65 In the given context (a letter from the emperor to a European king) the word “Persians” could be used in its “Crusading function,” to refer to “all the Muslim peoples of the East,” see [S.Louchityskaya] С. Лучицкая; ОбразДругого. Мусульмане в хрониках крестовых походов (The image of the other. Muslims in the Chronicles of the Crusades) (Saint Petersburg: Aleteia, 2001), 59 (henceforth: Louchitskaya, The Iimage of the Other).
66 About the Danismendids in general and their relations with Ikonion and Constantinople see Vryonis, The Decline, 119,122; Cahen, Pre-Ottoman Turkey, 82-86; N. Oikonomides “Les Danishmendides entre Byzance, Bagdad et le Sultanat d’ Ikonion,” Revue Numismatique, 6e ser., 25 (1983): 190-205.
67 For the first version see F. Chalandon, Les Comnène, 503-504; P. Wirth “Kaiser Manuel I Komnenos und die Ostgrenze. Rückeroberung und Wiederaufbau der Festung Dorzlaion,” BZ 55 (1962): 28. (Hencseforth : Wirth, Manuel); H. Ahrweiler, “Les fortresses construites en Asie Mineure face a l’invasion Seldjoucide,” Akten des XI. Internationalen Byzantinistkongresses, (Munich: 1960), 182-189; the second version is represented by no less significant scholars, see Cahen, Pre-Ottoman Turkey, 103; P. Magdalino, The Empire, 91-92 (hereafter: Magdalino, Empire). A general survey of the historiography of the rebuilding of fortresses can be found in A. F. Stone, “Dorylaion revisited.Manuel I Komnenos and the refortification of Dorylaion and Soublaion in 1175,” Revue des Etudes Byzantines 63 (2003): 183-201
70 Chalandon, Les Comnène,507; Vryonis, Decline,123; Lilie, “Die Schlacht,” 259.Strangely enough, the whole episode was omitted in the only recent book about Komnenian warfare, and even from the magnificent work of Magdalino; see J. W. Birkenmeyer, The Development of the Komnenian Army: 1081-1180 (Cologne: Brill, 2002), 127 (hereafter: Birkenmeyer, Komnenian Army); Magdalino, The Empire,99
71 Nicetas Choniates, Historia, ed. Van Dieten, ibid. Manuel 6,178, lines 5-7 (tr. Magoulias, 100) (hereafter: Choniates, Historia); Jacob Ljubarskij considered this piece to be a literary invention because of its rhetorical repetitions. From my point of view, the literary device here is rather a method of decorating a real event, see Ljubarskij, “Manuel I Komnenos through the eyes of Kinnamos and Choniates,” 108
72 Michael the Syrian, Chronicle, ed. Chabot, vol. 3, 20.5, 370-371.
73 Kinnamos, Epitoma,ed. Meineke, 7.3, 299, line 19 (Brand, 224).
74 Clear information about the solar eclipse in the spring of 1176 is present in Armenian chronicle of Smbat Sparapet, see Connetable Sembat, Chronique, sub anno 1176, 625, RHC 1: 626.
75 This is another argument for the Crusader version of Myriokephalon. About this fleet see H. Ahrweiler, Byzance et la mer, (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1966), 266-267 (henceforth: Ahrweiler, Byzance). About the situation in the Byzantine fleet at the end of Manuel’s reign, see again Ahrweiler, Byzance, 267-271. About the role of this fleet and it’s further destiny see Lilie, Byzantium, 215; Lamma, Comneni e Staufer, 276.
76 See Chalandon, Les Comnène, Uspenskiy, History, 280; Vryonis, Decline, 123; Birkenmeyer, Komnenian Army, 128. The way itself was discussed well in W. M. Ramsay, “Notes and Inscriptions from Asia Minor,” American Journal of Archaeology and of the History of fine Arts2, No.2 (1886): 123-131. (Henceforth: Ramsay, Notes.)
78 As far as I know, the only calculation of the troops (25,000 Byzantines) is given by J. Haldon, who unfortunately does not give any reference to the method of his calculation. J. Haldon , Byzantine Wars, 142. The “international character” is underlined in many sources. Choniates , Historia, ibid.; Kinnamos, The Deeds, ibid.;Michael the Syrian, Chronicle, 20.4 (ed. Chabot, vol.3, 368) “avec une armeé …des divers peuples ;” Romoald of Salerno, Annales Romoaldi, in MGH SS Scriptores,vol.19, (Hannover: Impensis Bibliopolii Avlici Hahniani, 1866) 442.
