), we do
instrumental in securing the peaceful accession to the throne against the emperor, one of the main charges brought against not know whether he held any prominent court title or post
of the latters son and designated heir, Manuel I Komnenos him was that on a visit to the Seljuk court at Konya (ca. 1165), similar to those of his forebears. But he was influential enough
(1143-1180). He remained active in the service of Manuel I, he had cooperated with Kl Arslan II (1155-1192) in a plot to to be acclaimed as emperor during an uprising in 1200 staged
during the early part of whose reign he died.12 defeat and overthrow Manuel I. It was also reported that in his by a court faction hostile to the ruling emperor Alexios III
Of Ioannes Axouchoss several children, at least one, his house Alexios had wall paintings celebrating the victories of Angelos (1195-1203). The conspiracy failed in the end, and
eldest son Alexios, continued to serve Manuel I and held the the Seljuk sultan rather than those of the Byzantine emperor. Ioannes Komnenos the Fat lost his life as a result of it.14
post of protostrator (chief of the imperial grooms or chief mas- The final accusation that led to his 1167 downfall was that at Despite the failure of the conspiracy, however, it is high-
ter of the horse). Although Alexios Axouchoss rank was inferi- this time he was plotting again to assassinate the emperor ly significant from our point of view that this grandson of a
or to that of his father, he nonetheless had the extra honor of with the help of Cuman mercenaries.13 Turkish captive introduced into Byzantine service about a cen-
being married to the emperors niece Maria Komnene. He Following this big scandal, the Axouchos family not only tury earlier not only regarded himself, but was also regarded
served on several embassies and diplomatic missions to for- lost its political and social status at the Komnenian court but by some, as a Byzantine and, moreover, as an eligible
eign lands. He was very wealthy and enjoyed great popularity, also suffered economically, since Manuel I confiscated most of claimant to the imperial throne. If there is an element of uncer-
particularly among the military, as a result of which he aroused Alexios Axouchoss property, and his children grew up in tainty in the sources concerning the truth of allegations about
the jealousy of certain people in the court. When Alexioss poverty. However, one of his two sons, Ioannes Komnenos, who his fathers conspiratorial designs against Manuel I, we are left
rivals at last persuaded Manuel I that Axouchos had been con- chose to be identified by his maternal family name, appears to with no doubt about the role assumed by Ioannes the Fat in
TURKS AND BYZANTINES
the conspiracy against Alexios III. Although his name has
come down from posterity as a usurperat a time character-
ized by rising dissatisfaction with the rule of the Angeloiit
may well be that he attempted to pose as the legitimate
emperor, and some considered him so, because of his kinship
with the former dynasty, which made him the great-grandson
of Ioannes II Komnenos. It may be worth pointing out in this
context that the aforementioned plot of Konstantinos
(Komnenos) Tatikios against Emperor Isaakios II, the founder
of the Angelos dynasty, had transpired under remarkably simi-
lar circumstances.15
But besides the dynastic rivalry between the supporting
members of the Komnenoi and the Angeloi, another factor that
must be considered in evaluating these movements is the
increasingly pro-Latin stance witnessed at the imperial court,
especially since the days of Manuel I Komnenos, which may
have triggered a reaction on the part of some who tried to off-
set this tendency by pushing forward and giving support to
certain people of Turkish origin.16
As already suggested, the traffic between the Byzantine
and Turkish courts did not flow in a single direction.
Complementing the data on the integration of Turks into the
Byzantine ruling elite, there is plenty of evidence concerning
Byzantines who similarly sought refuge with the Turks and
offered their services to sultans or emirs, especially as the
position of the Turks became more firmly established in
Anatolia from the twelfth century onward.17 For example, fol-
lowing a struggle for the crown with his brother, Emperor
Ioannes II, the sebastokrator Isaakios Komnenos spent the
years between 1130 and 1138 visiting various eastern courts,
among them that of the Daniflmendid ruler Gazi Gmfltegin
(1105-1134) and that of the Seljuk Sultan Masud I (1116-
1155), where he tried to muster support against the emperor.
