[184] Engel, _Geschichte von Serbien_, 285-6; Müller, _Beiträge Byz.

Chron._, p. 406 _n._

[185] Cant., IV. 43, p. 315; Greg., XXVII. 50, p. 557; von Kállay, i.

69.

[186] Cant., II. 9, pp. 363-70; Greg., XII. 3, p. 582; Ducas, p. 6.

[187] Cant., II. 1, pp. 14-18; 40, p. 560; and III. 4, p. 91; Greg.,

IX. 11, pp. 560-8; XII. 2, p. 576.

[188] Cant., II. 24-7, pp. 145-67; Greg., XII. 11-16, pp. 608-26; Phr.

I. 9, p. 40; Ducas, 6, p. 24, to 7, p. 26.

[189] Cantacuzenos tries to make out that this was a justifiable

arrangement, as this district had already been conquered by Stephen

Dushan. But Ducas, 6, p. 26, and 8, p. 30, declares that Cantacuzenos

sacrificed the empire to the Serbians.

[190] Cant., III. 57, pp. 347-8; Greg., XIII. 4, pp. 648-52.

[191] _Misti_, xxi. 35.

[192] Greg., XVI. 6, pp. 834-5; Ducas, 7, p. 29; Clement VI, _Epp.

Secr._ vii. 99. ’Άμυρ is either ‘Emir’ or ‘Omar’.

[193] Cant., III. 31, p. 498; Ducas 9, pp. 33-4; Chalc., I, p. 24.

[194] Cant., III. 81, pp. 501-2; 84, pp. 518-19; 85, pp. 525-9.

[195] Cant., III. 95, pp. 585-9; Greg., XV. 5, pp. 762-3; Ducas, 9, p.

35.

[196] Greg., XV. 2, p. 749.

[197] For the action against Barlaam spoken of here, see Muralt, ii.

575, No. 17; p. 576, No. 22; p. 578, No. 37.

[198] Cant., III. 98, p. 604, to IV. 4, p. 29; Greg., XV. 9, p. 781, to

11, p. 791; Ducas, 9, p. 37, to 10, p. 38.

[199] Cant., IV. 1, p. 12, to 2, p. 19.

[200] Cant., IV. 4, p. 30; 5, p. 32; 20, p. 147.

[201] Cant., IV. 9, pp. 53-7.

[202] Raynaldus, ann. 1349, XXXI.

[203] Clement VI, _Epp. Secr._ viii. 248-50.

[204] Cant., IV. 13, p. 85.

[205] Marco Guazzo, _Cronica_, p. 269; Stella, _Annales Genuenses_, in

Muratori, xvii, col. 1090.

[206] MS. Vatican 2040, cited by Muralt, ii. 618: Petrarch, _Epp. fam._

vii. 7. For historical and medical importance of the black death,

see Hecker, _Der schwarze Tod im 14ten Jahrhundert_ (Berlin, 1832).

MSS. Bibl. Nat., Paris, fonds latin 8369-70, contain an interesting

contemporary account, mostly in hexameter verse, by Symon de Cavino, a

Paris physician.

[207] _Breve Chronicon_ at end of Ducas, cited by Finlay, _History of

Greece_, iv. 409 _n._

[208] In 1340 Venice had refused a loan of ships and money to Edward

III of England on the ground that she needed all her resources ‘to

guard against the Turkish danger about to become universal’: Wiel, p.

204.

[209] On March 17, 1351, Petrarch addressed from Padua to Doge Andrea

Dandolo a letter of remonstrance and warning against engaging in a war

with Genoa. This letter is quoted in Hazlitt, iii. 122.

[210] The Genoese archives contain a treaty between the Byzantine

Empire and Genoa, dated May 6, 1352, which says: ‘debbono eziandio

ritenersi per valide e ferme le convenzioni e la pace stipulata dai

genovesi con Orcan bey.’ Belgrano, _Atti della Società Ligure di Storia

Patria_, xiii. 124.

[211] The Signory of Genoa, writing to the Podesta of Pera, March

21, 1356, said: ‘Nobis, vobis ac omnibus ianuenibus est notorium et

manifestum quantum bonum et gratias habuimus a domino Orchano amirato

Turchie ad destructionem et mortem tam venetorum quam grecorum tempore

guerre nostre’: ibid., p. 127.

[212] In the treaty of 1387 with Murad, the Genoese said: ‘quam inter

recolendam memoriam magnifici domini Orchani patris sui ex una parte et

illustrem Commune Ianue ex altera’: ibid., p. 147.

[213] Cant., IV. 11, pp. 68-77; Greg., XVI. 6, p. 835, to XVII. 7, p.

865.

[214] Cant., IV. 16-17, pp. 104-5, 108-11, 114-30; 19, pp. 133-5; 22,

p. 156; Greg., XVI. 1, p. 795; XVIII. 2, p. 876. Phr., I. 9, p. 40,

gives this as the time Cantacuzenos married his daughter to Orkhan.

[215] Cant., IV. 30, pp. 218-20; Greg., XXVI. 19, p. 86, and 22, p. 88.

For explanation of action of Venetian admiral, Pisani, see histories of

Daru and Romanin.

[216] Villani, _Historia Venetiana_ (Muratori), xiv. 200; Canale,

_Nuova istoria di Genova_, i. 222.

[217] Cant., IV. 33, pp. 246-7; 36, p. 266. Cantacuzenos had tried to

get the Bulgarians to attack Stephen Dushan in 1351. Cf. Cant., IV. 22,

pp. 162-6.

[218] Greg., XXVII. 30, pp. 150-1.

[219] Cant., IV. 36, pp. 265-6; Greg., XXVII. 55, p. 171, and XXVIII.

3, pp. 177-8; Cant., IV. 34, pp. 247-50; Greg., XXVIII. 7, pp. 181-2.

[220] Cant., IV. 34, pp. 250-3; 36, p. 266; Greg., XXVIII. 19, p. 188.

[221] About two hours on horse from Gallipoli.

[222] Seadeddin, i. 58-63.

[223] Gilbert Cousin, _Opera_, i. 390 (evidently copying Drechsler),

and Egnatius, _de Origine Turcarum_ (Paris, 1539), p. 29, give date

A.D. 1363. But do they not follow Phr., I. 26, p. 80?

[224] Donado de Lezze, p. 7, and Paolo Giovio, both ardent Venetians,

and Rabbi Joseph, i. 245, give the names of these vessels, though

differently. Nicolas de Nicolay, who passed through the Hellespont

in 1551, says that this story of the Genoese was a tradition of the

locality. He locates the castle of Tzympe a few miles from the Aegaean

end of the strait! _Les quatre livres des navigations_ (1587 ed.), p.

58. Sauli, _Della Colonia Genovese in Galata_, ii. 44-5, vigorously

defends the Genoese against this calumny.

[225] There is no room for doubt about this date. Cf. Cant., IV. 38,

pp. 277-80; Greg., XXXIII. 67, p. 220, and XXVIII. 40-2, pp. 202-4;

Villani, p. 105; _Byz. Annalen_, ed. Müller, in _Sitzungs-Berichte der

Wiener Akademie_, ix. 392; Muralt, _Chronographie Byz._, ii. 643.

[226] This place figured in the recent Balkan War. It was here that the

Osmanlis stationed their army for the defence of the Dardanelles.

[227] Greg., XXIX. 26, p. 241.

[228] Greg., XXVIII. 30, pp. 195-201.

[229] Cant., IV. 37, pp. 270-2; 38, p. 276; Greg., XXIX. 17-18, pp.

234-6; 49, p. 257.

[230] At least, Cantacuzenos, IV. 38, p. 276, claims that he ransomed

Tzympe.

[231] Cant., IV. 38, p. 283.

[232] Rumanian Chronicle, cited by Gregorović, _Relations of Serbia

with her Neighbouring States, principally in the Fourteenth and

Fifteenth Centuries_, Kazan, 1859, in an appendix.

[233] Cant., IV. 39-43, pp. 284-307; Greg., XXIX. 27-30, pp. 242-3.

[234] Cant., IV. 49, pp. 358-60.

[235] Tchorlu was the head-quarters of the Ottoman General Staff during

the first month of the Balkan War. After the battle of Lulé Burgas, it

became the head-quarters of the Bulgarians. From here the attack upon

the defences of Constantinople was directed.

[236] Muralt, ii. 640, No. 10, _n._

[237] Greg., XXIX. 34, pp. 224-6.

[238] During the five years following the proclamation of the

Constitution in 1908, I lived, and travelled extensively, in the

Ottoman Empire. Rarely did I meet a foreigner engaged in business there

who had the slightest sympathy with the Osmanlis in their aspirations

or in their successive crushing misfortunes. This is not a criticism,

but merely the record of a fact.

[239] Schafarik, CVII.

[240] The expression ‘la terre que les Turcs tiennent’ is always used

to designate Asia Minor in the opinion which the council of the French

King Philippe de Valois gave concerning the route to be followed in the

abortive crusade of 1332. See Archives Nationales, Paris, P. 2289, pp.

711-12.

[241] See p. 97, and notes 3 and 4 on that page.

[242] Quoted from the Cancelleria Secreta by Romanin, iv. 232.

[243] This letter is reproduced by Jireček, _Geschichte der Bulgaren_,

p. 309.

[244] Greg., XXXVII. 52, p. 558; 59-63, pp. 561-3; 67-9, pp. 565-6;

XXXVI. 6-8, pp. 504-9; Cant., IV. 44, p. 320.

[245] The generally accepted date of Orkhan’s death is 1359 or 1360,

following Ottoman sources. But Jireček, a careful and able scholar, p.

321, n. 10, is inclined to accept March 1362. There is great confusion

about this period. I think that the Ottoman date is undoubtedly correct

here.

[246] ‘Der eigentliche Begründer der osmanischen Macht war Orchan’,

Fessler, _Geschichte von Ungarn_, ii. 151.

[247] Col. Djevad bey, p. 254.

[248] Seadeddin, i. 80.

[249] Seadeddin, i. 82; Hadji Khalfa, _Rumeli_, p. 19.

[250] But Matteo Villani, in Muratori, xiv. 672, who is followed by

Leunclavius, says that Demotika was abandoned to Orkhan in November

1361.

[251] Cf. marginal note in Barberini MS. of Pachymeres, cited by

Muralt, ii. 663, No. 9.

[252] Seadeddin, i. 84-5; Hadji Khalfa, _Rumeli_, p. 22.

[253] All the Ottoman historians.

[254] MS. Bibl. Nat., Paris, fonds turc, No. 79, p. 25; Leunclavius,

_Annales_, p. 30; Seadeddin, i. 85.

[255] Muklis Abderrahman Efendy, quoted by Schéfer, in his edition of

Bertrandon de la Broquière, p. 170, _n._ 3.

[256] Seadeddin, i. 89; Hadji Khalfa, _Rumeli_, p. 52.

[257] Villani tells of its terrible ravages in 1360 ‘ricominciata in

diversi paesi del mondo’, Muratori, xiv. 653, 688-90, 727.

[258] Ibid., pp. 649-50. He declares that Murad had been ‘molte volte

tentato di vincere Constantinopoli’.

[259] Cf. Finlay, iv. 45, 169.

[260] Seadeddin, i. 42. Hammer, i. 384-5, n. viii, says that Ottoman

historians are unanimous in this assertion as against Byzantine

sources. Col. Djevad bey, the modern Ottoman authority on military

history, is disappointing and unconvincing in his discussion of

this question. On p. 25 he gives 726 (1326) for the date, and on p.

78 730 (1329). He cites no sources, for there are none, and has to

admit, p. 54, that Murad I made the laws for the janissaries. Among

early European historians there is much divergency. Spandugino, p.

185, attributes their origin to Osman, and the name from the village

of Sar: they are ‘the young men of Sar’. Ricaut, ed. 1682, p. 357,

also attributes to Osman. Reineccius, influencing the Latin editor

of Chalcocondylas (see ed. Migne, p. 26, _n._ 11), makes Osman the

founder, and derives the name from ‘Januae’: they are the _custodes

corporis_. Leuncl., _Pandectes_, p. 129, discusses these theories

without coming to any conclusion. Giovio, Geuffraeus, and Nicolay, p.

83, attribute origin to Murad II. Certainly it was not earlier than his

day that the janissaries attracted attention in Europe. D’Ohsson, vii.

311, asserts that there was no definite organization until Mohammed II.

Mignot, i. 119-20, is in favour of the theory that Murad I created this

corps.

[261] Seignobos, in _Hist. générale_, ii. 334.

[262] Col. Djevad bey, p. 251, says that Anatolian Christians were

exempt to give time to recuperate ‘after the exhausting struggles of

generations’. But exhausting struggles had been no less frequent and

no less severe in the Balkan peninsula. Gibbon’s suggestion, that the

levies were made in Europe because Moslem and Christian Anatolians

were not apt for war, shows how completely the great English historian

missed the _raison d’être_ of the janissaries.

[263] Hammer, i. 126.

[264] Col. Djevad bey, p. 90.

[265] Ibid.

[266] Ibid., pp. 55-6; Ducas, p. 16; Leunel., _Annales_, p. 34; Ricaut,

pp. 358-9.

[267] Lavallée, i. 190-1.

[268] Phr., I. 26, p. 86; Chalc., I, p. 25. Cf. Michaud, _Hist. des

Croisades_, v. 275.

[269] Seadeddin, i. 91.

[270] This colony was at Bigha. See Appendix B, p. 301.

[271] Phr., I. 26, p. 80.

[272] Katona, x. 393.

[273] Chale., I, p. 30, and the chronicle of Rabbi Joseph, i. 240,

confuse this battle with that of Cernomen, near the same place and

with the same result, in 1370. But there were certainly two distinct

battles. Louis of Hungary took part in the first, as is shown by the

date recorded at Mariazell and by a diploma in Fejér, _Cod. Dipl.

Hung._, 9e partie, vii. 212. Cf. Aschbach, _Geschichte Kaiser

Sigmunds_, I. 87. The account in Vambéry’s _Hungary_, Story of Nations

Series, p. 171, is wholly wrong.

[274] Seadeddin, i. 94.