79 An extensive raid of the Seljuks not long before is attested by Michael the Syrian. Michael the Syrian, The Chronicle, ed. Chabot, vol. 3, 20.4 , 369.
80 There is no exact information about the actual border in the period. J.C. Cheynet speaks about the conservativeness of the border line during whole Komnenian Era. I would not agree with that. The very character of the landscape suggests that one should speak of a border zone rather than a borderline. In the establishment of its actual size in specific regions, archaeology can be of great help see P. Armstrong “Seljuqs before the Seljuqs : Nomads and Frontiers inside Byzantium” in Eastern Approaches to Byzantium, ed. A. Eastmond, (Burlington: Ashgate, 2001): 277-286; J.C. Cheynet “La conception militaire de la frontière orientale (IXe-XIII e siecles)” in Eastern Approaches to Byzantium, ed. A. Eastmond, (Burlington: Ashgate, 2001): 66.
81 The crossing of the Anatolian Plateau was one of the most difficult parts of the way to Kilikia and/or Holy Land. The worst part of the way was a dry steppe between valleys of rivers of the Aegean basin and the narrow, but fertile, valleys of the Cilician rivers. Ikonion was one of the few places where a large army could stop for the rest to continue it’s way further. This, as John France tries to prove, was true at least for the first Crusade, John France, A Victory in the East AMilitary History of the First Crusade (Cambridge: Cambridge University press, 1994), 187. About the March itself see Epistola, ed. Stubbs, 102, lines 26-31, 103 (Vasilyev, 237-238).
82The place of the battle was the subject of a long discussion. The first person who made an interesting guess was W. M. Ramsay, who in 1886 (sic!) basing his work only on the evidence of Choniates, proposed that it happened near the village of Kizil-Oren, which lies some 50 km to the west of Ikonion (modern Konya). A century later, N. Mersich argued that the battle took place in completely different region , to the north of Lake Pousgousa. The Ramsay’s version was clarified by Michael Hendy, who, using the important evidence of Michael the Syrian and a detailed description of the place in a nineteenth century English itinerary, proposed that the battle happened near Kizil-Oren. I incline to agree with the latter: Michael the Syrian clearly states where the battle happened “Les Grecs arriverent dans le voisinage de Iconium, a une journée de marche (de cette ville).” The proposed place to the north of the Lake Pousgousa is on the distcne of more than one hundred kilometeres distant from Ikonion – and thus can not be the site. Among modern scholars opinions are still divided – Magdalino supports the version of Hendy, while Lilie supports Mersich, see Michael The Syrian, Chron.icle, ed. Chabot, vol. 3, 20.5 , 371; W. M. Ramsay “Notes and inscriptions from Asia Minor,”, American Journal of Archaeology and of the History of the Fine Arts 2 (1886): 123-131; N. Mersich, “Tzibritze. Zum Austragungsort der Schlacht von Myriokephalon” in Byzantios. Festschrift für Herbert Hunger zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. W. Hörander, J. Koder, O. Kresten, E. Trapp (WienVienna: Ernst Becvar, 1970): 241-247 ; Hendy, Studies, ibid.; Magdalino, The Empire, 98; Lilie, Byzantium, map 1.
83Epistola, ibid .
84See A. Vasilyev, “Das Genaue Datum der Schlacht von Myriokephalon (1176),” BZ 27 (1927): 288-290
85Choniates, Historia, Manuel 6, [ed. Van Dieten, 179, line 26]: “Ὁ δὲ σουλτὰν οὐκ ἀνῆκεν αὖθις τὰ πρὸς εἰρήνην διαλεγόμενος.” (tr. Magoulias, 101).
86 Choniates, Historia., ibid. The suggestion about the probable reasons for the advice of the elder generals was made by Birknemeyer in Komnenian Army, 129. Still, other scholars inclined to repeat the advice of experienced generals in the form given by Choniates. See John Haldon, The Byzantine Wars, 142. At the same time, the tradition of depicting emperor as the one who does not listen to advice is typical for the Kaiserkritik and was probably taken over by Choniates, at least in part, from Psellos. On this, see chapter 3, 62-63.