When all his efforts failed, he was reconciled with his brother
and returned to Byzantium.18 But shortly afterward, in 1140, his
eldest son, Ioannes Komnenos, who had accompanied him on
his travels, defected to the Daniflmendids at a critical moment
during a battle near Neokaisareia (Niksar). Ioannes Komnenos
remained thereafter among the Turks, converted to Islam, and
eventually married the Seljuk Sultan Masuds daughter. 19
During the reign of Manuel I, this dissident branch of the
imperial family continued to trouble the throne of
Constantinople, again seeking help from the Turks. In 1153-
1154, another son of the sebastokrator Isaakios, the future
emperor Andronikos (I) Komnenos, conspired against Manuel
I and tried to win over the Seljuk sultan. Like his father and
brother, Andronikos Komnenos spent many years (ca. 1163-
1178) in exile. At one point, he came to terms with Saltuk bn
Ali, the ruler of Erzurum, with whose consent he carved out an
independent territory for himself near the region of Chaldeia in
Northeastern Anatolia. From there, he directed raids against
Byzantine territories and handed over to the Turks part of his
spoils and captives of war, as a result of which the Byzantine
church declared him anathema. Despite all this, Andronikos
Komnenos eventually ascended the Byzantine throne in 1183;
his reign, which lasted until 1185, was marked by a distinctly
pro-Eastern orientation that reversed for the time being the
pro-Western policy of his predecessors.20
6 7
CHAPTER 18
In addition to the dynastic struggles that prompted cer-
tain members of the Byzantine imperial family to have recourse
to the Turks, the process of decentralization that left its stamp
on the Komnenian and Angelid periods was a powerful factor
in provoking some of the local Christian magnates of Anatolia
to turn toward their Turkish neighbors in their attempts to
break loose from Constantinople. For example, the Byzantine
general Theodoros Mankaphas, who staged an unsuccessful
revolt in Philadelphia (Alaflehir) in 1188-1189, escaped after-
ward to the court of the Seljuk Sultan Gyaseddin I Keyhsrev
(1192-1196, 1204-1211) and requested military reinforcements
from him. The sultan refused to put his own troops in the serv-
ice of Mankaphas but nonetheless allowed him to recruit Turks
from among the Seljuk population, with whose assistance
Mankaphas continued his revolt.21
Likewise, several Gabrades, members of a prominent
Byzantine landowning family with holdings primarily in Pontus,
are known to have had close associations with the Seljuks, and
many of them served Seljuk sultans.22 One held the tittle of
emir (satrap) and Kinnamos informs us that he was related to
the Romans [i.e., Byzantines] by birth, but as he had been nur-
tured and reared among the Turks, he held by chance an emi-
rate among them. 23 He lost his life in 1146 while fighting
alongside Seljuk forces in a battle against Byzantines. Another
Gabras whose first name eludes us served as Kl Arslan IIs
ambassador to Manuel I during the critical peace negotiations
that preceded the battle of Myriokephalon (1176). Both
Kinnamos and Niketas Choniates emphasize that he was one
of Kl Arslan IIs most powerful and esteemed officials. 24
Present at the same sultans court was a hadjib (master of cer-
emonies) by the name of lhtiyareddin Hasan ibn Gabras, who,
it has been suggested, was a convert to Islam from the same
family, and presumably either the very same individual men-
tioned previously or a son of his.25 It has been suggested fur-
ther that a certain Gabras, who was accused according to the
Selukname of poisoning Kl Arslan II and his son Keyhsrev
in 1192, may also be identical with either one (or both if they
are indeed the same) of the aforementioned individuals.26
Finally, to the list of members of the Gabras family who estab-
lished close links with the Seljuk court during the reign of Kl
Arslan II must be added Konstantinos Gabras, Manuel Is
envoy to the sultan in 1162-1163, who is reported to have
betrayed the emperor.27
The presence of Turks in the Byzantine army and, con-
versely, of Greeks in the Anatolian Seljuk army has been brought
up a few times in the foregoing pages. Byzantine sources sug-
gest that the Turks employed by the Byzantines were mostly
mercenaries and less often captives.28 The widespread use of
Turkish mercenaries in the Byzantine army was a policy initiated
in the late eleventh century by the emperor Romanos IV
Diogenes (1068-1071), who appealed to the Turks for military
assistance in the civil war against Ioannes Doukas following his
defeat at the Battle of Manzikert. From a broader perspective,
however, the use of Turkish and other foreign mercenaries was
dictated by the general disintegration of the Byzantine military
system during this period and remained thereafter a permanent
policy.29 Similarly, the Seljuks recruited Anatolian Christians into
their forces. However, unlike the Byzantine army, the foreign ele-
ments in the Seljuk army were composed predominantly of
slaves. This difference stemmed from the Seljuks adoption of
the Islamic gulam institution, whereby converted slaves were
recruited into their army and court.30
In addition, both armies incorporated soldiers of mixed
ethnic origin (called mixobarbaroi in Byzantine sources) who
were half-Greek and half-Turk. Anna Komnene comments on
several mixobarbaroi present in the Turkish army. These, she
reports, were bilingual, and while some of them scoffed mock-
ingly in Greek at their Byzantine opponents, others were found
praying in Greek during a dangerous Byzantine attack. Some
among them were not loyal to their Turkish commanders and
betrayed them by informing the Byzantines of Turkish battle
tactics.31 Anna also points to the presence of mixobarbaroi in
the Byzantine army, one of whom, she recounts, made use of
his knowledge of Turkish in trying to bribe and persuade the
inhabitants of Nicaea to yield the city to the Byzantines during
the First Crusade.32 Likewise, Frankish chroniclers of the First
Crusade mention the presence of contingents called Turcopoli
(in Greek, Tourkopouloiliterally, sons of Turks) in Alexios Is
army. While Raymond of Aguilers describes them as skilled
archers who were either reared among Turks or were the off-
spring of a Christian mother and a Turkish father, Albert of
Aachen reports that the impious race of the Turcopoli, who
were said to be Christians only by name but not by their deeds,
were born of a Turkish father and a Greek mother.33 These ref-
erences to mixobarbaroi and Tourkopouloi are very suggestive
because they point to a rather early date for the occurrence of
intermarriage between Turks and Greeks in Anatolia during
the reign of Alexios I Komnenos (1081-1118). Apart from the
early date, however, we should not be surprised to hear about
intermarriages or of children of mixed parentage born out of
such unions, since the Turkish conquest and occupation of
Anatolia did not result in an immediate replacement of the
native Byzantine population by a Turkish one.34 Consequently,
between neighboring communities of Greeks and Turks who
were constantly in touch with each other in war or in peace,
intermarriages were not that uncommon.