[275] Miltitz, ii. I^{ère} partie, 166.

[276] Col. Djevad bey, p. 97, _n._ 1; Engel, _Geschichte Rag._, p.

141; Hammer, i. 231, 405. But this was also Timur’s ordinary method

of signing ordinances: cf. Shereffeddin, iv. 55. The document, with

the marks of Murad’s hand, is preserved in the museum of the Communal

Palace at Ragusa.

[277] Villani, x. 30.

[278] Cf. Hazlitt, iii. 216.

[279] Urban V, _Epp. secr._ iv. 114.

[280] ‘Il le print por prisonnyer, et le destint a cause de ce que le

roy de Bourgarye sy sestoit accorde et alyez secrettement avecques le

turc’: _Chronicques de Savoye_, col. 300.

[281] Cf. Jireček, _Geschichte der Bulgaren_, p. 325.

[282] Cibrario, _Storia di Savoya_, iii. 193. But I have followed

closely the account of the expedition as given in the anonymous French

chronicle, cols. 299-319, in _Monumenta Historiae Patriae_, Turin,

1840, vol. i. There is a modern book by Datta. Cf. also Delaville le

Roulx, i. 148 f.

[283] Urban V, _Epp. secr._ iv. 124.

[284] Ibid., iv. 240.

[285] Greg., XXV. 17, p. 41.

[286] Urban V, _Epp. secr._ ii. 230; Petrarch, _Senilia_, iv. 2.

[287] ‘Nescio enim an peius sit amisisse Hierusalem an ita Bizantion

possidere. Ibi enim non agnoscitur Christus, hic neglegitur dum sic

colitur. _Illi_ (Turcae) _hostes, hi scismatici peiores hostibus_: illi

aperte nostrum Imperium detractant: hi verbo Romanam ecclesiam matrem

dicunt: cui quam devoti filii sint, quam humiliter Romani pontificis

iussa suscipiant, tuus a te ille datus patriarcha testabitur. _Illi

minus nos oderunt quam minus metuunt. Isti autem totis nos visceribus

et metuunt et oderunt._’ _Senilia_, vol. vii.

[288] In the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem, and in the Church

of the Holy Nativity, Bethlehem, anarchy--even bloodshed--is prevented

only by the constant vigilance of the Ottoman military authorities.

If one asks the Latin and Greek priests in Jerusalem, they will admit

without shame that this statement is true.

[289] Miklositch-Müller, _Acta et diplomata graeca_, CLXXXIV.

[290] _Epistolae secretae_, vi. 1-10.

[291] Ibid., vi. 3.

[292] The date of this visit is certain from the formal act of

abjuration, which is given in full in Raynaldus, ann. 1369, XI. Ducas,

c. 11, and Chalc., I, p. 25, are in error in placing this voyage later.

Berger de Xivrey, _Mém. de l’Acad. des Inscriptions_, xix, 2e

partie, p. 35, suggests that the Byzantine historians have confused

this voyage with that of Manuel, thirty years later.

[293] _Epp. secr._, viii. 37, 38, 80.

[294] By an encyclical: _Epp. secr._, viii. 4. Cf. also his letters to

the doges of Venice and Genoa, ibid., p. 24.

[295] Ibid., viii. 55.

[296] Phr., I. 22, pp. 52-3; Chalc., I, pp. 50-1; Morosini, p. 13.

[297] Phr., I. 11, p. 46.

[298] Gregory XI, _Epp. secr._ iii. 36, 58.

[299] Chalc., I, pp. 51-2.

[300] Raynaldus, ann. 1371, VIII.

[301] _Epp. secr._, ii. 32, 87. Similar letter to Louis in December

1375, ibid. v. 46. Other letters reprinted in Fejér, 9e partie, iv.

583 4; v. 54-6; vi. 155-6.

[302] Bernino, pp. 15-20.

[303] Fejér, 9e partie, iv. 427-8.

[304] Ibid., v. 52-3.

[305] Rymer, _Acta Publica_, III, part 3, pp. 38-40.

[306] On December 12, 1374, Gregory XI wrote to John from Avignon,

predicting that his ‘alliance with Murad’ would bring about the

destruction of the empire: _Epistolae secretae_, iv. 68.

[307] Raynaldus, ann. 1378, XIX.

[308] Jireček, _Geschichte der Bulgaren_, p. 317.

[309] Cant. IV, 50, pp. 362-3.

[310] Although Engel says 1353, others 1356, and the Rumanian chronicle

1371, there can be no question that 1365 is the correct date; for both

Byzantine and Ottoman historians speak of Alexander as Bulgarian Czar

in 1364, and do not mention him later, while Sisman and his brothers

come immediately into prominence.

[311] Schiltberger, Neumann ed., p. 93.

[312] Orbini, pp. 472-3.

[313] Bonfinius, II. 10.

[314] Fessler, _Geschichte von Ungarn_, ii. 152.

[315] Wadding, _Annales minorum_, ann. 1369, XI.

[316] _Epp. secr._, VI. 131, 136.

[317] Called Ishebol by the Ottoman historians.

[318] By the second division of the Ottoman army under Timurtash. Murad

himself had captured Sozopolis. Cf. Jireček, p. 326.

[319] Seadeddin, i. 104. He does not give the name of the Serbian kral.

[320] The peasantry around Samakov will point out to you the ridge,

south-east of the modern town, over which he vanished. They believe

that Sisman haunts the foothills of the Rhodope mountains, and rides

headless in the night down into the plain. This tradition, and the

statement of Ducange, viii. 289, that Sisman died in 1373 in Naples,

makes possible the theory that there were three successive Sismans

connected with the Ottoman conquest of Bulgaria.

[321] Hadji Khalfa, _Rumeli_, p. 38.

[322] von Kállay, _Geschichte der Serben_, i. 152.

[323] Ibid., i. 152-9; Jireček, op. cit., 319-20; Ljubić, _Monumenta

spect. ad hist. Slav. merid._, iv. 189.

[324] Cant. IV., 50, pp. 360-2; Müller, _Chron. Byz._, under 1364.

[325] Miklositch, _Acta Serbica_, CLIII.

[326] Ibid., CLX.

[327] Sons of a poor Dalmatian nobleman: Ducange, _Familiae Byz._ viii.

294.

[328] At Ipek, with an independent patriarch: Engel, _Geschichte von

Serbien_, p. 279.

[329] Miklositch-Müller, _Acta gr._, CLXII; MS. Wiener Bibl., Gesch.

gr., No. 47, fol. 290.

[330] Ibid., CLX; ibid., fol. 286.

[331] Orbini, p. 275.

[332] Engel, op. cit., pp. 321 f. For documented details, Müller, ed.

_Byz. Analekten_, pp. 359-64, 405-6, based on Vienna MS. referred to

above.

[333] Now called Cermen or Tchirman.

[334] Svilengrad, now the frontier station of Bulgaria, was known from

1361 to 1913 as Mustapha Pasha. Before the recent Balkan war, it was

the frontier railway station of Turkey.

[335] But there were certainly two distinct battles here, in 1363 and

in 1371. See p. 124, _n._ 2, above.

[336] Ducange, op. cit., p. 294; Bialloblotszky’s translation of Rabbi

Joseph, i. 240; Klaić, p. 199; Jireček, pp. 329-30. Zinkeisen, i. 224,

confuses this battle with the one fought in 1363.

[337] In Miklositch, _Chrestomathia palaeoslav._, p. 77.

[338] Phr., I. 26, p. 80, gives the capture of these cities in the same

campaign as that in which Monastir was acquired, with 1386 as date. But

the Serbian chronicles are so explicit here that we can follow them

without hesitation, especially as they are seconded by the Ottoman

historians. Cf. Hammer, i. 241, and Zinkeisen, i. 229.

[339] Pope Gregory XI, writing to Louis of Hungary, May 14, 1372,

informed him that the Osmanlis had conquered some parts of Greece,

‘subactis quibusdam magnatibus Rasciae, tum in eis dominantibus’.

Rascia was Servia. Theiner, _Monumenta Hungarica_, ii. 115.

[340] Gregory XI, _Epp. secr._ ii. 32-3.

[341] According to Amilhau and Jireček, who rely on Reynaldus, ann.

1364, XXVIII, this first invasion of the Greek peninsula took place in

1363. But the Turks referred to in that year, probably of the perennial

corsair type, could not have been Osmanlis. They were from Aïdin or

Sarukhan.

[342] Klaić, _Geschichte Bosniens_, p. 200.

[343] Hammer, i. 242, 409, places the first relations of Lazar with

Murad after the fall of Nish, which he erroneously puts in 1376. See

below, p. 161, _n._ 3.

[344] Gregory XI, _Epp. secr._ iii. 42.

[345] June 15, 1373: Andrea Gataro, in Muratori, xvii, col. 176.

[346] Ducas, 12, pp. 43-4; Phr., I. 11, pp. 49-50.

[347] Chalc., I, pp. 42-3. But Murad, according to the Collection of

Feridun, when he wrote to the Prince of Karamania, stated that Saoudji

had been conquered in a pitched battle: MS. Bibl. Nat., Paris, fonds

turc, No. 79, p. 30.

[348] Letter just cited; Chalc., I, pp. 44-5; Phr., I. 12, p. 51.

Saoudji is called Kontouz by Ducas, Mosis by Phrantzes, and Saouzis by

Chalcocondylas. I cannot find the reading Siaous which Hammer, i. 412,

and _n._ lix, attributes to Chalcocondylas.

[349] Chalc., I, p. 46; II, p. 69; Phr., I. 12, p. 51; Duc., 12, p. 44.

[350] Canale, ii. 16.

[351] Clavijo de Gonzáles, 15 vº and 16 rº.

[352] So Phrantzes thinks, I. 12, p. 51: ταύτην ὠμότητα καὶ ἀπανθρωπίαν

ὁ ’Αμουράτης ἐποίησεν ἀεὶ εἰς τὰ πάντα καλῶς πολιτευόμενος.

[353] Chalc., I, pp. 46-7; Phr., I. 11, pp. 47-9.

[354] Romanin, iii. 255. This project, according to Cicogna, _Istoria

di Venezia_, vi. 95, was first broached to John at the time of his

visit to Venice in 1370.

[355] Raynaldus, ann. 1376, XXIII.

[356] _Epp. secr._, vi. 236.

[357] Ducas, 12, p. 45.

[358] Caresino, in Muratori, xii.

[359] Ducas, 12, p. 45; Chalc., II, p. 63; and Phr., I. 13, p. 54, say

that Bayezid had given him 1,000 men, and had often advised him to have

his father and brothers assassinated. Cf. Muralt, ii. 706.

[360] Sauli, ii. 57.

[361] Quirino, _Vita di Zeno_, cited by Muralt, ii. 707, Nos. 6-9.

[362] Ducas, 12, p. 45.

[363] The fortunes of Salonika at this period are obscure. See p. 231,

below.

[364] Chalc., II, p. 63; Phr., I. 13, pp. 55-6.

[365] Chalc., II, p. 64. But Ducas, 4, p. 19, says that Bayezid

captured this city.

[366] Bonlinius, II. 10; Sanudo, _Vite de’ Duchi_, in Muratori, xxii,

col. 680.

[367] An excellent brief account of this war is found in Wiel’s _Story

of Venice_, pp. 227-37.

[368] The Genoese forced John V to make peace with Andronicus in

November 1382: Sauli, ii. 260.

[369] Cicogna, op. cit., vi. 97; Romanin, iii. 301.

[370] Hadji Khalfa, _Djihannuma_, fol. 1852; Evliya effendi, ii. 229.

[371] The testimony of Ibn Batutah, who travelled extensively among

the Turks in Anatolia, southern Russia, and elsewhere between 1325 and

1340, is conclusive on this point. ‘Whenever we stopped in a house of

this country (Anatolia), our neighbours of both sexes took care of

us: _the women were not veiled_ ...’: ii. 256. ‘I was witness of a

remarkable thing, that is, of the consideration which the women enjoy

among the Turks: they hold, in fact, a rank more elevated than that of

the men.... As for the women of the lower classes, I have seen them

also. One of them will be, for example, in a cart drawn by horses. Near

her will be three or four young girls.... The windows of the cart will

be open and you can see the women’s faces: _for the women of the Turks

are not veiled_.... Often the woman is accompanied by her husband, whom

whoever sees him takes for one of her servants’: ii. 377-9. No student

can have any doubt whatever upon the position of Turkish women during

the fourteenth century. As among all vigorous peoples, the women of the

Osmanlis held a high place, and were never secluded. It was not until

Murad II that even the sovereign had a harem. The Moslem conception of

the inferiority of women was not prevalent among the Osmanlis until

after the reign of Soleiman the Magnificent. Immediately it became

prevalent, the race began its decline.

So universal did veiling become in the seventeenth century that it

was adopted by Christian and Jewish women in Turkey as well. See Père

Febre, _Théâtre de la Turquie_ (1682), pp. 164-5. Père Febre spoke from

personal experience ‘dans la plupart des lieux de la Turquie’.

[372] Hadji Khalfa, _Rumeli_, p. 96.

[373] _Historia epirotica_, Bonn ed., p. 228.

[374] Ibid., pp. 230-1.

[375] Ducange, viii. 292.

[376] Jireček, op. cit., 340.

[377] _Misti_, XL. 154.

[378] See below, p. 203.

[379] Silvestre de Sacy, in _Mém. de l’Acad. des Inscript._, vii.

327-34. But the commandant could hardly have been carried by his

falconer in such a fashion as far as Philippopolis. The Ottoman

historians probably forgot that Ishtiman, at the mouth of the pass, on

the road to Philippopolis from Sofia, contained an Ottoman garrison.

[380] According to the anonymous _Ein gantz neu Reysebuch von Prag auss

biss gen Constantinopel_, Nürnberg, 1622, p. 33, Sofia was captured in

1362. Hadji Khalfa, _Rumeli_, p. 51, with whom Schéfer, ed. Bertrandon

de la Broquière, p. 202 n., seems to agree by citing, says Sofia

capitulated in 780 (1378). Seadeddin, i. 125, is followed by Hammer, i.