87 See, for example, the description of the same stratagem in two tenth-century works, De velitatione bellica and De castrametatione. De velitatione bellica [О боевом сопровождении], tr. V. Kuchma in Двавизантийскихвоенныхтрактата 10 века (Two Byzantine military treatises of the tenth century) (St. Petersburg: Aleteia, 2002), 126; De castrametatione, [О построении лагеря] tr. V. Kuchma in Двавизантийскихвоенныхтрактата 10 века (Two Byzantine military treatises of the tenth century) (St. Petersburg: Aleteia, 2002), 363.
88 Choniates, Historia, ed. Van Dieten, Manuel 6, 180, 10-15 (tr. Magoulias, 102).
89 Birkenmeyer, Komnenian Army, 129; Uspenskiy, History, 280; Vryonis, Decline, 124 ; S. Runciman, A History of the Crusades, vol. 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968), 412; Hendy, Studies, 150.
90 J. Haldon, The Byzantine Wars, 142.
91 This whole paragraph is a summary of the long and colorful story of Kinnamos, who probably saw the events with his own eyes, see Kinnamos, Epitoma, ed. Meineke, 2.6-2.9,43-60 (tr. Brand, 41-53).
92 The existence of such planning is supported by Choniates himself, when he states that the emperor knew that he would be attacked at Myriokephalon. Choniates, Historia,180.
93 The expedition to Sarapata Miloniensis is described by Kinnamos. in Epitoma, ed. Meineke, 4.23,197-198, (tr. Brand,149-151).
94 If they were, their work was extremely difficult. As Michael the Syrian puts it, the Turcomans killed everyone, who was going out of the Byzantine camp. Michael the Syrian, Chron.icle, 20.5, (ed. Chabot, vol. 3, 371): “Les Turcomans…massacraient ceux qu’ils trouvaient en dehors du camp des Grecs.”
95 On John Doucas Batatzes and his curriculum vitae see A. F. Stone, “The Grand Hetaireiarch John Doukas: the Career of a Twelfth-Century Soldier and Diplomat,” Byzantion 69 (1999):145-164.
96 This proposition is profoundly argued in the article of the prominent Russian Slavist, Alexander Nazarenko. I incline to agree with it; several strange episodes in the life of Kilidjc Arslan II can be interpreted as support for Christian origins. The first is the visit in 1161, when Manuel wanted Kilic Arslan to participate in thea procession with icons. He was aware of his Muslim faith, but still something forced him to permit the “infidel” to participate in procession. The second episode is the description of the Battle of Myriokephalon by Michael the Syrian, wherether Turcomans, offending Kilic Arslan II for making peace with Manuel, call him “infidel”, which can also be also a pointer to his Christian background. The third and final argument is that during the procedure of 1161 Manuel made Kilic Arslan II his symbolic son –according to Dölger this title was reserved only for Christian rulers. See Dölger, “Die Bulgarenherrscher,” 224; [R. A. Gusseynov, R. A.] Р. А Гуссейнов, Р.А.”Из истории отношений Византии с сельджуками” (From the history of the relations between Byzantium and Seljuks), in Palestinskiy sbornik, 23 (1971):165 (hereafter: Gusseynov “From the history of the relations”); [A. V. Nazarenko] А.В. Назаренко. “Правнучка Ярослава Мудрого – мать иконийского султана Килидж-Арслана II” (Grandgranddaughter of Jaroslav the Wise – mother of the sultan of Ikonion, Kilic Arslan II) Florilegium.Сборниктрудовк 60-летиюБ.Н. Флори (Florilegium: A Collection of Works Dedicated to the 60th Birthday of B. N. Florya) (Moscow: Yaziki russkoy kulturi, 2004), 255-264;; Kinnamos, Epitoma, ed. Meineke, 5.3,206-207, (tr. Brand , 157); Michael the Syrian, Chron.icle, ed. Chabot, vol. 3, 20.5, 372.