Moreover, the two communities did not live and coexist
as distant neighbors only; they sometimes also shared the
same urban or rural settlement. There is evidence that both
Byzantine and Turkish authorities settled captives from the
opposite camp in their respective domains. For example,
Alexios I settled on the Aegean islands about 2,000 Turks cap-
tured during a campaign in western Asia Minor, ca. 1098.35 On
the Turkish side, Masud I, who captured Adana in 1137, trans-
ported the entire population of the city, including its Christian
bishop, to Melitene (Malatya).36 In 1155-1156, the Daniflmen-
did emir Yabasan resettled the inhabitants of the districts of
Lykandos and Elbistanaltogether more than 70,000
Christiansin his own territories in Sebasteia (Sivas) and
Cappadocia. 37 But the most interesting case is that of
Keyhsrev I, who in 1197 resettled about 5,000 Greek captives
from Karia and Tantalos in the surrounding villages of
Philomelion (Akflehir), gave them lands, seeds, and agricultur-
al tools, and granted them a five-year tax exemption. They
were expected thereafter to start paying taxes, which, howev-
er, were guaranteed not to exceed what they used to pay to the
Byzantine state. In a short time, many other Byzantine subjects
who heard about the sultans liberal fiscal policy voluntarily
migrated to Philomelion.38
The voluntary settlement of Turkish communities in
Byzantine domains is evident as well. This is a phenomenon
that we come across particularly in the context of regions that
the Byzantines recovered from Turkish domination. For exam-
ple, when Ioannes II recaptured Gangra (ankr) from the
Daniflmendids in 1135-1136, some of the Turkish inhabitants
chose to remain there and submitted to Byzantine authority,
even though they had been offered the chance to leave
unharmed. 39 On the other hand, the existence of a Turkish
colony inside Byzantine Philadelphia (Alaflehir) in 1211 has
been inferred from the testimony of lbn Bibi, who reports
Sultan Keyhsrev Is temporary interment in the citys Muslim
cemetery following his death in a battle fought in that region.
Although we have no information about when and how this
colony was established, it may well have been at the moment
of Philadelphias recovery from the Turks during the reign of
Alexios I, under circumstances similar to those that occurred in
Gangra. Alternatively, the foundation of the Turkish colony may
have some link with the aforementioned Byzantine rebel
Theodoros Mankaphas, who was assisted by Turkish forces in
his movement for independence and temporarily controlled
Philadelphia during the early years of the thirteenth century.40
One point that emerges from the evidence presented
above is that, compared with the Byzantines use of Turkish
colonists, the Turks seem to have made more widespread use
of native Christians in the colonization of their cities and vil-
lages in Anatolia. Presumably, this was because the Turkish
population during the eleventh and well into the twelfth century
was still not large enough to populate the newly conquered
regions, most of which had been deserted by their original
inhabitants. In short, the policy of forced population transplan-
tation, frequently imposed by Turkish rulers on the native
Christians, was dictated by the existing demographic situation.
Moreover, the policy was often implemented with strong eco-
nomic incentives, as suggested by Keyhsrev Is procedures in
Philomelion. Finally, despite enforced resettlement, the
Christiansat least in the case of Philomelionwere content to
remain under Turkish authority. Unfortunately, sources are
silent on the social relations that evolved between the common
folk in Turkish centers where Greek Christians were settled or
in Byzantine centers that had Turkish colonies. Hence, as far as
mixed marriages are concerned, our information is restricted
mainly to those that took place or were proposed between royal
and aristocratic families. Anna Komnene reports, for instance,
that the Great Seljuk sultan Melikflah, who feared the increas-
ing power of his brother in 1086, tried to ally with Alexios I,
twice proposing a marriage between his eldest son and the
emperors daughter. But even though Alexios I accepted the
sultans friendship, he did not consider the marriage proposal
at all. Anna Komnene describes his reasoning as follows:41
How could he? His daughter, the bride sought for the
barbarians eldest son, would have been wretched
indeed (and naturally so) if she had gone to Persia to
share a royal estate worse than any poverty.
TURKS AND BYZANTINES

Alexios Is (or Anna Komnenes) reaction to Melikflahs
proposal is a perfect example of the traditional Byzantine ide-
ology concerning imperial marriages with barbarians. It is
interesting to note, on the other hand, that while the emperor
regarded the proposal to be presumptuous on the part of the
sultan, he did not object to it on religious grounds. By the reign
of Alexios Is grandson Manuel I, however, the traditional ideol-
ogy seems to have been partly cast away: the marriage of
Maria Komnene, the emperors niece and the daughter of his
designated successor, to a man of servile Turkish descent at
the Byzantine courtnamely, Alexios Axouchoswas not con-
sidered problematic, as shown above. Around the same time,
members of the Byzantine aristocracythough none directly
from the imperial familystarted marrying into families of
Seljuk sultans as well. For example, Kl Arslan II had a Greek persisted with Ioannes II, who converted to Christianity a large
wife. This couples son, Keyhsrev I, later married a woman
from the Byzantine family of Mavrozomes, which was well con-
nected with the Komnenoi. By the thirteenth century, the aris-
tocratic Christian element within the Seljuk royal family
became more extensive.42
One question that immediately comes to mind in con-
nection with mixed marriages between Turks and Byzantines is
whether they were accompanied by religious conversions in
either direction. Since it was the Turks who came to Anatolia
as conquerors, one would expect conversions to Islam to pre-
dominateand in the long run, they did predominate. However,
during the period with which we are concerned here, there is
no evidence of any large-scale conversion of the Byzantine
population until at least the reign of Kl Arslan II. The occur- the reign of Manuel I deserves particular attention. At the time
rence of conversions in the eleventh and twelfth centuries
isolated examples of which we have already discussedwas a
phenomenon that affected individuals but not the masses. The
Christian population of Anatolia was quite extensive in the
twelfth century.43 Even as late as the thirteenth century, large
numbers of Christians still lived in Anatolia, so that Celaleddin
Rumi wrote in 1273 that the majority of the population of
Antalya consisted of Greeks who did not understand Turkish,
and Aksarayi recorded that the tax (cizye) received from the
Christian communities constituted a large portion of the rev-
enues of the Turkish state toward the end of the thirteenth
century.44 Therefore, the extent and speed of the conversion of
the Byzantine Greek population to Islam in the course of the
eleventh and twelfth centuries must not be exaggerated. The
Islamization and Turkification of Anatolia was a long and grad-
ual process that took five centuries to be completed.45 And this
certainly was a factor that facilitated the coexistence of native
Christians and Turks in Anatolia. Even the religious authorities
in Byzantium seem to have been affected by the tolerant policy
of the Turks toward Christians, which contrasted sharply with
the strict attitude of Western Christians toward Byzantines that
often surfaced during their encounters in the context of the
Crusades. Thus, in the second half of the twelfth century, the
patriarch of Constantinople, Michael of Anchialos, made the
following pronouncement:46
Let the Muslim be my master in outward things rather
than the Latin dominate me in matters of the spirit. For if
I am subject to the Muslim, at least he will not force me
to share his faith. But if I have to be under Frankish rule
8 9
CHAPTER 18
Alevi dance, ceremonies
duuring the festivities of
and united with the Roman Church, I may have to sepa-
Abdal Musa at Teke ky,
rate myself from God.