250, Klaić, p. 237, and others in fixing the date as 1382. But these

same authorities give 1375 and 1376 for Nish, which is altogether

impossible. Phr., I. 26, p. 80, seems to place the capture of Sofia

for 1385. This is the most reasonable date. It is consistent both with

the topography of the places in question and with Murad’s methods of

campaigning, as exemplified by all his conquests, to place the taking

of Sofia close to the end of his reign, and within a year or two

before the capture of Nish. To corroborate this date, letters in the

collection of Feridun can be cited. Indje Balaban’s letter to Murad,

announcing the acquisition of Sofia, is not dated. But immediately

after it is the response of Murad, in which he gives to Indje Balaban

for life the government of the new province, and states that he is

sending him a fine horse and robes of honour because of his success.

This letter is dated from Adrianople in the middle of the month of

Redjeb, 788, which corresponds to 1386 in our era. These letters are in

MS. Bibl. Nat., Paris, fonds turc, No. 79, pp. 31-2.

[381] Nish, from its geographical position, could not have fallen

in 1375, as Chalcocondylas says. Hammer, i. 241, and Zinkeisen, i.

230, show an amazing nonchalance in transporting the Osmanlis from

Kavalla, Drama, and Serres in the course of this one year, 1375. Engel,

_Geschichte von Serbien_, p. 341, who, according to Hammer, ‘deceives

himself by thirteen years in placing the capture of Nish in 1388’, is

eleven years nearer the truth than Hammer! Strumnitza, from a diploma

delivered in the name of the Serbian empress Eudoxia (Müller, _Acta

Serbica_, CXXXI), was independent in 1379. Sofia did not fall before

1382. How, then, could Nish have been an Ottoman fortress from 1375?

[382] Von Kállay, i. 166.

[383] For distances between cities in the Balkan peninsula, see

Jireček’s important and interesting work, _Die Heerstrasse von Belgrad

nach Konstantinopel und die Balkanpässe_, p. 122. Jireček, for time of

transit, depends upon Hadji Khalfa.

[384] Text in Sauli, ii. 260-8.

[385] _armiratus_ or _amiratus_, then _amiralus_, of which we have made

admiral, originally had nothing whatever to do with the sea. It is a

corruption of _emir_.

[386] ‘Magnificus et potens dominus, dominus Moratibei, magnus

armiratus et dominus armiratorum Turchie’: the whole text is reproduced

from the Genoese archives by Belgrano, in _Atti della Società Ligure

di Storia_, xiii. 146-9, and by Silvestre de Sacy, in _Notices et

Extraits_, xi. 58-61. Cf. Canale, ii. 59.

[387] ‘Contra illum Turcum filium iniquitatis et nequiciae, ac Sancte

Crucis inimicum, Moratum bey et eius sectam, cristianum genus sic

graviter invadere conantes.’ The text of this treaty is also in

Belgrano, ibid., xiii. 953-65.

[388] Text in Romanin, iii. 386-9. There was an earlier law of similar

nature enacted in 1334.

[389] Cf. Delaville Leroulx, i. 159-60.

[390] Romanin, iii. 331.

[391] _Bullarum_, III, part 2, pp. 4, 92, 338; Urban V, _Epp. secr._

iii. 25, iv. 256; Gregory XI, _Epp. secr._ ii. 32-3, v. 88-9, 311;

Philippe de Mézeray, p. 19; Raynaldus, ann. 1372, XXIX. In 1425 Martin

V repeated the anathema against those who sold Christian slaves to the

Turks: _Bullarum_, III, part 2, p. 454.

[392] MS., Bibl. de Bâle, A 1, 28, fols. 232-54, cited by Delaville

Leroulx, i. 70, n. 2. Adam’s project was a revival of Sanudo’s attempt

to ruin Moslem trading.

[393] _Monumenta historiae patriae_, i. 320; iii. 336, 371.

[394] In 1432 Bertrandon de la Broquière met at Damascus one of these

Genoese of Kaffa, who sold slaves to the Sultan of Egypt: _Voyage_,

Schéfer ed., p. 68.

[395] Chalc., I, p. 53; Phr., I. 26, p. 81. Cf. Hertzberg, p. 503.

[396] Seadeddin, i. 130-2, draws here upon Idris and Neshri, and has

been followed by all the Ottoman historians down to the present day.

[397] Col. Djevad, pp. 62-3. He speaks of Alaeddin bey ‘ayant levé

l’étendard de la révolte’, and calls the punishment of the Serbians in

this campaign the chief cause of Kossova.

[398] Chalc., I, p. 53; Phr., I. 26, p. 81.

[399] Up to 1383, in outlining the career of Tvrtko, I have followed

Klaić, pp. 201-3.

[400] Schaffarik, _Acta archivii Veneti_, &c., CXLI.

[401] In a letter of April 1, published in Ljubić, iv. 185-6.

[402] _Misti_, xxxix. 113.

[403] Klaić, p. 237; Jireček, p. 341. But von Kállay, i. 166,

attributes this victory to George Kastriota of Albania.

[404] Orbini, p. 361.

[405] Hopf, in Ersch-Gruber, _Allgemeine Encycl._, lxxxvi. 49.

[406] _Chronique de Morée_, p. 516. Evrenos is called Branezis. This is

not the Evrenos heretofore mentioned, but another Christian renegade,

of Macedonia. Cf. Finlay, iv. 233 _n._

[407] Jireček, _Die Heerstrasse_, &c., p. 147.

[408] Leunclavius (1611 Frankfort ed.), pp. 268-76. Jireček,

_Geschichte der Bulgaren_, pp. 341-2, points out that Seadeddin and

Leunclavius, whom Zinkeisen, i. 252-5, follows, are in error in

representing the Bulgarians as wholly subdued in 1388.

[409] Mijatovitch, from Serbian sources, p. 13.

[410] Ibid., pp. 16-17.

[411] The railway between Mitrovitza and Skoplje (before the Balkan

War Uskub) passes through the plain of Kossova. When this railway is

connected through the former Sandjak of Novi Bazar with the Austrian

(?) railways in Bosnia, Kossovapol will be on one of the great

transcontinental routes.

[412] The date June 15 is fixed by the Serbian chronicles and songs and

by unbroken tradition. Also by Tvrtko’s letter to Florence. But Tvrtko,

in another letter to the inhabitants of Trau in Dalmatia, gives June 20

(Pray, _Annales_, ii. 90). Seadeddin stands alone in placing the death

of Murad on the 4th Ramazan (August 27). The other Ottoman historians,

as well as Chalcocondylas, Ducas, and the anonymous _Hist. Epirot._,

speak of these events occurring ‘in the springtime’.

[413] _Chron. of Abbey of Tronosha_, section 54, p. 84, and _Chron. of

Pek_, p. 53: cited by Mijatovitch, p. 12 n.

[414]

‘Sans arrêter, pendant quinze jours pleins,

J’ai cheminé le long des hordes turques,

Sans en trouver ni la fin ni le nombre.’--A. d’Avril, p. 36.

[415] Orbini, pp. 314-15. See also the Serbian songs about Kossova,

which are accessible in the form of a continuous narrative in French

by Adolphe d’Avril, and in English by Mme Mijatovitch, based on the

composite poems of Stoyan Novakovich and A. Pavich.

[416] Solakzadé, cited by Col. Djevad bey, p. 196. The bow was used as

an offensive arm by the Osmanlis until the middle of Murad II’s reign.

[417] Seadeddin, i. 147-52; Chalc., I, p. 53; Ducas, 3, pp. 15-16;

_Hist. Epir._, p. 234; the Serbian chants; Bonincontrius, col. 52; and

the modern writers, Hertzberg, pp. 503-7; Jireček, pp. 342-4; Fessler,

ii. 254; von Kállay, i. 166; Klaić, pp. 236-40. Most illuminating of

all is Rački, in Croatian, in _Jugoslav. Akademie_, iii. 92 f.

[418] Clavijo de Gonzáles, fol. 27 rº.

[419] _Annales_, ii. 186.

[420] This speech, from the chronicle of Monk Pahomye, is given in

Mijatovitch, p. 17.

[421] Busbecq, English ed., i. 153; cf. Ricaut, ed. of 1682, p. 159.

[422] Const. Porphyr., i. 394, 396, 405.

[423] Howorth, ii. 796, commenting on Stoddard’s audience with the Emir

of Bukhara.

[424] Text in _Mon. spect. hist. Slav. Merid._, i. 528-9.

[425] _Chronique du Religieux de St.-Denis_ (ed. Bellaguet), ii. 391.

[426] MS., Wiener Bibl., Gesch. gr., 48.

[427] As far as such records are accessible in the great collection of

Miklositch and Müller. The statement of Ducas, 23, p. 137, about the

persecutions of Christians by Murad, is without any foundation.

[428] Phr., I. 26, p. 82; Chalc., I, p. 59; Duc., 3, p. 16; also the

Ottoman historians.

[429] Sura IV, verse 94 (Sale trans., p. 64).

[430] Sura V, verse 53 (ibid., p. 77).

[431] Hammer, iii. 302-4. Rambaud, _Histoire générale_, iii. 831, is

mistaken in attributing this law to Bayezid.

[432] Ruled 1350 to 1369.

[433] In 1330. Panaretos, p. 7.

[434] In 1320 at Salonika: Greg., VII. 13, p. 271.

[435] Month of Shaban, a.h. 791: MS. turc, Bibl. Nat., Paris, No. 79,

pp. 35, 40. Cf. Langlès, in _Notices et Extraits_, v. 672.

[436] Froissart, IV. c. 47, in Kervyn ed., xv. 216-17. Froissart calls

Bayezid ‘Amoruth-Baquin’, confusing him with Murad. See below, p. 213,

_n._ 2.

[437] Abul Yussif ibn Taghry, _Elmanhal Essafy_, Bibl. Nat., Paris,

fonds arabe, No. 748, ii, fol. 70.

[438] Vuk Brankovitch, as the reward of his treason, received half of

Lazar’s inheritance, however, with Pristina as capital. His family

continued as Ottoman vassals, with varying fortunes, for a hundred

years.

[439] Ducas, 4, p. 6.

[440] Kantitz, _Serbien_, pp. 254 f.

[441] Busbequius was informed at Constantinople that marriage had been

abolished in the Ottoman royal family because Bayezid took to heart the

disgrace of Despina by Timur. But Ricaut, p. 296, thinks that it was

because of dowry expense and the desire of the Ottoman sovereigns to

keep free from family alliances. Naturally, the difference of religion

in time prevented the Osmanlis from finding brides for their sovereigns

among the European royal families. If they married among their

subjects, there was always fear of intrigues in the wife’s family. At a

time when family alliances meant so much in Europe, the Ottoman Empire

suffered greatly from this disability.

[442] Seadeddin, i. 158.

[443] Klaić, p. 248. I think Romanin, iii. 331, has confused Stephen

Bulcovitch with Stephen Tvrtko. For it is difficult to understand what

he means by the ‘pace vergognosa’ with Venice.

[444] Old Servian chronicle, quoted by Klaić, p. 271: ‘quasi totaliter

destruxerunt Bosniam et populum abduxerunt.’

[445] Klaić, pp. 324-5.

[446] Accounts differ as to the place. There is some doubt as to

whether the independence of Aïdin was totally destroyed before

the restoration of Isa’s sons by Timur. Cf. Schlumberger, p. 484;

Mas-Latrie, _Trésor de Chronologie_, col. 1800. Hammer, i. 300, cites

no authorities for his statements about this usurpation.

[447] Bosio, ii. 143.

[448] Ibid., ii. 148.

[449] There is the same dearth of information about the details of

the destruction of the power of the emirs of Sarukhan and Menteshe as

there is about Aïdin. Hammer says simply, ‘Les principautés de S. et M.

furent incorporées à l’empire ottoman,’ i. 300. He gives no authorities.

[450] Ducas, 13, p. 47.

[451] _Dialogi XXVI cum Persa quodam de Christianae religionis

veritate_, Bibl. Nat., Paris, fonds grec, No. 1253: partly printed in

_Notices et Extraits_, vol. viii, 2e partie, and in Migne, 156, pp.

111-74. In _Notices et Extraits_, loc. cit., C. B. Hase has given an

interesting critical account of the dialogues, and the circumstances

under which they were written.

[452] Seadeddin, i. 163. In Hammer, i. 301, in the sentence ‘quoique,

depuis la paix renouvelée avec lui par Orkhan, les deux nations eussent

continuellement vécu dans des relations de sincère amitié’, is not

Murad meant instead of Orkhan?

[453] Evliya effendi, ii. 21, tells how Bayezid passed _seven times in

one year_ from Anatolia to Wallachia.

[454] In matters relating to the progress of Ottoman conquest in Asia

Minor, French, German, and British writers have been content to repeat,

without critical comment, what they have culled from Leunclavius or

the translations of Seadeddin. In many cases, they have gone back no

farther than Hammer, and have transcribed, often literally, Hammer’s

words. Hammer himself, in this early period of Ottoman history, in

spite of his attainments as an orientalist, has relied mainly on

Leunclavius, and on Bratutti’s Italian translation of Seadeddin.

[455] ‘La principauté _fut pour toujours réunie à l’empire_,’ Hammer,

i. 308. In speaking of this second campaign, Hammer starts by saying,

‘Le prince de Karamanie avait de nouveau _levé l’étendard de la

révolte_’. This is hardly the expression to use for the action of an

independent prince. Alaeddin had never made himself the vassal of the

Ottoman emirs.

[456] Striking testimony to the later power of the Karamanlis is given

by Bertrandon de la Broquière, who visited the court of Ibrahim with

the Cypriote ambassador in 1443: cf. Schéfer’s edition of his voyage,

pp. 108-20. See Appendix B below, where the relations of the Osmanlis

with the emirates of Asia Minor during the fourteenth century are

discussed in detail, with fuller citation of authorities.

[457] Howorth, iii. 749.

[458] Sherefeddin, iii. 256, who is the only contemporary authority,

says that Bayezid put him to death. This was one of the charges made by

Timur against Bayezid.

