This article examines the Byzantine responses to the battlefield tactics followed by the armies of the Turkoman chiefdoms during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. The most characteristic example reflecting the difficulties faced by the Byzantine army when confronted by the Turkomans is the battle of Pelekanos, in the gulf of Nikomedia. It was fought in 1329 between the Byzantines under the command of the emperor Andronikos III (1328–1341), and the Ottomans whose leader was Orhan (1326–1362). The outcome of this battle (...) typifies the inability of the late Byzantine armies to deal effectively with the Turkoman cavalry archers, despite the instructions given by the military treatises which were compiled in the earlier periods of Byzantine history, despite the experience of fighting against enemies of similar nature in the past, and despite the fact that generals such as Kantakouzenos possessed a good knowledge of the fighting methods of the Turkomans. This article argues that the inability of the Byzantines to adjust to the demands of the battlefield tactics of the Turkoman warriors was a combination of many factors. The loss of Asia Minor deprived Byzantium of its main source of competent archers. The Byzantines relied on heavy cavalry which, although it proved ineffective against the Turkomans, was the symbol of exalted status of members of the aristocracy. Moreover, stereotyped views about the Turkomans affected the performance of the Byzantines on the battlefield. It seems that Byzantine generals, even if they knew the fighting methods of the Turkomans, very often could not fully understand the strength of their armies. This article concludes that the failure to react successfully to the battlefield tactics of the Turkomans could be partly described as a failure of cultural adaptation, reinforced by stereotypes about ‘barbarians.’. (shrink)

During the last decade of the thirteenth and the first of the fourteenth century the Byzantine army relied heavily on large groups of mercenary soldiers, the most important being the Cretans, the Alans and the Catalan Grand Company. By examining the views George Pachymeres, Nikephoros Gregoras and Thomas Magistros express about these groups, the present investigation will examine the impact of mercenaries on the military affairs of the Byzantine state, as well as Byzantine attitudes towards mercenaries.

Syrgiannes Palaiologos Philanthropenos played a leading role in the conflicts between factions of the Byzantine aristocracy in the 1320s and 1330s. The most important historians of the period, Nikephoros Gregoras and John Kantakouzenos, depict a rather negative picture of the personality of Syrgiannes. He is portrayed as an overambitious individual who constantly plots against the throne. He is seen as a perjurer whose actions prove that he has no moral constraints and does not hesitate to betray his friends. This image (...) has influenced modern scholarship which to a large extent uncritically accepts this negative image of Syrgiannes without taking into consideration the biases and contradictions of the narratives of Gregoras and Kantakouzenos. The cross-examination of the information provided by these two historians indicates that a large part of their account of the activities of Syrgiannes and his motives should be treated cautiously. (shrink)