Elmali, Antalya, Turkey.
Conversely, during the first two centuries of the Turkish
presence in Anatolia, the conversion of Turks into Christianity,
though not on any grand scale, is also attested, particularly
among soldiers, and it was not necessarily a phenomenon
resulting only from mixed marriages. It has already been noted
that several Turks among those who served at the Byzantine
court or in the Byzantine army had been baptized as
Christians. According to Anna Komnene, who records not a
few of these cases, it was one of her fathers greatest ambi-
tions to convert the whole Muslim East to Christianity.47 At least
within the framework of Anatolia, the ambition seems to have
group of Turkmens he took captive during a campaign in 1124,
before incorporating them into his army.48 Likewise, Manuel I
was driven by a desire to increase the number of converts
from the Muslim faith to Christianity, as he proposed in 1180 to
change the customary formula of abjuration of Islam which
inhibited conversions due to a statement in it rejecting the
God of Muhammad. However, the patriarch and some of the
clergy were unwilling to accept this measure. The emperors
conflict with the ecclesiastical authorities was finally resolved
by the replacement of the anathema against Muhammads
God with one against the Prophet himself and his teachings.49
As far as religious confrontations between Byzantines
and Turks are concerned, an incident that took place during
of Manuels expedition to Konya in 1146, some soldiers from
the emperors army attacked a Turkish cemetery, pulling out
dead bodies from the tombs in what appears to have been an
expression of hostility and an open act of religious insult
directed against the Muslim Turks. Yet, this seemingly minor
incident is also important in revealing the manner in which
Byzantine and Turkish courts interacted with each other diplo-
matically. When Manuel I found out what his soldiers had been
doing, he ordered them not to touch the tomb of the sultans
mother, who was buried in the cemeterythereby expressing
on the one hand respect and sympathy for the Turkish ruler
Masud I, and on the other hand trying to keep the already down while in the presence of the emperor. When he finally probably the work of a Seljuk architect related to the megas
embarrassing situation from turning into a bigger scandal. agreed to sit down, in response to Manuels insistence, it was domestikos Ioannes Axouchos.54 To give another example, Kl
Next, he dispatched a letter to Masuds wife, informing her that on a low stool alongside the emperors magnificent throne.51 Arslan II named one of his sons Kaysarflah, using an aggregate
her husband, whom he called the child of our empire, was Frequent visits and embassies from one court to the name made up of the Roman/Byzantine title Caesar and the
alive and well.50 This last detail is important because it indi- other brought Turkish and Byzantine culture into contact and Persian/Turkish title fiah. 55 There are, on the other hand,
cates that the Byzantines placed the Seljuk rulers of Anatolia sometimes resulted in exchanges of cultural traditions. The Seljuk coins with double-headed eagles or Greek letters
as in the case of their Western counterpartswithin the context double-headed eagle, for example, was an imperial symbol inscribed on them. Even a rare Seljuk coin from the twelfth
of their traditional ideology of the family of kings, at the head used by Byzantine emperors as well as Seljuk sultans.52 In this century, which depicts the sultan in Byzantine imperial garb,
of which stood the emperor. From the Byzantine point of view, way, Turks and Byzantines shared a common iconographic has been discovered.56 These coins may well have been direct
the place of the Seljuk Sultan in the family of kings confirmed vocabulary, despite the fact that they were enemies. Their imitations of Byzantine coins struck by local Greek minters in
the legitimacy of his authority but made him subordinate to the imperial claims were thus communicated through the use of the employ of the Seljuk state. Or they may have been the
emperor. Similarly, when Manuel sought an alliance with similar symbols comprehensible to both cultures. Likewise, the result of a conscious policy pursued by the Seljuk government
Masuds successor, Kl Arslan II, in 1161-1162, the Seljuk sul- growing interest in Seljuk palace architecture and decorative to create in Anatolia a unified system of currency based on
tan was declared the adopted son of the emperorin a gesture styles attested in Constantinople during the twelfth century Byzantine models in order to facilitate trade exchanges
conveying once again that the alliance was not to be regarded gives us a further glimpse of the cross-cultural artistic tastes between Greeks and Turks.
as one between equals. Kl Arslan, during his subsequent that traveled between the two courts.53 It is noteworthy in this Concerning Byzantine-Turkish commercial relations dur-
visit to Constantinople in 1162, allegedly made a show of respect that the Mouchroutas, a building in Persian style ing the eleventh and twelfth centuries, our sourceswritten
acceptance of his subordinate status by not wishing to sit added to the Great Palace in the twelfth century, was most mostly by court historians and focusing primarily on political
TURKS AND BYZANTINES

and diplomatic affairsdo not offer much direct information.