[459] The earliest possible date could be 1393. Perhaps the Osmanlis

first appeared near Sivas at this time. But Bayezid would hardly have

undertaken so long and perilous an expedition before his position was

secure in Karamania. Sherefeddin gives the more likely date 1395, while

Ibn-Hedjir places the death of Burhaneddin in 1396.

[460] So d’Ohsson fils, vii. 442, says, but gives date 1390. Hammer

more correctly puts it in 1391. Xénopol, in his authoritative and

carefully documented history, gives a little different account of

Mircea’s early relations with Bayezid, and attributes to Mircea a

larger influence in the calculations of Murad than he deserves. But the

exposition of Mircea’s policy in relation to Poland, Hungary, and the

Osmanlis, as given by Xénopol, cannot be overlooked or disregarded by

the student of this period.

[461] ‘Pierre Aron fut le premier des hospodars qui paya un tribut

aux Turcs’: Costin’s _Hist. de la Moldavie_, p. 367, in _Notices et

Extraits_, vol. xi.

[462] Phr., I. 13-14, pp. 58-9, and 26, p. 82; Bonfinius, iii. 2;

_Chron. Anon. de St.-Denis_; Chron. of Drechsler; Campana, fol. 8

(but gives date 1393). Leuncl., _Annales_, p. 51, following Ottoman

sources, speaks only of Sigismund’s defeat. This earlier victory and

the disastrous retreat are mentioned also in several of the French

chronicles which relate the expedition of 1396.

[463] Engel, _Gesch. von Ungarn_, ii. 368, who draws on all the earlier

Hungarian authorities.

[464] Russian source cited by Muralt, vol. ii, No. 10 n.

[465] Cf. Baedeker, _Konst. und Kleinasien_, 2. Aufl., p. 46.

[466] Jireček, _Gesch. der Bulgaren_, pp. 347-9, gives Slavic sources

for this date, and quotes Camblak’s graphic description of the terrible

sacking of the city, the massacre, and the destruction of the churches.

[467] In Czech, the word _jazyk_ signifies _language_ as well as

_nation_ (cf. Lützow, _Life and Times of Master John Hus_, p. 239).

This illustrates the Slavic conception of nationality, and explains

in a nutshell the Austro-Hungarian and Balkan problems. To the Slav,

there can be no other test of nationality. The Bulgarian propaganda in

Macedonia, carried on through the church and the schools, has been the

resurrection of the nation through the language. The Greeks have used

the Orthodox Church to combat and stifle this movement. They claim as

Greeks all members of the Orthodox Church, while the Bulgarians claim

that Bulgarophones, even if not attached to the exarchate, belong to

the Bulgarian nation.

[468] Schiltberger, Neumann ed., p. 65. On this question cf. Jireček,

op. cit., pp. 350-2; Miller, p. 189; and illuminating note of Rambaud,

in _Hist. générale_, iii. 832 _n._ Also p. 143 of this book and

accompanying foot-note.

[469] Schiltberger, op. et loc. cit.

[470] These cities, or rather, their fortresses, were captured and

evacuated several times by the Osmanlis, especially Widin.

[471] Hammer, at the beginning of the reign of Bayezid, i. 295-7,

relates the history of the quarrel between Andronicus and his father

and Manuel, the rescue from the Tower of Anemas, &c., as if these

events happened in 1389 and 1390, and gives the capture of Philadelphia

for 1391. He has been led astray here by the story of Ducas, and by the

fact that the Byzantine historians speak of Bayezid instead of Murad

in connexion with the negotiations for restoration. By the internal

evidence in the Byzantine historians themselves, the chronology of this

period cannot be decided. But, by reading Phrantzes and Chalcocondylas

in the light of Quirino, the continuation of Dandolo, and the archives

of the colony of Pera, and also by piecing out the length of time of

these events and matching them with Bayezid’s occupations during the

first two years of his reign, it is not difficult to decide to place

the Andronicus _versus_ John and Manuel struggles just before the

Chioggia war. At any rate, Andronicus died ten years before the date

Hammer gives to these events!

[472] Poem cited by Muralt, ii. 738, No. 1.

[473] MS. Bibl. Nat., Paris, fonds grec, No. 1253, fol. 198 vº.

[474] John V Palaeologos was of those who, in the words of Bernino (p.

9), ‘consumavasi vanamente il tempo più in dolersi delle calamità che

in repararle’.

[475] Ducas, 13, pp. 25-49 _passim_; Chalc., II, pp. 66, 81-2.

[476] Evliya effendi, i. 29-30; ii. 21, who repeats the persistent

Ottoman tradition of his day, that is also found in Hadji Khalfa and

Nazmi Zadé. Cf. the Genoese accounts of Pera in Jorga’s scholarly

_Notes à servir_, &c. i. 42. According to Schéfer, in his edition of

Bertrandon de la Broquière, p. 165, there was a provision that slaves

escaping to Constantinople should be given back, but we cannot be

sure that this stipulation was made under Bayezid I. The date of the

installation of the cadi, &c., is open to question. Some authorities

place it after Nicopolis.

[477] Shehabeddin, fol. 72 rº, writes _Istanbul_; Sherefeddin, iv. 37,

is transcribed by Petits de la Croix _Istanbol_; Arabshah, p. 124,

transcribed by Vattier _Estanbol_. Wylie, i. 156, _n._ 2, gives the

time-worn popular derivation from εἰς τὴν πόλιν; also Telfer, in his

edition of Schiltberger, p. 119. Why go so far afield? _Istambul_ is a

natural contraction of Constantinople. As the Greeks pronounced this

long word, the syllables _stan_ and _pol_ bore the stress, and were

naturally put together for a shortened form. As for the initial _I_,

which has troubled the philologists, its explanation is easy to one who

knows the Osmanlis. They cannot to this day pronounce an initial _St_

without putting _I_ before it.

[478] Neshri, trans. Nöldeke, _ZDMG._, xv. 345; Seadeddin, i. 189;

Saguntinus, p. 187; Drechsler, p. 228, says: ‘octo annos vexatur et

obsidetur.’

[479] Duc., 13, p. 50.

[480] Muralt, ii. 753, No. 29.

[481] _Secr. Cons. Rog._, III, E 84.

[482] Chalc., II, pp. 80-1; Phr., I. 13, pp. 57-8; 26, p. 82.

[483] Miklositch, _Acta Serbica_, CCIV. Hammer, i. 341, calls this

Constantine ‘fils de Twarko’, meaning Stephen Tvrtko, I suppose. But I

cannot find that the Bosnian king had such a son, or any reason, if he

had, why this son should have been at Serres.

[484] Ibid., CCXXIII. For the later kings of the dynasty which Vuk

founded, see Picot’s careful article in _Columna lui Traianu_, new

ser., Jan.-Feb. 1883, p. 64 f.

[485] _Epp. cur._, ii. 64.

[486] _Epp. cur._, ii. 103-4. Urban VI in 1387 had written a letter

from Lucca inciting the Frankish princes to a war against ‘schismatics’

in Achaia.

[487] _Secr. Cons. Rog._, iii, E 74.

[488] Miklositch-Müller, _Acta Graeca_, CCCCXXXV.

[489] Chalc., II, p. 75; Duc., 13, p. 73.

[490] Chalc., loc. cit.; _Epp. cur._, ii. 300-1, 311; iii. 261.

[491] Cf. Jorga, in _Bibl. de l’École des Chartes_, 2e série,

110e fascic.; Molinier, MSS. de P. de Mézières, in _Arch. de

l’Orient Latin_, i. 335-64; Del. Leroulx, i. 201-8.

[492] ‘Nostra dominatio audiverat de morte ipsius dom. Morati, de

qua maximam displicentiam habuerat, quia semper eum habuimus in

singularissimum amicum, et dileximus eum et statum suum. Similiter

audivimus de felici creatione sua ad imperium et dominium ipsius patris

sui, de quo nos fuerimus valde letati, quia sicut sincere dileximus

patrem, ita diligimus et diligere dispositi sumus filium et suum

dominium et habere ipsum in singularem amicum’ ... &c.: _Misti_, xli.

24, reprinted in full in Ljubić, iv. 269-70.

[493] Ibid., xlii. 58-9; the treaty is in _Commem._, viii. 150. Cf.

Romanin, iii. 330.

[494] Euboea is called Negropont, the Peloponnesus Morea, Lesbos

Mytilene, while Crete is frequently called Candia and Chios Scio, in

mediaeval and modern times.

[495] _Misti_, xlii. 55.

[496] Ibid., xliii. 156.

[497] _Secr. Cons. Rog._, iii. E 81.

[498] ‘Ire contra dictos Turchos ad damnum et destructionem suam’:

ibid., p. 94, cited in Ljubić, iv. 335-6.

[499] _Misti_, lxiv. 140.

[500] Ibid., lxiv. 156.

[501] We must reject the statement of Morosini, MS. Wiener Bibl., fol.

135 rº, that Bayezid ‘entered in arms in the Strait of Romania with

so many galleys that one could not navigate in the strait’, and doubt

the opinion that Monicego, with his forty-four Venetian and Genoese

galleys, had to force the Bosphorus, and contributed powerfully ‘a la

destrucion del dito Turcho’.

[502] _Misti_, xliii. 29.

[503] Ibid., xliii. 5: ‘confidasse in Dio, confidasse nei provedimenti

che saprebbero à fare i principi christiani, scrivesse al Papa e a

questi promovendo una lega generale’.

[504] Ibid., xliv. 108.

[505] Ibid., xliv. 128.

[506] Belgrano, pp. 152-3.

[507] _Lib. iurium_, ann. 1392, fol. 474, in Turin archives, printed in

_Bibl. de l’École des Chartes_ (1857), 4e série, iii. 451-2.

[508] _Religieux de St.-Denis_, ed. Bellaguet, i. 319-21.

[509] _Chronicorum Karoli Sexti_, ed. Bellaguet, i. 709-11. The

relations of the ambassadors of Sigismund with the Duke of Burgundy and

with Charles VI are found in _Religieux de Saint-Denis_.

[510] On September 13, 1395, in the presence of ambassadors from all

parts of Christendom, and also ‘del gran Turco, del Rè de’ Tartari, del

gran Soldano, del gran Tamerlano e di molti altri Principi infedeli

e ribelli alla Fede christiana’, who were treated like Christians

and lodged at the expense of ‘il Signore di Milano’, Galeazzo was

solemnly raised to ducal rank and invested with the Duchy of Milan by

Wenceslaus: Andrea Gataro, in Muratori, xvii, col. 820.

[511] _Mémoires de Madame de Lussan_, iii. 5.

[512] The references to Froissart which follow are given from vol. xv

of Kervyn de Lettenhove’s edition, and the references to Schiltberger

from the English translation in the Hakluyt Society series, vol. lviii,

unless otherwise specified.

[513] See the sources and references for Nicopolis grouped in the

classified bibliography. Although the citations in the text of my

narrative are mostly from Froissart and Schiltberger, all chronicles

and contemporary sources available have been used in the preparation

of this section, especially Bellaguet’s edition of _Religieux de

Saint-Denis_, ii. 425-30, 483-522 (Bellaguet’s notes, however, on these

sections are very disappointing).

[514] Froissart, pp. 218, 221, 223.

[515] Ibid., pp. 227-8, 230, 394-8. A complete list of the chevaliers,

compiled from sources, is found in Buchon, and, in much more complete

and accurate form, in Delaville Leroulx, ii. 78-86.

[516] Froissart, and other earlier writers, have several ways of

designating Bayezid. Froissart calls him Amorath-Baquin (p. 216),

Amorath (p. 226), le roy Basaach, dit l’Amourath-Bacquin(p. 230),

l’Amourath-Bacquin many times, and l’Amourath three times in one

paragraph (p. 311). Chroniclers and writers of the fifteenth century

were continually confusing Bayezid with Murad (cf. Cuspianus,

Secundinus, Sylvius Aeneas, Donado da Lezze, Paolo Giovio, _et

al._). From the different ways Froissart designates Bayezid, it is

very clear that he is not mixing him with Murad, but that by ‘dit

l’Amourath-Bacquin’ he means ‘_l’émir-pacha_’. The fact that he uses

the definite article so frequently and says several times ‘l’Amourath’

is proof positive of this. His transcription of the title _emir_, and

that of many other western writers, led later historians to think the

chroniclers meant Murad! It is merely a coincidence that the words are

so similar. Froissart, however, would be capable of mistaking Murad

for Bayezid. On p. 216 he calls Sigismund Henry, and on p. 334 Louis!

Olivier de la Marche (éd. Beaune et d’Arbuthnot), i. 83-4, speaks twice

of ‘Lamourath-bahy’. Here, too, there is not a confusion of Murad and

Bayezid. He, like Froissart, means to say ‘l’amiral-pacha’. On ‘amiral’

for ‘emir’ see above, p. 163, _n._ 2.

[517] Froissart, pp. 230-1, 242.

[518] Donado da Lezze, p. 9.

[519] Leunclavius, _Hist. Musul. Turc._, preface, p. 14, speaks of

how grateful Sigismund was later for the services rendered to him

personally by the Burgrave in the Nicopolis campaign, and that the

friendship formed then led to the later advancement of the house of

Brandenburg.

[520] Wylie, i. 6, 158, quoting Ducas, 13, and _Venetian State Papers_

(Brown), i. 85. Ducas knew nothing of Nicopolis, while the Venetian

reference is based on a misapprehension.

[521] Lavisse, _Histoire de France_, iv. 311: ‘on l’avait vu à la

bataille de Nicopoli sur les bords de la Baltique avec les chevaliers

_teutoniques_.’ Lavisse has evidently mixed up the Nicopolis expedition

with the earlier Prussian one in which Henry did take part. His

statement on the same page that Henry IV took part in the Boucicaut

expedition is another error.

[522] Conclusive proof of the whereabouts of Henry in the summer of

1396 is found in the letter ‘escript ... le xxe jour d’augst’. This

letter is in Arch. Nat., Paris, J. 644: 35^{11}. For the expeditions in

which Henry _did_ take part, when he was Henry of Derby, see vol. lii

of the Camden Society, edited by Lucy Toulmin Smith, London, 1894, 4to.

[523] Froissart, p. 244.