97 Jean-Claude Cheynet calls the whole family “collaborateurs des Seldjoukides.” For Bryer the situation is different. Based on his prospography I will treat Gabras #9 and Gabras # 10 as the same person – Hasan Ibn Gabras, see J.-C. Cheynet, Pouvoir et contestations a Byzance, 963-1210, (Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 1990), 237 (Henceforth : Cheynet, Pouvoir); A. Bryer, “A Byzantine Family: The Gabrades,” University of Birmingham Historical Journal 12 (1971):180; M. Balivet “Entre Byzance et Konya: L’intercirculation des ideés et des Hommes au Temps des Seldjoukides,” in M. Balivet, Mélanges Byzantines, Seldjoukides et Ottomans (Istanbul: Isis, 2005) 70
98 About the first see Kinnamos, Epitoma, ed. Meineke, 2.8,56, line 14, (tr. Brand , 57), about the second see Kinnamos, Epitoma, ed. Meineke, 7.3,line 3, (trans. Brand, 223).
99 Michael the Syrian, The Chronicle, ed. Chabot, vol. 3, 20.4, 368.
100 Rustam Shukurov, professor, Moscow State University, personal communication, 2007.
101 Kai-Kabus ibn Isnadar, Кабус-Намэ (Kabus-name) in Энциклопедияперсидско-таджискскойпрозы (Encyclopedia of Persian-Tadjik prose) (Dushanbe: Ifron,1983).The Russian translation is taken from http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/rus6/Kabus-name/text1.phtml?id=599 (last accessed 24.05.2007).
102 Michael the Syrian, Chronicle, ed. Chabot, vol. 3,20.5 , 371.
103 Anna Comnena, Alexiade 15.6, tr. E. A. Davis, http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/AnnaComnena-Alexiad00.html#BOOK%20XV (last accessed 21.01.2007).
104Develitationebellica, [О боевом сопровождении] tr. V. Kuchma (St. Petersburg, Aleteia, 2002), 126.
106 Raif Gusseynov supposes that they were “borrowed” from Byzantium. A. Matveev clearly shows that the institution could have been taken over from the Arabs of the Near East, see S. Vryonis, “Seljuk Gulyams and Ottoman Devshirmes,” Der Islam 16 (1965): 226-227; [R. A. Gusseynov] Р.А. Гуссейнов, “Сельджукская военная организация” (The military organization of the Seljuks), Palestinskiy Sbornik 17 (1967): 135-136; [A.S. Matveev ] А.С. Матвеев. Военное дело арабов в X-XI вв. (The Military Tradition of Arabs in the tenth and eleventh centuries) in [Nicephoros Phocas] Никифор Фока, Стратегика (Strategikon) (St. Petersburg: Aleteya, 2005), 243-244.
107 Kinnamos, Epitoma, 149-151.
108 Manuel himself seems to admit that the Turks had good knowledge about his army, which was received during first skirmishes, in the beginning of his letter to Henry II Plantagenet. Epistola, ed. Stubbs, 103, lines 16-20: ”Quoniam igitur Turcorum agmina ex jam factia praelia cognoverant, non conferre sibi a fronte nobis repugnare, loci angustiam bonum subventorem cum invenissent, posteriora statuerent invadere agmina: quod utique ut fecerunt” (Vasilyev , 238).
109 For the descriptions of the battle itself see Chalandon, Les Comnène, 508-512; Uspenskiy, Historia, 280-282; Lilie, “Die Schlacht,” 268-269; Vryonis, Decline, 124-125; Cahen, Pre-Ottoman Turkey, 103; Hendy, Studies, 149-152; J. Haldon, Byzantine Wars, 141-143; Birkenmeyer, Komnenian Army, 131-133; Lamma, Comneni e Staufer, 278-279.
110 The biography of this person is more or less unknown. He was a nephew of Manuel, fought at Myriokephalon, and later supported Andronicus Komnenos but was impaled by the latter on an accusation of treachery, Cheynet, Pouvoir, 281.
111 Andronicos Lamparda, as can be seen from his name, from the beginning had strong connections with the famous Byzantine fortress region of Lampe and, if we are to believe Eusthatios of Thessaloniki, was so respected by Kilic Arslan II that he received from him the honorable nickname of “Falcon,” Eusthathios of Thessaloniki, The Capture of Thessaloniki, tr. J. Jones (Canberra: Australian Association for Byzantine Studies, 1988), 3.