But a thirteenth-century Seljuk source relates that during one
of Alparslans eastern Anatolian campaigns prior to the battle
of Manzikert (1071), the local inhabitants mistook the Turkish
soldiers in the sultans company for traders. 57 This suggests
first that trade relations between Turks and local Christians
were already being conducted at this early date, and second
that traders presumably traveled armed and in large groups,
no doubt as a protective measure against potential dangers in
this insecure border area. The fortress-like caravanserais
which later Seljuk sultans, beginning with Kl Arslan II, built
on trade routes across Anatoliaconfirm that concern for the
safety of traders was a necessity of economic life in all regions
ravaged by constant warfare.58 It was also for the same reason
that during the reign of Rkneddin (1196-1204), merchants
from Konya on their way to Constantinople preferred the Black
Sea route via Amisos (Samsun) to the overland route across
Anatolia.59 Yet, despite the dangers involved, long-distance
trade relations were carried out between Turkish and
Byzantine cities, as also revealed by Michael Choniates, who
reports the presence of Turkish merchants from Konya at the
10
CHAPTER 18
Young women wait to enter
the mausoleum of Hoca
Ahmet Yasevi, one the holi-
est sites in Central Asia.
Even during the Soviet era,
hard-line regime commis-
sars never dared to close
the mausoleum to visitors.
panegyris of Chonai in the twelfth century.60 At the local level,
on the other hand, we have already seen that around the mid-
dle of the twelfth century, the Greek islanders of Lake
Pousgouse, who closed their gates to Ioannes II, engaged in
commerce with their Turkish neighbors in Konya.
To conclude, even though military encounters dominat-
ed Byzantine-Turkish relations in the late eleventh and twelfth
centuries, it has been observed that the coexistence of Turks
and Byzantines on Anatolian soil gave rise to simultaneously
peaceful contacts between them within the social, cultural,
and economic spheres. When the initial warlike phase came to
an end during the late twelfth century, a new era of economic
and cultural prosperity occurred in Anatolia within an atmos-
phere of greater stability.
This next period, characterized by the establishment of
Turco-Islamic institutions throughout former Byzantine territo-
ries, would eventually lead to the Islamization and Turkification
of the whole region, but not before the Ottoman conquest of
Constantinople. By the end of the twelfth century, Europeans
were already referring to Anatolia as Turchia, but the
Anatolian Seljuks continued to call their land Rum (a deriva-
tion from Romei.e., Byzantium). 61 And although the process
of Turkification did reach a peak in the course of the fifteenth
century, the preceding period, which witnessed the intermin-
gling of peoples and cultural traditions, has left some marks
still discernible to this day.
QQ BC QQ
1 Deeds of John and Manuel Comnenus by John
Kinnamos, trans. C. Brand (New York, 1979) [hereafter:
Kinnamos], p. 26.
2 O City of Byzantium: Annals of Niketas Choniates, trans.
H. J. Magoulias (Detroit, 1984) [hereafter: Choniates], p. 22.
3 For some examples of cooperation between Turkish
and Byzantine armed forces, see The Alexiad of Anna
Comnena, trans. E. R. A. Sewter (New York, 1969) [hereafter:
Alexiad], pp. 202-5, 274-75, 488-89; Kinnamos, pp. 20-21, 135,
158, 218; Michael the Syrian, Chronique, trans. J.-B. Chabot
(Paris, 1899-1924; reprinted Brussels, 1960) [hereafter:
Michael the Syrian], vol. III, pp. 194-95, 223-24, 357, 368-70.
4 Given the fact that the earliest Seljuk sources date
from the thirteenth century, the material presented here, apart
from a few exceptions, has been gathered mostly from
Byzantine and other Christian sources contemporary to the
period examined. For the convenience of the reader, refer-
ences have been provided for modern translations of the
sources, whenever available. For general histories of Anatolia
during the Seljuk period, see C. Cahen, La Turquie pr-
ottomane (Istanbul, 1988); and O. Turan, Seluklular Zamannda
Trkiye (Istanbul, 1971). On the political, religious, and cultural
transformation of Anatolia during the Seljuk and early Ottoman
periods, see Sp. Vryonis, Jr., The Decline of Medieval Hellenism
in Asia Minor and the Process of Islamization from the Eleventh
through the Fifteenth Century (Berkeley, 1971); M.Balivet,
Romanie Byzantine et pays de Rm turc: Histoire dun espace
dimbrication grco-turque (Istanbul, 1994).
5 On this subject, see C. M. Brand, The Turkish Element
in Byzantium, EleventhTwelfth Centuries, Dumbarton Oaks
Papers 43 (1989): 1-25. Also see E. Meril, Bizansta Seluklu
Hanedan Mensuplar, XI. Trk Tarih Kongresi. Bildiriler (Ankara,
1994), vol. II, pp. 709-21, which focuses, though, solely on
members of the Seljuk dynasty in Byzantium.
6 For akas brief interlude among the Byzantines, see Making of Byzantine History: Studies Dedicated to Donald M.
Alexiad, p. 236. The most extensive modern work on him is A.