[524] Phr., I. 14, p. 59; Bontinius, III. 2.

[525] Engel, _Geschichte der Bulgaren_, p. 468. According to the

authority who has made the most exhaustive study of the Nicopolis

expedition, Sigismund disposed of 120,000 men in all, including the

western allies: Kiss, in _À Nikápolyi ülkozet_, p. 266. Kiss’s estimate

is corroborated by the _Cronica Dolfina_, which says that Sigismund

had one hundred thousand men under arms in 1394. Sanuto quotes this in

Muratori, xxii, col. 762. Cf. also Hungarian Nat. Archives, Dipl. 8201,

8212, 8214, 8493, 8541.

[526] Schiltberger, p. 2.

[527] Bruun, in his _Geographische Anmerkungen zum Reisebuch von

Schiltberger_ (_Sitz.-Ber. k. Bay. Akademie_, 1869, ii. 271), tried to

prove that the battle was fought, not at Nicopolis on the Danube, but

near the ancient Nicopolis of Trajan’s foundation. But in his notes to

the English translation of Schilt., Hakluyt, lviii. 108-9, he assents

to the contention which Kanitz makes in _Donau-Bulgarien_, ii. 58-70,

that the battle was near Nicopolis-on-the-Danube. An examination of

the chronicles corroborates Kanitz’s hypothesis over against the

ingenuous argument of Jireček. Some historians have been so unmindful

of geographical considerations as to put the battle at the ancient

Nicopolis _ad Haemum_, of which Ortellius, p. 225, speaks.

[528] Schiltberger, p. 2.

[529] Froissart, pp. 251, 262-3, 310, 329. ‘Miscreant’, of course, in

its original sense.

[530] Ibid., p. 310.

[531] Ibid., pp. 311-17; _Relig. de St.-Denis_, pp. 490-7.

Schiltberger, p. 3, attributes this initiative to Jean de Nevers, whom,

like many other writers on Nicopolis, he calls, by anticipation, Duke

of Burgundy. Cf. Donado da Lezze, p. 9, who says: ‘Il signor Carlo,

_prima_ Duca di Borgogna.’ Also Morosini, p. 6. Sigismund is frequently

spoken of as German emperor at the time of Nicopolis. Cf. Chalc.,

ed. Migne, col. 76: ἡγουμένου Σιγισυούνδου Ῥωμαίων βασιλέως τε καὶ

αὐτοκράτορος.

[532] Rabbi Joseph, i. 252.

[533] Froissart, pp. 313-16; _Relig. de St.-Denis_, pp. 490 f.; Rabbi

Joseph, p. 253; Schiltberger, p. 3; Seadeddin, i. 184; Neshri, in

_ZDMG._, xv. 345-8. Cf. authorities cited in Bibliography.

[534] Froissart, p. 317. Hermann de Cilly and the Burgrave of Nürnberg

are said by some authorities to have thrown themselves in front of

Sigismund, and to have saved him and carried him off to the boat.

[535] The bitterness against and contempt for the Hungarians is

expressed in the following verses:

‘Nichopoly, cité de payennie,

Au temps là où li sièges fut grans,

Fut delaissés par orgueil et folie;

Car les Hongres qui furent sur les champs

Avec leur roy, fuitis et récréans,

Leur roy meisme enmainent par puissance,

Sans assembler.’

_Œuvres inédites d’Eustache des Champs_, ed. Tarbé, 1849, i. 166.

[536] Schiltberger calls him ‘der hertzog auss der Sirifey, der genant

despot’: _Bibl. des Lit. Vereins_ (Tübingen), clxxii. 4.

[537] Cf. Miller, in Story of Nations Series, pp. 290-1.

[538] Belonging to the grand master of Rhodes: Froissart, p. 317.

But Morosini, p. 15, and others, say that he went directly on board

Monicego’s galley. It is a pity that Hammer, in his description of the

battle of Nicopolis, relied so much on such an unreliable third-hand

authority as Abbé Vertot. Skentkláráy, _À dunai hajóhadak törtenéte_,

says that Jean de Vienne commanded the galleys.

[539] Schiltberger, p. 6.

[540] Bonfinius, one of the earliest Hungarian historians, recorded

that Sigismund had boasted that he would not only turn the Osmanlis out

of Europe, but also that with the army under his command, if the sky

fell, it could be held up on their lances: _Decades_, ii. 403.

[541] ‘Sigismund was cruel and sensual, perjured and frivolous,

rapacious and dissolute, fierce and pusillanimous, a byword and object

of horror to the Bohemians, hated and despised by the Germans, a

warning to all rulers. His companion, John XXIII, lewd and murderous, a

simonist and an infidel, was a true comrade for Sigismund in all evil

deeds’: Dr. Flajshans, in _Mistr Jan Hus_: quotation translated by

Count Lützow, _John Hus and his Times_, pp. 137-8.

[542] Froissart, pp. 330-1.

[543] But not until he ‘regracioit les dieux et les déesses selon la

loy où il creoit et que les paiens croient’: Froissart, p. 321. The

ignorance among the western chroniclers of everything pertaining to the

Osmanlis--or the wider circle of Mohammedan peoples--was appalling.

[544] Schiltberger, p. 5. Cf. Froissart, pp. 322-8; _Relig. de

St.-Denis_; _Chronique de Boucicaut_; _Chronique des 4 premiers

Valois_, éd. Luce, p. 326; and the other chronicles and secondary

authorities given in Bibliography.

[545] Xénopol, in _Hist, générale_, iii. 882, whose writings furnish

the most reliable and most accessible data for Rumanian history, allows

his patriotism to get the better of his judgement when he writes that

this unimportant skirmish was a complete defeat inflicted upon Bayezid,

and that ‘le Sultan court jusqu’à Adrinople’! Xénopol makes no attempt

to explain the battle of Nicopolis, and Mircea’s action in and after

the battle.

[546] Schiltberger, p. 6. Chalc., II, pp. 76-80, who exaggerates the

raid to the point of saying that Bayezid reached the environs of Buda.

[547] _Secr. Cons. Rog._, iii. 134-5. _Mém. d’Olivier de la Marche_

(éd. Beaune et d’Arbuthnot), i. 199-200, reads as if Bayezid had

actually taken possession of Hungary.

[548] MS. Bibl. Nat., Paris, fonds turc, No. 79, pp. 61 f. (collection

of Feridun). For wrong date, see Langlès, in _Acad. des Inscriptions_,

iv. 673-4.

[549] Schiltberger, p. 7, who would have been chosen himself for Egypt

but for the fact that he had been wounded.

[550] Froissart, p. 341; Rabbi Joseph, p. 254.

[551] Froissart, p. 345. In xvi. 40, Froissart makes a mistake in

saying that the body of the Comte d’Eu was ‘en ung sarcus rapporté

en France et ensevely en l’eglise Saint-Laurent d’Eu, et là gist

moult honnourablement’. The tomb in St. Laurent is merely a memorial.

Philippe was buried in the chapel of a monastery in Galata, where,

seven years later, Clavijo, fol. 17 vº, saw his burial-spot, but

unmarked. His tomb is described by Bulladius, who saw it in 1647, in

his notes to Bonn ed. of Ducas, p. 560. Cf. Mordtmann, _Beiträge zur

osmanischen Epigraphik_, I, in _ZDMG._ (1911), lxv. 103.

[552] Froissart, xv. 329, 332, 342 f., 355-8; xvi. 16.

[553] Godefroy, _Hist. de Boucicaut_ (1620 ed.), i. 16; Ducas, p. 52.

[554] _Chronique d’Enguerran de Monstrelet_ (ed. Douet d’Areq), i.

332-3; Froissart, xvi. 57-9.

[555] Jean de Nevers, as Duc de Bourgogne and leader of the faction

against the king’s brother, openly accepted the responsibility of the

assassination of the Duc d’Orléans. This was the beginning of the

Burgundy-Armagnac civil war, which delivered France to the English

until Jeanne d’Arc appeared to awaken the French to a feeling of

nationality.

[556] Froissart, xvi. 47. For ransom, ibid., pp. 37-8, and Rabbi

Joseph, i. 254; also _Livre des faicts_ of Boucicaut, _passim_.

[557] Raynaldus, ann. 1364, No. XXVIII. Jireček, _Gesch. der Bulg._,

p. 323, says that at this time ‘Osmanen erschienen in Attika’. He has

mistaken roving Turkish corsairs of Sarukhan or Aïdin for the Osmanlis.

It must have been these Turks who attacked Thebes.

[558] For the deliverance of the grand master of Rhodes, Jean Ferdinand

d’Hérédia: Ducange, viii. 296.

[559] _Chron. Breve_ at end of Ducas, p. 516.

[560] Ibid. According to Finlay, iv. 233, he captured Akova. Cf.

Muralt, ii. 741, citing Guichenon MS., and Ducange, viii. 39, 296.

[561] Phr., I. 16, p. 62; 26, p. 83; Chalc., II, pp. 67-9.

[562] Muralt, under 1395 and 1397, gives the same expedition. From

internal evidence of Byzantine historians, one might put the Morean

expeditions in either or both of these years. But cf. _Chron. Breve_,

p. 516, and the silence of the Ottoman historians on an expedition in

1395.

[563] Chalc., II, p. 67; Seadeddin, i. 192.

[564] Chalc., II, p. 67; Seadeddin, i. 192.

[565] _Chron. Breve_, p. 516; Phr., I. 16, p. 62; Chalc., II, pp. 97-9.

[566] Seadeddin, i. 193.

[567] The Venetians seized Athens in 1395, and sent Antonio Contareno

to act as governor.

[568] Hammer describes the capture of Athens in 1397 in i. 350, and

again in 1456 in iii. 51.

[569] Gibbon and Hammer follow Chalcocondylas in this error. Cf. Berger

de Xivrey, in _Mém. de l’Acad. des Inscr._, vol. xix, partie 2, pp.

29-30.

[570] Seadeddin, i. 180.

[571] Ducas, 13, p. 50; Chalc., II, p. 59; Idris.

[572] The land walls of Salonika, still standing, are eloquent proof

of the difficulty which confronted their assailants before the days of

cannon.

[573] Phr., I. 17, p. 64.

[574] See p. 199. There is serious difference of opinion as to just

when these concessions were made.

[575] Feridun collection, letter from Adrianople, ordering kadis to

prepare for siege of Constantinople: Bibl. Nat., Paris, fonds turc, No.

79, p. 60.

[576] Ducas, 14, p. 53; Canale, ii. 62. Leunclavius, _Annales_, p. 52,

puts this in 1391/2.

[577] Karamzin (Russian ed. of 1819), v. 164.

[578] Miklositch-Müller, _Acta Graeca_, DCXXXVI.

[579] Ibid., DXIV, DXV, DXVI.

[580] Froissart, xvi. 132-3.

[581] _Religieux de Saint-Denis_, ii. 559-62, 564.

[582] _Secreta Consilii Rogatorum_, E iii. 138, 146, printed in Ljubić,

iv. 404.

[583] Ibid., p. 137.

[584] _Misti_, xliv. 210, xlv. 443; Belgrano, _Arch. Gen._, 1396-1464,

pp. 175 f.

[585] Ducas, 14, p. 53; Chalc., II, p. 80; Sherefeddin, iv. 38.

[586] ‘El Cuirol castello de Grecia está despoblado y destruydo y el

dela Turquia está poblado’: Seville ed., 1582, fol. 17 v°. Busbecq,

i. 131, wrote: ‘stand two castles opposite each other, one in Europe

and the other in Asia.... The former was held by the Turks a long

time before the attack on Constantinople.’ Busbecq was, of course,

misinformed, as Rumeli Hissar was built in 1452. It is still standing

in excellent preservation. Anatoli Hissar, of which only one tower

remains intact, was built between 1392 and 1397. There is no way of

determining the exact date. But Saladin, in _Manuel de l’Art Musulman_,

i. 482, displays his usual inaccuracy concerning facts of Ottoman

history, when he gives 1420 as the date for Anatoli Hissar.

[587] Phr., I. 14, p. 60; Chalc., II, p. 83; Ducas, 14, p. 53.

[588] Venice contemplated action against the Osmanlis with the aid of

France, Hungary, and Genoa. Cf. _Secr. Cons. Rog._, E iii. 137-44.

[589] _Epp._, v. 26, 99, 293-5.

[590] Edition of Seville, 1582, fol. 16 v°-17 r°.

[591] My account of this expedition is taken from MS. Bibl. Nat.,

Paris, fonds fr., No. 11432, _Livre des faicts du bon messire Jean le

Maingre, dit Bouciquaut_. For printed editions, see Bibliography.

[592] The chronicler makes the most astonishing assertions as to these

raids, saying that the chevaliers reached Ak-Seraï! He evidently had no

idea of local geography. I have been unable to identify several of the

places mentioned.

[593] I have walked in one day from Riva to a point on the Bosphorus

not many miles above Constantinople. When one reads the history of the

Osmanlis in the country of their origin, the fact that from the very

beginning of their history they were practically within sight of the

imperial city is vividly impressed upon one.

[594] The Byzantine historians give little attention to Boucicaut, and

are in contradiction with his chronicler on this point. Phr., 15, p.

61, says that John, who had been in the court of Bayezid, fled to his

uncle because he had been slandered to Bayezid, and was afraid for his

life; and Chalc., II, p. 84, that it was John who commanded the 10,000

Osmanlis against the city, and that Manuel shared the throne with him

in order to save the city. Muralt, ii. 762, is a year in advance of the

actual date.

[595] _Chron. de Saint-Denis_ and Juvenal d’Ursins. But these are

really the same source, according to Lacabane, _Bibl. de l’École des

Chartes_, ii. 62.

[596] Foglieta and Stella, in Muralt, ii. 778, No. 61.

[597] Sanudo, in Muratori, xxii. pp. 794-8.

[598] Chalc., II, pp. 83-4; Ducas, 14, pp. 54-6. For Rhodes and the

Pope in the Morea, Phr., I. 16, p. 63; Bosio, ii. 154.

[599] September 10, 1400, in _Misti_, xlv. 33.

[600] _Livre des faicts_, fol. 53 r°-55 r°, and Wylie, pp. 159-65.