112 Mavrosomos is mentioned in the sources only once before, when he is said to be one of the supplementary commanders of the Egyptian expedition in 1175. Magdalino showed that he was “mesadzon” (prime minister) of the empire at the time of Myriokephalon. Magdalino, The Empire, 257.
113 Along with John Doucas Vatatzes he was one of the most experienced commanders of the army; Andronicos started his career as a messenger of Manuel to Antioch. Later he successfully participated in the military campaigns against the Hungarians. In the Egyptian maritime expedition (1175) he was appointed as the commander of the whole enterprise. As far as I know there is still no article about Condostephanos.
114 This phenomenon can easily be explained if one takes into consideration the hypothesis about the battle plan of Manuel, which was proposed in a chapter above, Choniates, ibid.
115Epistola, ed. Stubbs, 103, lines 22-23: “…et tela quasi imbres super nos interimebant,” (Vasilyev, 238).
116 Michael the Syrian, The Chronicle, ed. Chabot, vol.3, 20.5, 371.
117 Choniates, Historia, ed. Van Dieten, Manuel 6, 182, lines 10-14 (tr. Magoulias, 102)
118 Epistola, ed. Stubbs, 103, lines 37-43 : “Multo autem eleveare pulvere ac perturbante oculos, et neminem permittente videre quae circa pedes errant, in praecipitium, quod aderat, profundissimae vallis, alius super alium, hominess et equi sic incontinenter portati corruerunt, quod alii alioc cobcultantes ad invicem interemerunt non ex gregariis tantum sed ex clarissimis et ex intimis nostris consanguineis,” (Vasilyev, 238-239); Choniates, Historia, ed. Van Dieten, Manuel 6, 184, lines 1-5 (tr. Magoulias, 104
121 Magdalino, The Empire, 8-9. The connection of the episodes with the concept of Kaisekritik was clearly present in the work of P. Lamma, see Lamma, Comneni e Staufer, 280.
122 J. Ljubarskij, “Мануил I,”108-109.
123 Choniates’ description of the emperor’s shield states that he was attacked with swords and maces, which were characteristic weapons of the elite forces of the sultans. See [A.S. Matveev ] А.С. Матвеев. Военное дело арабов в X-XI вв. (The military tradition of Arabs in the tenth and eleventh centuries), in [Nicephoros Phocas] Никифор Фока, Стратегика (Strategikon) (St. Petersburg, Aleteia, 2005), 173-272.
124Steven Runciman states that at that moment Manuel “was the first to panic and fled back out of the pass;” Brand agrees with him. I wonder from which source they got their information, see S. Runciman, A History of the Crusades., vol. 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968), 413; C. Brand , Byzantium Confronts the West (Cambridge : Harvard University Press, 1968), 16.
125 Choniates, Historia, ed. Van Dieten, Manuel 6, 186, lines 23-25, (tr. Magoulias, 105).
126 M.F. Hendy, Studies, 150-151.
127 Note: the following schemes are not following the “real landscape”. They even do not represent all moments of the battle. The aim of putting them in is to give a reader a general idea about main stages of the event.
128 Choniates, Historia, ed. Van Dieten, Manuel 6 ,175, lines 18-23 (tr. Magoulias, 99 ).
129 Michael the Syrian, Chronicle, ed. Chabot, vol. 3, 20.5, 371.
130 Choniates, Historia, ed. Van Dieten, Manuel 6,182, lines 24-30 (tr. Magoulias, 103).
131 “Seven deadly ravines” are mentioned by Choniates. The same stratagem, according to Gusseynov , was typical for the Seljuks of Asia Minor and was used by them even in the time of Alexios I Komnenos, see [R.A. Gusseynov] Р.А. Гуссейнов, “The military organization of the Seljuks,” 138.
132 Michael the Syrian, ibid.
133 Choniates, ibid.
134O. Turan “The Ideal of World Domination among the Medieval Turks,” Studia Islamica 4 (1955): 82. (Henceforth: Turan, “The Ideal.”)
135 Choniates, Historia, ed. Van Dieten, Manuel 6, 185, lines 8-12 (tr. Magoulias, 104).
136 In one of his later articles, J. Ljubarskij considered this scene to be a part of the “Byzantine irony” of Nicetas Choniates. I think that it’s rather a part of Kaiserkritik, see J. N. Ljubarskij, “Byzantine Irony. The Example of Nicetas Choniates,” in