N. Kurat, aka Bey: Izmir ve Civarndaki Adalarn ilk Trk Beyi,
M.S. 1081-1096, 3rd ed. (Ankara, 1966).
7 On Tatikios, see Nikephoros Bryennios, Historiarum
libri quattuor, ed. and trans. P. Gautier (Brussels, 1975), pp.
286-89; Alexiad, pp. 141, 201-3, 213-15, 232, 279, 282, 288,
298-99, 336-37, 341, 360-63, 449; P. Gautier, Le synode des
Blachernes (fin 1094). Etude prosopographique, Revue des
tudes byzantines 29 (1971), pp. 218, 252-54. Cf. Gy. Moravcsik,
Byzantinoturcica, 3rd ed. (Berlin, 1983), vol. II, p. 302; B.
Skoulatos, Les personnages byzantins de lAlexiade (Louvain,
1980), pp. 287-92; A. G. C. Savvides, Taticius the Turcople, XI.
Trk Tarih Kongresi. Bildiriler (Ankara, 1994), vol. II, pp. 821-25;
Brand, Turkish Element, pp. 3-4.
8 Sp. Lampros, Ho Markianos kodix 524, Neos
Hellenmnemon 8 (1911), pp. 56-57; Choniates, p. 233. Cf. K.
Barzos, He genealogia ton Komnenon (Thessalonike, 1984), vol.
II, p. 254, n. 38.
9 The name seems to be the Greek rendering of the
Turkish title avu see Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica, 3rd ed, vol.
II, p. 274. On what follows, see Alexiad, pp. 200-1, 206; cf.
Skoulatos, Personnages, pp. 280-81; Brand, Turkish Element,
p. 4.
10 lhan, a title like avufl, rather than a proper name;
see Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica, 3rd ed., vol. II, p. 124. On what
follows, see Alexiad, pp. 210-11; cf. Brand, Turkish Element, p.
4.
11 Alexiad, pp. 211, 299, 409. Cf. Moravcsik,
Byzantinoturcica, 3rd ed., vol. II, p. 277; Skoulatos, Personnages,
p. 281.
12 Regarding Ioannes Axouchos, see Choniates, pp. 7-8,
24, 27, 29, 46, 48, 50, 53; Kinnamos, pp. 14, 45, 47, 82-83, 90;
Michael Italikos, Lettres et discours, ed. P. Gautier (Paris, 1972),
nos. 37 and 39; Nikolaos of Methone, Pros to megan
domestikon, ed. A. K. Demetrakopoulos in Ekklesiastike
Bibliotheke, vol. I (Leipzig, 1866; reprinted Hildesheim, 1965),
pp. 199-218. For two Byzantine seals attributed to Ioannes
Axouchos, see V. Laurent, Corpus des sceaux de lEmpire
byzantin, vol. II (Paris, 1981), nos. 941 and 942, with additional
bibliography on him (p. 507); see also Moravcsik,
Byzantinoturcica, 3rd ed., vol. II, pp. 70-71; Brand, Turkish
Element, pp. 4-6; N. Necipolu, Aksuhos Ailesi, Dnden
Bugne Istanbul Ansiklopedisi, vol. I (Istanbul, 1993), pp. 166-
67; I. Demirkent, Komnenos Hanedannn Byk Baflkman-
dan: Trk Asll Ioannes Aksuhos, Belletan 60 (1996): 59-72.
13 Choniates, pp. 56-57, 59, 82-83, 235; Kinnamos, pp.
102, 130-32, 172, 195, 199-202. Cf. Brand, Turkish Element,
pp. 8-10; R. Greenfield, Sorcery and Politics at the Byzantine
Court in the Twelfth Century: Interpretations of History, in The
Nicol, ed. R. Beaton and C. Rouech (London, 1993), pp. 73-85.
14 Choniates, pp. 289-90. Cf. C. M. Brand, Byzantium
Confronts the West, 1180-1204 (Cambridge, Mass., 1968), pp.
122-24, 347f; Brand, Turkish Element, pp. 10-11.
15 See note 8, above.
16 On pro-Latin and pro-Turkish factions within the
Byzantine court at this time, see Greenfield, Sorcery, pp. 83-
11
TURKS AND BYZANTINES
84; Brand, Turkish Element, pp. 22-25; P. Magdalino, The
Empire of Manuel I Komnenos, 1143-1180 (Cambridge, 1993),
pp. 217-27.
17 Simultaneously, the number of Turks in Byzantium
started declining during the latter half of the twelfth century.
As noted by Brand, certainly after the battle of Myriokephalon
[1176], Byzantium ceased to be able to compete for dominance
in Anatolia, and Turks no longer saw great rewards in becom-
ing Byzantine: Turkish Element, p. 12; cf. p. 14. On
Byzantines who entered Turkish service, in addition to the
works cited in subsequent notes below, see Vryonis, Medieval
Hellenism, pp. 229-34.
18 Choniates, p. 19; Michael the Syrian, III, pp. 230-31.
Cf. Barzos, Genealogia, 1, no. 36.
19 Choniates, pp. 21, 31. Cf. Barzos, Genealogie, 1, no.84.
20 Kinnamos, pp. 99-100, 188-89; Choniates, pp. 81, 128.
On the activities of Andronikos I Komnenos before and during
his reign, see Brand, Byzantium Confronts the West; Barzos,
Genealogia, 1, no. 87.
21 Choniates, p. 220. On Mankaphas, see J.-C. Cheynet,
Philadelphie, un quart de sicle de dissidence, 1182-1206, in
Philadelphie et autres tudes (Paris, 1984), pp. 45-54.