Wylie has collated admirably the sources on Manuel’s visit.

[601] Text is published in Theiner, ii. 170-2.

[602] _Epp._, v. 300-2; vi. 92.

[603] ‘Cum Dom. summus Pontifex advertens quod perfidus ille Baysetus

Princeps Turchorum, manu potenti et brachio extento in Christianum

Populum maxima feritate extitit debachatus ad Exterminium Civitatis

Constantinopolitanae et universitatis Populi Christiani _nisi eius

nephanda propositio resistatur_, omnes et singulos qui, pro Liberatione

et Subsidione Manuelis Imp. Cpni et dictae Civitatis suae, Manus

adiutrices porrexerint ...’ etc.: Rymer, vol. iii, part 4, pp. 195-6.

[604] Clavijo, who visited Constantinople the following year, reports

this, fol. 7 v°.

[605] Miklositch-Müller, _Acta_, DCXXVI.

[606] Strikingly shown in letter of April 20, 1402: _Canc. Secr._, i.

58.

[607] _Misti_, xlv. 19-23, 25-6, 29-30, 35, 87; xlvi. 37. Several of

these are published in Ljubić, iv. 579, 590.

[608] Knoelle, in _Journal R. A. S._ (1822), xiv. 125; Nöldeke, in

_ZDMG._ (1859), xiii. 185, _n._ 6.

[609] ‘Toutesfoiz il a la main senestre et pié senestre comme impotent

et ne s’en puet aidier, car il a les nerfs coppez’: Dominican Friar, p.

463. ‘Infirmus, ut dicitur, a cingulo infra’: Stella, in Muratori, vol.

xvii. col. 1194. Cf. Sherefeddin, i. 55, 381. The English corruption

Tamerlane is from Timurlenk, the latter syllable signifying lameness.

[610] Sherefeddin, ii. 222.

[611] There is an excellent account of the dynasties of the Black and

White Sheep, with list, following Mirkhand, in Teixera, ii. 24-39,

69-70. For the later activities of Kara-Yussuf, Teixera, ii. 355; de

Guignes, iii. 302.

[612] Langlès translation, p. 260.

[613] Ibid., pp. 258-62; Sherefeddin, iii. 255-62; Clavijo de Gonzáles,

fol. 25 r°-26 v°.

[614] Chalcocondylas and Raynaldus are wrong in calling him Ertogrul,

and in stating that he was killed in the subsequent siege. Sherefeddin,

iii. 267, calls him Mustafa, and Schiltberger, p. 18, Mohammed. That

it was Soleiman is proved by the agreement of the Ottoman historians

with Arabshah, p. 124, and with Clavijo, fol. 26 r°, whose ‘Musulman

Tchelebi’ is Soleiman.

[615] Hadji Khalfa, _Djihannuma_, vol. ii, fol. 1776.

[616] Clavijo, fol. 26 r°; Arabshah, p. 125.

[617] Clavijo, fol. 26 v°-27 r°; Arabshah, p. 125; Sherefeddin, iii.

267-9; Dominican Friar, p. 264; Schiltberger, p. 18. Schiltberger says

21 days, and 5,000 horsemen buried, and 9,000 virgins carried off by

the Tartars.

[618] It is impossible to understand why Muralt, with all the

authorities he had at hand, places the taking of Sivas in 1395:

_Chronographie Byzantine_, ii. 753, No. 26. The contemporary

authorities cited above establish the date. Cf. also letter from

Crete, in Jorga, _Notes à servir_, &c., i. 106, _n._ 3. There is a

full discussion of the proper dating of the Ottoman aggression against

Sivas, Caesarea, and Erzindjian, and the probability of two Ottoman

campaigns, one before and one after Nicopolis, in Bruun’s note to the

Hakluyt edition of Schiltberger, pp. 121-2.

[619] The letters exchanged between Charles VI and Timur are preserved

in the French archives. The Turkish text of these letters, with Latin

translation, is published by Charrière, introd., i. 118-19.

[620] Stella, in Muratori, xvii. 1194.

[621] ‘En la qual batalla se acaescieron Payo de Soto Mayor e Hernan

Sanchez de Palaçuelos Embaxadores’: Clavijo, fol. 1 r°, col. 2.

[622] Letters of Timur and Bayezid in Arabic and Persian in Feridun

collection, MS. Bibl. Nat., Paris, ancien fonds turc, pp. 65-91. Cf.

Langlès, in _Notices et Extraits_, iv. 674, for list and dates of

these. Sherefeddin, iii. 396-416.

[623] Sherefeddin, iv. 1-6. For description of route from Sivas to

Angora, Hadji Khalfa, _Djihannuma_, ii. fols. 1803-4. Timur’s own

account of his march and the battle of Angora is very brief: ‘Je pris

moi-même le chemin d’Ancouriah. Bayezid, suivi de 400,000 hommes, tant

cavaliers que fantassins, vint à ma rencontre; on livra la bataille, et

je la gagnai. Ce Prince vaincu fut pris par mes troupes, et amené en

ma présence. Enfin ... je retournai victorieux à Samarcande’: Langlès

trans., p. 264.

[624] A great deal has been written about the date of Angora, but all

authorities agree in putting it between July 20 and July 28, 1402. Cf.

_Art de vérifier les Dates_, i. 193; Silvestre de Sacy, in _Mémoires

de l’Académie des Inscriptions_, vi. 488-95; Moranvillé, in _Bibl. de

l’École des Chartes_, lv. 437-8. A few early western writers have given

1397 and 1403, while Petits de la Croix, in his French translation of

Sherefeddin, is a decade too late in all his dates. The latter part

of July 1402 is fixed by all contemporary authorities on this battle.

Abu’l-Mahasin, in his history of the reign of the Egyptian sultan

Barkok, states that the greater part of Bayezid’s army perished by

thirst before his capture.

[625] On the nationality of the Tartars who betrayed Bayezid at Angora,

see the latter part of the note of Bruun on the ‘White Tartars’ in the

Hakluyt ed. of Schiltberger, pp. 114-17.

[626] From the account of the Dominican Friar, pp. 458-9, it seems

clear that Bayezid was the aggressor until after Soleiman’s command had

been cut to pieces.

[627] Sherefeddin, iv. 8-12; Dominican Friar, p. 458.

[628] Afterwards Mohammed I. Many western writers have confused him

with his nickname of Kiritchelebi (Girigilibi in Rabbi Joseph, i. 257,

and a variety of spellings in other early writers), and made him thus

his own father, to account for the later Sultan Mohammed.

[629] In this battle I have used Sherefeddin, Arabshah, Dominican

Friar, in _Bibl. de l’École des Chartes_, lv. 437-68, Schiltberger,

Clavijo, and the invaluable letters in Marino Sanuto, Muratori, xxii.

794-7. The authorities for Angora and Timur are classified in the

bibliography below.

[630] Sherefeddin, iv. 15, says the carnage in this battle was seven

times greater than in any of Timur’s previous victories. The Dominican

Friar, p. 459, puts the Ottoman losses at 40,000.

[631] Schiltberger, p. 21, says that he retreated to this hill with

1,000 horsemen. Hammer is in error in saying that Bayezid ‘resisted

like a hero at the head of his _ten thousand_ janissaries with whom he

had occupied the slope of a hill’: ii. 91. There were never as many as

ten thousand janissaries enrolled in the Ottoman army until a century

after Bayezid’s death. See above, p. 119. In oriental historians

numbers are almost invariably exaggerated at least tenfold.

[632] Solak-zadé, p. 63. Sherefeddin and Arabshah bear witness to

Bayezid’s personal courage.

[633] The Ottoman historians explain the capture of Bayezid by the fact

that he was unhorsed. Some say that he was mounted on an inexperienced

horse. A great deal was written about the battle of Angora at a much

later date, but, as in describing the battles of Kossova and Nicopolis,

I have limited myself to contemporary sources.

[634] Mustafa’s fate was never cleared up. Mohammed and Isa fled naked,

according to the Dominican Friar, p. 450.

[635] I am unable to agree with Alberi, _Rel. Ven. Ambasc._, 3rd

ser., vol. i, preface viii., ‘Secondo migliori testimonianze deve

rigettarsi per falsa la tradizione’, and Bruun, Notes to Hakluyt ed. of

Schiltberger, p. 21 _n._, ‘We are forced to conclude, after Hammer’s

searching inquiries, that there is no truth whatever in the story

of Bayezid having been confined by Timur in an iron cage’. Hammer’s

arguments, ii. 96-101, do not seem to me at all convincing. From the

philological point of view, they have been refuted by Weil, _Gesch. der

Chalifen_, ii. 92. From the historical point of view, there is just

as strong evidence for as against the litter with bars, which could

hardly have been any different from a cage. If one argues that Timur

did not subject his prisoner to this indignity, and advances that the

cage was really nothing more than a closed litter, such as was used for

ladies of the imperial harem, he is merely substituting one indignity

for another. From the character of Bayezid, one would infer that the

humiliation of being shut up like a lion in a cage would have been less

than that of being put into a harem litter like a woman, for whom the

conqueror had contempt rather than fear. There is no mention of the

iron cage in Schiltberger, Clavijo, and the Dominican Friar. But their

silence signifies nothing. They are excellent witnesses for the battle

of Angora itself, but knew little or nothing of what happened in Asia

Minor after Angora. One might just as well argue from Schiltberger’s

silence that Timur did not capture Smyrna! Nor does Sherefeddin mention

the humiliation of Bayezid, and the iron cage. But the story is given

in Arabshah, p. 210, who must be reckoned with as a contemporary

source. If, as de Salaberry, iv. 200-1, claims, the iron cage story was

inserted in Arabshah by his Ottoman editor and translator, Nazmi-zadé,

it only goes to show that the careful Ottoman students of his time

believed the story. The Ottoman historians, who are _without exception_

too late to be regarded as sources, and who had reasons for making

the degradation of the Ottoman sovereign as slight as possible, show

their knowledge of the early and contemporary character of this record

by trying to controvert it, and prove that Bayezid was carried on a

litter rather than in a cage, e. g. Seaddedin, i. 230. That the common

tradition among the Osmanlis, outside of the court chroniclers who were

compelled to uphold at all costs the dignity of the house of Osman, was

in favour of the cage story is proved conclusively by Ali Muhieddin,

Migne ed., col. 597, who is earlier than Seadeddin, and by Evliya

effendi, i. 29-30; ii. 21-22, who gives the story just as we find it

in Arabshah and the western writers. Sagredo, who follows Spandugino,

vigorously defends the cage story as opposed to the litter of the

Ottoman court chroniclers, and says that Bayezid died from striking

his head against the bars of his cage, pp. 25-6. In Lonicerus, fol.

12 vº, is a picture of the cage. It is mentioned by Guazzo, fol. 275

vº; Donato da Lezze, p. 10; Paolo Giovio; Geuffry, p. 283; Campana,

fol. 8 vº; Egnatius, p. 30; Rabbi Joseph, i. 256; Sanuto, in Muratori,

xxii. 791; Bonincontrius, col. 88; Formanti; and Timur’s early western

biographer, Perondino, p. 31, who, fifty years before Seadeddin, wrote

that Timur compelled Bayezid’s wife Despina to wait nude upon him and

his guests at table. The story is also found in Ducas, chapter 26.

[636] Perondino, p. 31; Sagredo, p. 26; Campana, fol. 8 vº; Raynaldus

and Spandugino; _Lettres d’un Solitaire turc_, i. 106-7. Exposure

of women was a common symbol of conquest among the Mongols. It was

a formal ceremony at the sack of Pekin and Djenghiz Khan’s sack of

Samarkand.

[637] Many authorities declare that Bayezid committed suicide by

striking his head against the bars of his cage, being unable to support

the sight of his wife’s disgrace. The humiliation to which Despina was

subjected was often given in later times by the Osmanlis themselves as

a reason why the house of Osman does not contract marriages. See above,

p. 183, and note.

[638] Sherefeddin, iv. 65-7; Chalc., III, pp. 162-5; Duc., 17, pp.

77-8; Phr., 1. 26, p. 85; and the Ottoman historians.

[639] The Dominican Friar says that the Jews of Brusa sent a delegation

of rabbis to inform Mohammed-Sultan that their religion was the same as

his. He answered that their law was a good one, and that they should

assemble all their people in the chief synagogue. He promised that no

harm would come to them. When the Tartars entered the city, they sealed

fast the doors of this synagogue, and set fire to it.

[640] Sherefeddin, iv. 37-48; Duc., 16, pp. 66-7.

[641] Seadeddin, i. 235.

[642] Sherefeddin, iv. 47, 52.

[643] Accounts of the capture of Smyrna: Sherefeddin, iv. 47-53;

Chalc., III, p. 161; Duc., 18, p. 78; Hadji Khalfa, _Djihannuma_, fol.

1949; Arabshah, ii. 24. For date, _see_ M. de Ste. Croix, in _Acad. des

Inscriptions_, 2e série, ii. 566, 569.

[644] Ali Muhieddin, Leuncl. trans., in Migne, _Patr. Graec._, clix.,

596. Schiltberger, p. 27, relates a similar massacre of children after

the capture of Ispahan.

[645] Ducas, 18, p. 79.

[646] ‘Would that the day might dawn in which your Highness would

profess the religion of Christ, and stand up in power as the champion

of the Christian Church against the enemies of the cross.’ In the

London archives, however, this passage, while legible, is cancelled.

So it may not have gone in the copy of the letter sent to Timur. Cf.

Wylie’s _Henry IV_, i. 316 and _n._ 4.

[647] _Misti_, xlvi. 47.

[648] Ducas, 18, p. 78; Phr., I, 15, p. 62.

[649] Phr., loc. cit.; Innocent VII, _Epp._, i. 212-13.

[650] Wylie, i. 321, says Timur died February 19, 1405, on authority

of Schiltberger. But this date is in Brunn’s note, p. 133, and not in

Schiltberger’s narrative. According to Clavijo, fol. 57 rº, Timur died

November 18, 1404, while Arabshah, p. 248, says ‘17 Saghan, 807’, which

would be in February 1405. For his abandonment of Asia Minor, Chalc.,

III, p. 182; Duc., 17, p. 76; Sherefeddin, iv. 88-95.

[651] Stella, in Muratori, xvii. 1195.

[652] Sanuto, in Muratori, xxii. 791, quoting an eye-witness.

[653] Gerardo Sagredo, quoted by Sanuto, ibid., p. 796. He admits that

this action was foolish and ruinous.

[654] ‘El Emperador de Constantinopola e los Genoueses de la ciudad do

Pera, en lugar do tener lo que con el Tamurbec auian puesto, dexaron

passar los Turcos de la Grecia en la Turquia e desque fuera vencido

aqueste Turco passauan ellos mismos a los Turcos con sus fustes de la

Turquia en la Grecia de los que venian fuyendo, e por esta ocasion

tenia mala voluntad el Tamurbec a los Christianos de que se fallaron

mal los de sa tierra.’ Clavijo, fols. 26 vº-27 rº.

[655] ‘Qui s’ensuivra Dieu le sache. Témir Bey tout seul scet son

propos et non aultre qui vive’: Dominican Friar, p. 459.

[656] _Epp._, vii. 144-60.

[657] The dates given under the Latin columns in Chalcocondylas are

almost invariably wrong and are responsible for much of the confusion

of European historians in the matter of chronology. Chalcocondylas

himself is full of mistakes, and knew very little about the history of

Byzantium and the Osmanlis in the fourteenth century. But he is not

as bad as his Latin translator, whom the historians have followed.

In order to trace some of the errors, I collated the Greek text of

Chalcocondylas with the Latin translation through the first two books

of his history, which cover the period 1300-1403. The glosses and

the inexact translations are many. For example of glosses, in I. c.

4 B, ‘quos Tartaros nominant’ after Scythis; I. c. 7 C, ‘Orthogulus

adhibitus in colloquium’, at beginning of third sentence; I. c. 10 C,

‘ex tribus, Orchanes nomine’, after ‘filius eius natu minimus’; I. c.

12 C, ‘circiter viginti duo’ in the sentence ‘Orchanes cum regnasset

annos mortem obiit’. For a very unfaithful translation compare Latin

with Greek original in I. c. 27, the end of A and beginning of B. In I.

c. 28 C ἓξ καὶ τριάκοντα is translated ‘triginta _septem_’! The letters

cited refer to column position in Migne edition.

[658] Chalcocondylas (in Migne), I. 6, p. 22.

[659] Trans. Petits de la Croix, ii. 287-9.

[660] _Annales Turcici_, in Migne, _Patr. Graec._, clix. 579.

[661] Bratutti trans., i. 4.

[662] _Chronological Tables_, Italian trans. of Carli Rinaldo.

[663] _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xiii.

188-9.

[664] For editions, translators and dates of publication, see

Bibliography.

[665] Egnatius, cited by Cuspianus, 12, says: ‘Ottomannus obscuro loco

et parentibus agrariis natus’. Nicolaus Euboicus, Saguntinus Episcopus,

Sylvius Aeneas, and Andreas a Lacuna say that Osman, of obscure

beginnings, arose through oppressing neighbours, Moslem as well as

Christian. Ab. Ortellius says, ‘Tam Graecis quam Turcis repugnantibus

cited by Leunclavius, _Pandectes_, 99. Bosio, ii. 37, declares, ‘Osman

first came out of Persia’. Similar vagueness in Haeniger; Geuffroi,

266; Sagredo; Manutio, 3; Cuspianus, 11, 42; Barletius, in Lonicerus,

iii. folios 231-2; Vanell, 356; Cervarius; Richer, 11.

[666] De Sacy, in _Notices et Extraits_, xi. 56, foot-note 1, in his

discussion of the text of a treaty between Genoese of Kaffa and Janko,

Lord of Solkat, where this word also occurs, suggests that it is an

altered form of ‘sheik’.

[667] Formanti: Donado da Lezze, 4; Paulo Giovio, Ven. ed. of 1541, 3;

Vertot, ii. 97; Rabbi Joseph, ii. 503; Guazzo, 257 vº; Ortellius in

Leunclavius, _Pandectes_, 99; Lonicerus, 10 Spandugino, 182-4. Also

Evliya effendi, i. 27.

[668] ‘Il Pazzo Delis, pecoraio’, Spandugino, 184. Leunclavius,

_Pandectes_, 103, says that Alaeddin poisoned Delis.

[669] Formanti; Donado da Lezze, 4; Cuspianus, 48; ibid., Ant. ed., 6;

Spandugino, in Sansovino (ed. 1654), 243; Egnatius, 28. Also travels of

Busbecq, Eng. ed., i. 137, and the Ottoman Evliya, ii. 95.

[670] This story in full in Formanti, 2-3; Vertot, ii. 97-8;

Spandugino, 183. Leunclavius, in _Pandectes_, 103, says that Nicetas

Choniates mentions such a renegade Comnenus, but calls him Isaac.

[671] The author of _Tractatus de rilibus_, who was a slave captured

by Murad II, for example. Also Spandugino, a native of Constantinople,

and relative of the Cantacuzenos and Notaras families. Also Donado da

Lezze. See the prefaces of editions of Charles Schéfer, of Spandugino;

and of Professor Ursu, of Donado da Lezze.

[672] Evliya effendi, a learned member of the Moslem Ulema of

Constantinople, who travelled widely in the seventeenth century in the

Ottoman Empire, is continually making statements which show that he

had a very hazy notion of early Ottoman history. This is true also of

Hadji Khalfa, the famous bibliographer, in his _Djihannuma_, a work

which I have tested and found incomplete and unreliable both in its

geographical and historical information about the region which gave

birth to Osman and his tribe.

[673] Houdas, p. 374, foot-note 1.

[674] Mohammed en Nesawi, p. 374.

[675] Ibid., 394.

[676] Ibid., 209, 328.

[677] Shehabeddin, 230-9, 263-72, 289-91, in describing Khorussan,

Armenia, and the strife between Djelaleddin and Alaeddin, makes no

mention of Soleiman Shah or Ertogrul, or of a formidable invasion

such as 50,000 families, under one ruler, would certainly have been

regarded. Nor is there mention of the 50,000 and their leader in

Ibn-Bibi, Seljuk chronicler of this period.

[678] Hadji Khalfa, in index of his Bibliography, iii. folios 133-5,

speaks of more than sixty Arabic genealogies known to him, but in his

chronological tables he cites none of them for early Ottoman genealogy.

[679] _Dourar-al-Othman_, ‘the precious pearls touching the original

source of the Ottoman house’, by Ibn Ali Mohammed-al-Biwy. No date or

indication of contents. Hadji Khalfa in _Dictionnaire bibliographique_,

Paris MS., i. folio 867.

[680] _Introduction à l’histoire d’Asie: Turcs et Mongols_, _passim_.

[681] There is a letter of this sort to Bayezid, quoted in Timur’s

_Institutes_. Also a letter, given by Sherefeddin, iii. 259-63, near

the beginning of which he says: ‘But you whose true origin ends in a

Turcoman sailor, _as all the world knows_.’

[682] ‘L’empire des Seljucides s’écroula, et sur ses ruines surgit

celui d’Osman,’ Hammer, i. 83.

[683] i. 7-13.

[684] In the Story of the Nations Series. This book does not do credit

to the name of the great scholar whom Orientalists and numismatists

universally honour.

[685] In the _Allgemeine Staatengeschichte_, Werk 15 (1840-63) and Werk

37 (1908-13).

[686] Leunclavius, _Pandectes_. This work will be found in all large

libraries, because it is reprinted in volume 159 of Migne’s _Patrologia

Graeca Latine_, 715-922.

[687] For translations of Cantemir, see Bibliography. The Rumanian

translator, Dr. Hodosiu, has reprinted the notes of the various editors

of Cantemir, which makes his edition the most valuable.

[688] Youssouf Fehmi, _Histoire de la Turquie_, Paris, 1908, p. 11.

[689] Halil Ganem, _Les Sultans ottomans_, Paris, 1901, i. 24.

[690] ‘Osman verband sich mit der Leibwache in Bagdad, eroberte

die Stadt, setzte sich auf den Thron, wodurch er der Beherrscher

aller Muhammedaner wurde, und liess dem Chalifen nur die nichts

bedeutende geistliche Oberhoheit in Bagdad; er nannte sich Sultan,

d. h. Herrscher, und starb 729 (1328 n. Chr.).’ Prof. F. Wüstenfeld,

_Geschichte der Türken_, &c., Leipzig, 1899, pp. 15-16.

[691] Reineccius thought that this name must be common to all the

Sultans of Konia. It does not appear for others than Kaï Kobad II in

the Arabic genealogies. Leunclavius is so confused by the discrepancy

here that he concludes that the Ottoman historians must have given

the name indiscriminately to all the Sultans! (_Pandectes_, 106).

Hadji Khalfa, _Djihannuma_, folio 1790, speaking of Amassia, says

that its fortress was repaired by ‘Sultan Alaeddin the Seljucide’. It

is typically Ottoman to be vague about names as well as about dates.

Hadji Khalfa frequently speaks of an Ottoman Sultan, whose name is

duplicated, without any following ordinal. There is often no clue in

the context to identify the Sultan to whom he refers.

[692] As the year of the Hegira began in June in 1240, there is the

alternative of reckoning the Christian era a year later during the

middle period of this century. But I have not thought necessary to

indicate this alternative each time.

[693] Villani, book VI, c. 32, in Muratori, xiii, col. 175, describes

this battle; also _Vie de Saint Louis_, by Le Nain de Tillemont (ed.

Gaulle), iii. 4.

[694] Abulfeda; Howorth, iii. 47.

[695] This is the opinion of two of the ablest modern scholars, Heyd,

i. 534, and Sarre, p. 41.

[696] I can find no record of coins to controvert this statement.

Lane-Poole, _Mohammedan Coins in the Bodleian Library_, 41, gives only

one coin of the Bodleian collection after 641 of the Hegira, and to

this he assigns the date A.H. 663 with a question mark.

[697] MS. Bib. Nat., Paris, fonds arabe, 583, folio 144 rº and vº.

[698] The lists of coins in I. Ghalib Edhem’s _Monnaies turcomanes_

also bear eloquent testimony to the disappearance of Seljuk vassal

dynasties during this period.

[699] I have not heard of such a coin existing to-day, but make the

statement on the strength of Abulfaradj, _Chronicon Syr._, 527-8.

[700] Abulfaradj, ibid., 542-3; Howorth, iii. 69.

[701] Abulfeda, v. 15-16, under date of A.H. 662.

Villani (in Muratori, xiii), VII. c. 40, column 261-2, describes how

Abaka Khan chased the Saracens (_sic_) from ‘Turchia’, and also the ‘Re

d’Erminia’, who ‘lasciò a’ Tartari la Turchia’.

[702] Huart, _Souvenirs de voyage_, 164, speaks of the battle, but does

not mention occupation of Konia.

[703] Abulfaradj, _Chronicon Arab._, 365-7; d’Ohsson, _Histoire des

Mongols_, ii. 570-80; Howorth, iii. 295.

[704] Howorth, iii. 315.

[705] _Konia, Ville des Derviches tourneurs_, 177.

[706] ‘Ils sont souspost an Tartar de Levant, qui y met sa seigneurie.’

Edition of Pauthier, 37. For status of this country at the beginning

of the thirteenth century, see _Chronique d’Ernoul et de Bernard le

Trésorier_ (ed. Mas-Latrie, Paris, 1871), pp. 377, 381.

[707] Hadji Khalfa naïvely solves this doubt by rolling Masud and Kaï

Kobad into one and the same person. _Djihannuma_, folio 1752 _bis_.

[708] There is no way of reaching certainty on this point. Rasmussen,

_Annales Islamici_, pp. 34-8, reflects the confusion which attended

the scholar of the early nineteenth century who wanted to make a

chronological table of the later Seljuk Sultans. The two best modern

tables are to be found in Sarre and Huart, scholars who became

interested in the Seljuk problem through their archaeological travels

in Asia Minor. The best account of the Seljuks is that of Houtsma in

the _Encyclopaedia Britannica_. It is to be regretted that Professor

Houtsma has not published the French translation of Ibn Bibi, which he

promised in his introduction to the 4th volume of the Leyden series of

Seljuk texts. Three years ago, Professor Sir William Ramsay, who knows

Konia better than any European scholar, told me that he felt there was

rich reward for the research student in the Seljuk period. The history

of the Seljuks of Konia has yet to be written.

[709] Osman was the sole heir according to Boecler: also Donado da

Lezze, 4.

[710] ‘Osman, Karaman, and Assam. Karaman retired to Syria and Assam to

Persia. The house of Osman always persecuted the descendants of these

two latter.’ Geuffroi, 267. Also Cuspianus, 11, and Haeniger.

[711] Spandugino, Lonicerus, and Egnatius.

[712] Mignot, 33.

[713] _Tractatus de moribus_; Vanell, i. 351-2; Sagredo; Cervarius;

Cuspianus, 46.

[714] The historian must use the Bonn editions with caution. There are

frequent glosses in the Latin translations of Byzantine texts. See

foot-note on p. 263.

[715] Pachymeres, ii. 589.

[716] See Appendix B, which is really a continuation of this argument.

[717] _Vie de Timour_, iii. 255.

[718] ‘Osman possessed all Anatolia, which he called Osmania: he came

to be called Lord of Asia Minor,’ Formanti, 4; ‘Osman made himself

master of all Anatolia without any difficulty,’ Spandugino; ‘Osman

seized Cappadocia, Galatia, and Bithynia,’ Cuspianus, 10; ‘master of

Syria as well as of Asia Minor,’ Donado da Lezze, 5.

[719] Formanti; Geuffroy; Donado; Cuspianus; Giovio Paulo; Richer;

Guazzo, 257 vº.

[720] Rabbi Joseph, ii. 505.

[721] Mignot, 33.

[722] _Chronique de Saint-Denis_ (Ed. _Soc. Hist. de France_), i. 319,

709.

[723] Richer, whom I have already quoted in Chapter I.