22 On the Gabrades, see A. M. Bryer, A Byzantine
Family: The Gabrades, c. 979-c. 1653, University of Birmingham
Historical Journal 12 (1970): 164-87; A. M. Bryer, St.
Fassoulakis, and D. M. Nicol, A Byzantine Family: The
Gabrades. An Additional Note, Byzantinoslavica 36 (1975): 38-
145 [both reprinted in A. M. Bryer, The Empire of Trebizond and
the Pontos (London, 1980), nos. IIIa and IIIb]; C. Cahen, Une
famille byzantine au service des Seljuqides dAsie-Mineure, in
Polychronion: Festschrift Franz Dlger zum 75. Geburtstag, ed.
P. Wirth (Heidelberg, 1966), pp. 145-49 [reprinted in C. Cahen,
Turcobyzantina et Oriens Christianus (London, 1974), no. VIII].
23 Kinnamos, p. 51. Cf. Bryer, A Byzantine Family, no. 6,
pp. 179-80.
24 Kinnamos, pp. 223-24; Choniates, pp. 106-7. Cf. Bryer,
A Byzantine Family, no. 9, p. 180.
25 The Chronography of Gregory Abul-Faraj the Son of
Aaron, the Hebrew Physician commonly Known as Bar
Hebraeus, being the First Part of his Political History of the
World, trans. E. A. W. Budge (London, 1932) [hereafter: Bar
Hebraeus], vol. I, p. 330. On Ihtiyareddin Hasan ibn Gabras, see
Bryer, A Byzantine Fammily, no. 10, p. 181, and n. 60 (where,
however, the title given by Bar Hebraeus is omitted); and no. 9,
p. 180 (where the identity of Ihtiyareddin with Kl Arslan IIs
envoy to Manuel I in 1176 or with the latters son is postulated).
However, new evidence brought to light by a passage from
Niketas Choniatess Panoplia Dogmatike informs us that a
certain emir Hasan, having been adopted by Gabras, who was
12
CHAPTER 18
very powerful with Kilij Arslan, sultan of the Turks in our times,
approached our blameless faith: quoted in Brand, Turkish
Element, p. 21. From this passage, Hasan ibn Gabras emerges
to be a Turk who converted to Christianity after having been
adopted by a Gabras, who is likely to be the above-mentioned
envoy of Kl Arslan II to Manuel I.
26 Bryer, A Byzantine Family, nos. 10 and 11, p. 181;
Cahen, Une famille, p. 148.
27 Choniates, p. 63; cf. Bryer, A Byzantine Family, no. 8,
p. 180.
28 For some examples, see Alexiad, pp. 39-43, 89, 137,
167; Kinnamos, pp. 14, 17, 18, 21, 35, 45, 61-62, 65, 102, 128,
179, 203.
29 See Sp. Vryonis, Jr., Byzantine and Turkish Societies
and their Sources of Manpower, in War, Technology and
Society in the Middle East, ed. V. J. Parry and M. E. Yapp
(London, 1975), pp. 126-40 [reprinted in Sp. Vryonis, Jr., Studies
on Byzantium, Seljuks, and Ottomans. Reprinted Studies
(Malibu, 1981), no. III].
30 See Sp. Vryonis, Jr., Seljuk Gulams and the Ottoman
Devshirmes, Der Islam 41 (1965), pp. 225-39 [reprinted in
Vryonis, Byzantium: Its Internal History and Relations with the
Muslim World (London, 1971), no. XIII].
31 Alexiad, pp. 485-86, 234. The so-called igdi, encoun-
tered in Seljuk sources, constitute a similar group of people
with ethnically mixed parentage living in Seljuk Anatolia: see
Cahen, Turquie pr-ottomane, pp. 151-52.
32 Alexiad, pp. 141, 306, 338-40.
33 A. G. C. Savvides, Late Byzantine and Western
Historiographers on Turkish Mercenaries in Greek and Latin
Armies: The Turcopoles/Tourkopouloi, in Making of Byzantine
History, ed. Beaton and Rouech, pp. 122-36; for the state-
ments quoted above, see p. 127 and notes 32, 33.
34 See Vryonis, Decline of Medieval Hellenism; Vryonis,
Patterns of Population Movement in Byzantine Asia Minor,
e
1071-1261, in XV Congrs International dEtudes Byzantines: rian Doukas to his contemporary, the grand duke Loukas
Rapports et Co-rapports, I (Athens, 1976), pp. 3-19 [reprinted in
Vryonis, Byzantium, Seljuks, and Ottomans, no. VI].
35 Alexiad, pp. 347-48.
36 Bar Hebraeus, II, p. 374.
37 Armenia and the Crusades, 10th-12th Centuries: The
Chronicle of Matthew of Edessa, trans. A. E. Dostourian
(Lanham/New York/London, 1993), p. 266.
38 Choniates, pp. 272-273
39 Kinnamos, pp. 20-21. 50 Kinnamos, pp. 43-44.
40 See M. Akda, Trkiyenin ktisadi ve timai Tarihi,
1243-1453, 3rd ed. (Istanbul, 1974), vol. 1, pp. 32-33. On the 51 Kinnamos, pp. 156-58; Choniates, pp. 66-68; Michael
Byzantine recapture of Philadelphia, see Alexiad, p. 348. On the Syrian, III, p. 319.
Mankaphas, see note 21, above.
52 See G. ney, Anadolu Mimarisinde Avc Kufllar, Tek ve
41 Alexiad, pp. 200, 206-8. ift Bafll Kartal, in Malazgirt Armaan (Ankara, 1972), pp. 157-
65. For further examples of the adoption of Byzantine imperial
42 Ibn Bibi, Anadolu Seluk Devleti Tarihi. Ibni Bibinin symbols by the Seljuks, see K. Otto-Dorn, Saljuq-Byzantine
Farsa Muhtasar Seluknmesinden, trans. M. Nuri Relations in Uluslararas Osmanl ncesi Trk Kltr Kongresi
Gencosman, notes by F. N. Uzluk (Ankara, 1941), p.48. See Bildirileri, 4-7 Eyll 1989 (Ankara, 1997), pp. 183-90.
Cahen, Turquie pr-ottomane, pp. 163-64; Vryonis, Decline of
Medieval Hellenism, p. 227. For a general treatment of 53 See L. A. Hunt, Comnenian Aristocratic Palace
Byzantine imperial marriages with foreigners, see R. Macrides, Decorations: Descriptions and Islamic Connections, in The
Dynastic Marriages and Political Kinship, in Byzantine Byzantine Aristocracy, IX to XIII Centuries, ed. M. J. Angold
Diplomacy, ed. J. Shepard and S. Franklin (Aldershot, 1992), (Oxford, 1984), pp. 138-56; P. Magdalino, Manuel Komnenos
pp. 263-80. and the Great Palace, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 4
(1878), pp. 102ff.
43 O. Turan, Les souverains seldjoukides et leurs sujets
non-musulmans, Studia Islamica I (1953), p. 76. 54 See the translation of Nikolaos Mesaritess descrip-
tion of the Mouchroutas, in C. Mango, The Art of the Byzantine
44 O. etin, Seluklu Messeseleri ve Anadoluda Empire, 312-1453: Sources and Documents (Englewood Cliffs,
slamiyetin Yayl (Istanbul), 1981), pp. 112-13. See also Ibn N. J., 1972), pp. 228-29 and n. 235; cf. Magdalino, Manuel
Battuta, who noted in the fourteenth century that the Turks in Komnenos, pp. 103, 108.
Erzincan were a minority and that many Christians inhabited
the western regions of Anatolia: Ibn Battuta, Travels in Asia and 55 See Cahen, Turquie pr-ottomane, p. 212.
Africa, 1325-1354, trans. H. A. R. Gibb (London, 1939), pp. 132-
123. 56 Sp. Vryonis, The Byzantine Legacy and Ottoman
Forms, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 23-24 (1969-1970), p. 272. For
45 See Vryonis, Decline of Medieval Hellenism; Vryonis, twelfth-century coins struck by the Turkish lords of Anatolia
The Experience of Christians under Seljuk and Ottoman bearing inscriptions in Greek and even Christian religious fig-
Domination, Eleventh to Sixteenth Century, in Conversion and ures (e. g., St. George), see I. And . Artuk, stanbul Arkeoloji
Continuity: Indigenous Christian Communities in Islamic Lands, Mzeleri Teflhirdeki slami Sikkeler Katalou (stanbul, 1970),
Eighth to Nineteenth Centuries, ed. M. Gervers and R. J. Bikhazi vol. I, pp. 352, 389; I. Artuk, Alaeddin Keykubadn Meliklik
(Toronto, 1990), pp. 185-216. Devri Sikkeleeri, Belleten 44 (1980): 265-70; N. Oikonomids,
Les Danishmendites entre Byzance, Bagdad et le Sultanet
46 For Michael of Anchialos (1169-1177) and the pas- dIconium, Revue numismetique 25 (1983): 189-207. For an
sage quoted here, see A. Bryer, Cultural Relations between analysis of some thirteenth-century Seljuk coin types, see R. P.
East and West in the Twelfth Century, in Relations between Lindner, The Challenge of Qlch Arslan IV, in Near Eastern
East and West in the Middle Ages, ed. D. Baker (Edinburgh, Numismatics, Iconography Epigraphy, and History: Studies in
1973), p. 80; S. Runciman, The Eastern Schism (Oxford, 1955), Honor of George C. Miles, ed. D. K. Kouymjian (Beirut, 1974),
p. 122; M. I. Gedeon, Patriarchikoi Pinakes (Constantinople, pp. 414-17.
n.d.), pp. 365-68. Note the similarity of the patriarchs words
with the statement attributed three centuries later by the histo- 57 Ahbar d-Devlet is-Selukiyye, trans. N. Lgal
(Ankara, 1943), p. 27.
Notaras, that he preferred the Turkish turban to the Latin tiara:
Decline and Fall of Byzantium to the Ottoman Turks by Doukas, 58 See K. Erdmann, Das anatolische Karavanserail des
trans. H. J. Magoulias (Detroit, 1975), p. 210; cf. p. 226. 13. Jahrhunderts (Tbingen, 1961); M. K. zergin, Anadoluda
Seluklu Kervansaraylar, Tarih Dergisi 15 (1965): 141-70.
47 Alexiad, pp. 211-12, 200-1.
59 Choniates, p. 290.
48 Kinnamos, p. 17.
60 Sp. Vryonis, Jr., The Panegyris of the Byzantine Saint:
49 Choniates, pp. 121-23; J. Darrouzs, Tomos indit de A Study in the Nature of a Medieval Institution, its Origins and
1180 contre Mahomet, Revue des tudes byzantines 30 (1972): Fate, in The Byzantine Saint ed. S. Hackel (London, 1981), p.
187-97. Cf. Vryonis, Decline of Medieval Hellenism, pp. 441-42; 216.
Brand, Turkish Element, pp. 21-22.
61 See Cahen, Turquie pr-ottomane, p. 103.
13
TURKS AND BYZANTINES