[724] ‘Cette nation nombreuse, pleine de confiance dans ses forces,

et brûlant du désir de soumettre à sa domination toute la chrétienté,

avait quitté les confins de Perse.’ _Chronique de Saint-Denys_, i. 709.

[725] ‘Quod cum ante complures annos florens illud Orientis imperium

everterit et in Occidentis non exigua spacia invaserit, atque

oppresserit quod reliquum nobis factum est, omni vi suo intolerabile

iugum ditionemque redigere studet.’ Domini de la Vuo, _Disputatio de

bello turcico_, bound in with Camerarius, p. 94, in Bibl. Nat., Paris,

Imprimés, no. J 860.

[726] Col. Djevad bey, 192-3.

[727] H. Saladin, _Manuel de l’architecture musulmane_, 437-40.

[728] Ibid., 437. On p. 479, Saladin makes another curious statement

to the effect that in 1300 the Osmanlis employed architects who had

fortified the Seljuk strongholds. I have never been able to find in my

reading or from observation of Ottoman constructions any authority for

such an assertion.

[729] i. 50. The _medressé_ is, as Seadeddin says, to the right after

you enter the Yeni Sheïr gate. The _imaret_ is near the Yeshil Djami,

which is the oldest Ottoman mosque extant, dating from 1378. The imam

of the Yeshil Djami told me that the imaret was built by Osman’s wife,

Malkhatun. According to Seadeddin, however, Malkhatun died before Osman!

[730] Parvillée, p. 6, says that the Oulou-Djami, which is attributed

to Murad I in Brusa by popular consent, was not finished until the

reign of Mahomet I.

[731] Cf. preface of Parvillée; and Hammer, i. 83.

[732] W. Lübeke, _Geschichte der Architektur_ (6te Auflage), i. 425;

Franz-Pasha, _Die Baukunst des Islams_ (third volume of part 2 of

_Handbücher der Architektur_), 52, 67.

[733] Mas-Latrie, _Trésor de Chronologie_, and papers on commercial

relationship between Cyprus and Asia Minor in _Bibl. de École des

Chartes_; Lane-Poole, ‘Successors of the Seljuks in Asia Minor,’

_Journ. Royal Asiatic Soc._, 1882, new series, xiv. 773-80 (Lane-Poole

did not avail himself of the precious indications in Ibn Batutah

and Shehabeddin, but trusted altogether to Gibb’s translation of

Seadeddin’s unreliable chronology. Seadeddin did not have access

to as good source-material as Lane-Poole himself!); Clément Huart,

‘Épigraphie arabe d’Asie Mineure,’ _Revue sémitique_, 1894-5.

[734] Muralt, in the bibliography of his _Chronographie Byzantine_,

puts Ibn Batutah at 1320. There can be no doubt about this being an

error, for when Ibn Batutah visited the Ottoman domains, Orkhan was

ruling, and Nicaea had been captured. I put 1340 as latter limit,

because Ibn Batutah speaks of some places captured by Orkhan before

1340 as being still independent.

[735] Quatremère, in _Notices et Extraits_, xiii. 152-3, cannot reach a

definite conclusion as to whether Shehabeddin is from Damascus, Marash,

or Morocco. But I find that Hadji Khalfa, _Dict. Bibl._, Paris MS.,

fol. 1832, under no. 10874, records him as a ‘writer of Damascus’.

[736] Bibl. Nat., Paris, fonds arabe 2325. For Quatremère trans. see

Bibliography.

[737] Ibid., fol. 123 vº.

[738] _Notices et Extraits_, xiv, partie 2, to face p. 77.

[739] See discussion of source-material in Bibliography.

[740] If one asks why Adana and Marash are included in this _résumé_,

it must be remembered that these are regions which might legitimately

be included in Asia Minor as a portion of the latter Konia Seljuk

dominions which we are discussing. In the division of the Roman Empire

in the fifth century, Cilicia is given under _Diocesis Oriens_ rather

than under _Diocesis Asiana_ with the rest of Asia Minor. To regard

Cilicia as belonging to Syria was common up to the days of Mehemet

Ali. Ibn Khaldun, _Notices et Extraits_, xix. 1^{ère} partie, p. 143,

speaks of Adana as being ‘at the extremity of Syria’, while Cilicia is

included in Syria in Abdul Ali Bakri’s description of Africa, Bibl.

Nat., Paris, fonds arabe no. 2218, p. 103. Both the Latin and Orthodox

Churches made Cilicia depend ecclesiastically upon Antioch: cf. Le

Quien, _Oriens Christianus_, ii. col. 869, iii. col. 1181. But, in

modern times, we have come to regard this region as a portion of Asia

Minor.

[741] Shehabeddin, 339, 369; Ibn Batutah, ii. 295-310; Cant. ii. 28,

pp. 470-3; 25, p. 455, iii. 192; Greg. xvi. 6, p. 834; Ducas, 7, pp.

29-30; 18, p. 79; Schlumberger, _Numismatique de l’Orient latin_,

481-5; for Venice’s share in crusade against Smyrna, Romanin, iii. 147;

for complete list of princes, Karabeck, in _Numismatische Zeitschrift_,

Vienna, 1877, ix. 207.

[742] Shehabeddin, 365.

[743] Ibn Batutah, ii. 267. Shehabeddin, 360, gives Akridur under Hamid.

[744] Ibn Batutah, ii. 285.

[745] Leunclavius, _Ann._, v. 40; Hadji Khalfa, _Djihannuma_, fol.

1769; Sarre, 21. Cf. struggles between Murad and Bayezid and the

Karamanlis, pp. 165-7, 187-90 above.

[746] Bosio, ii. 221-2, 237-8; Mas-Latrie, _Hist. de Chypre_, iii. 175,

335. Cf. authorities for Karamania, Tekke, and Satalia, and _Bibl. de

l’École des Chartes_, 2e série, i. 326, 328, 498, 505; ii. 138-41.

[747] Not in 1354 by Soleiman, as Cant. iv. 37, p. 284, infers. Hadji

Khalfa, _Djihannuma_, fol. 1852-6.

[748] Pachymeres, vii. 13, p. 589.

[749] How does Schlumberger reconcile the continuance of Ayasoluk,

or Ephesus, as capital of Aïdin with the Rhodian conquest? Cf. Wood.

_Discoveries at Ephesus_, pp. 12, 183, for coins which prove that the

chevaliers held the city in 1365. Cf. Palatchia, for treaty made by

Venice with an independent prince here in 1403. Ibn Batutah states

expressly that Guzel Hissar, or Birgui, was the capital of Aïdin.

[750] Ibn Batutah, ii. 317. Evliya effendi, ii. 19, distinguishes

between Balikesri and Karasi in his enumeration of the conquests of

Orkhan.

[751] Ibn Batutah, ii. 340.

[752] Sherefeddin, iii. 256; Howorth, iii. 749.

[753] Shehabeddin, 338, 358, 366; Ibn Batutah, ii. 275, 277; Reclus,

_Géog. univ._, ix. 633, 645; Baedeker, _Kleinasien_, 2. Aufl., 390.

Mas-Latrie, _Trésor de Chronologie_, makes an error in extending the

northern boundary of Denizli, which he calls Thingizlu, to the emirate

of Marmora.

[754] Panaretos, 13.

[755] Lane-Poole, _Mohammedan Coins in British Museum_, 21-4, 35;

ibid., _Mohammedan Coins in Bodleian Library_, 12.

[756] Hadji Khalfa, _Djihannuma_, fol. 1119; Sherefeddin, iii. 257.

[757] Ibn Batutah, ii. 279; Shehabeddin, 370; Bosio, ii. 4.

[758] Ibn Batutah, ii. 270.

[759] Ibn Batutah, ii. 267; Hammer, xvii. 98; Sarre, 21. See also under

Akridur, and Nazlu.

[760] Shehabeddin, 339.

[761] Shehabeddin, 363; Ibn Batutah, ii. 326-9; Hammer, xvii. 99.

[762] ‘Ledit Karaman haioit fort le Grant Turc, dont il eust la sœur.’

Bertrandon de la Broquière, Schéfer ed., 120. Bertrandon visited the

court of the emir of Konia in 1443 with a Cypriote ambassador.

[763] In time of Osman and Orkhan, Nicolay, 148-9; Howorth, iii.

428; Byzantine historians in Stritter, iii. 1092; Anon., _Hist. de

Géorgie_, i. 642; Shehabeddin, 346, 375; Ibn Batutah, ii. 284 (calls

them emirs of Larenda); Hammer, i. 262 fol.; Rasmussen, 116; Feridun

letters, Bibl. Nat., fonds turc, no. 79, p. 1. In time of Murad and

Bayezid, Feridun letters, ibid., pp. 18-20, 30, 33-4, and references

in text of this book. For fifteenth century, from re-establishment

by Timur, Sherefeddin, iv. 33; Bertrandon de la Broquière, 118-20;

Mas-Latrie, _Hist. de Chypre_, iii. 3; _Bibl. de l’École des Chartes_,

2e série, i. 326, 510; ii. 138; Sanuto, in Muratori, xxii. 962. For

coins, Lane-Poole, _Bodleian Collection_, 12; _British Museum_, 21-6.

The power of Karamania in the fifteenth century will be discussed in a

later volume.

[764] Shehabeddin, 350, 357, 372. Cf. Hertzberg, 471.

[765] Shehabeddin, 361; Ibn Batutah, ii. 343-7; _Bibl. de l’École des

Chartes_, 2e série, i. 325; Hammer, i. 90, 309-11; Clavijo, 20 vº.

[766] Ibn Batutah, ii. 339.

[767] Ashikpashazadé, Vatican MS., 33.

[768] Hadji Khalfa, _Djihannuma_, 617, 1807-9. It is curious that Hadji

Khalfa does not mention the famous potteries of Kutayia.

[769] Persian letter in collection of Feridun, Bibl. Nat., fonds turc

no. 79, p. 18.

[770] Shehabeddin, Paris MS., fonds arabe no. 583, fol. 144 rº-vº; Ibn

Batutah, ii. 270-1; Hammer, ii. 133, xvii. 98; Schéfer, preface to his

edition of Bertrandon de la Broquière, lxi. For expedition of Bayezid

against, Phr. i. 26, p. 82; Ducas, 18-19; Chalc. ii, pp. 64-6.

[771] Panaretos, 49, 52.

[772] Hammer, v. 28.

[773] Shehabeddin, 358, 366. In speaking of the propinquity of Denizli

and Marmora, one wonders if Mas-Latrie has not confused the Scamander

and Maeander rivers. Both of these rivers are called Menderes in

Turkish.

[774] Its last emir died without issue in 1425. M. de Ste. Croix, in

_Acad. des Inscriptions_, nouv. série, ii. 569-75; Hammer, i. 300-1,

xvii. 98; Ducas, 18, p. 79; Lane-Poole, _Coins in British Museum_, 33-4.

[775] Mordtmann, in _Zeitschrift d. m. G._, lxv (1911), p. 105.

[776] See above, p. 225.

[777] Shehabeddin, 360.

[778] Shehabeddin, 367.

[779] Clavijo, fol. 6 vº, 60 vº.

[780] Mas-Latrie, in _Bibl. de l’École des Chartes_, 5e série, v.

219-31, quoting _Pacta_, vi. 129 vº, and _Commem._, ii. 231, iii. 374.

[781] Cf. St. Pierre de Thomas, in Bollandist Coll.

[782] The currency of Byzantine money among the maritime emirates

of Asia Minor demonstrates this. See Makrisi, 7, and Stickel, in

_Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, viii. 837-9.

[783] Shehabeddin, 339, 360, 368-9; Ibn Batutah, ii. 313; _Commemor._,

ii. 231; Greg. xi. 2, p. 530; xv. 5, p. 763; Cant. ii. 29-30,

pp. 480-4; iii. 96, pp. 591-6; Ducas, 18, p. 79; Hadji Khalfa,

_Djihannuma_, fol. 1820; for relations of Genoese and Byzantines

with, Sauli, i. 256-7; for coins, Schlumberger, 479-81; Lane-Poole,

_Bodleian_, 12; _British Museum_, 31-2.

[784] ‘Aussi y est Satalie, située en rivages maritimes de Cilicie:

d’où a prins son nom le Goulphe de Satalie, anciennement appelé Issa:

et a présent la Iasse et en cest endroit Alexandre vainquit Daire ...’

Nicolay, 148. This passage, which shows Adalia confused with Adana,

would have helped Bruun in his note on p. 123 of the Hakluyt edition of

Schiltberger.

[785] In Bibl. Nat., Paris, MS. fonds turc no. 62, there is a marginal

note in Armand’s handwriting which terminates thus: ‘La dynastie des

Seljuks de Rum finit en la personne de Kaï Kobad, fils de Feramorg,

fils de Kaï Kaous le 14e qui aye regné qui fut exterminé lui

et _toute sa race_ par Gazankhan.’ This view was taken by several

Orientalists of Armand’s day, but there is good authority for Ghazi

Tchelebi’s ancestry.

[786] Fallmerayer, _Originalberichte_, ii. 15, 319; Stella, cited by

Muralt, ii. 533; Ibn Batutah, ii. 343.

[787] Matteo Villani, in Muratori, xiv. 663.

[788] Shehabeddin, 359; Ibn Batutah, ii. 277.

[789] Shehabeddin, 371; Ibn Batutah, 258-9, 265; Bustron, _Chronique

de Chypre_, 296; Mas-Latrie, _Trésor_, col. 1802; Matteo Villani, in

Muratori, xiv, col. 662; Urban V, _Epp. secr._, i. 161; Rasmussen, 45;

Schiltberger, 19. (I cannot agree with Bruun that Adana is meant, for

there is no reason to believe that the Osmanlis crossed the Taurus into

Cilicia for more than one hundred years after the events Schiltberger

was describing. See above, p. 296, _n._ 3.)

[790] See note for Mikhalitch.

[791] Weil, iv. 504-624; Heyd, passim under Tarsus, Lajazzo, Adana, and

Alexandretta; Mas-Latrie, _Bibl. de l’École des Chartes_, vi. 310-11;

Le Nain de Tillemont (éd. Gaulle), iii. 9; iv. 459; Abulfaradj, _Chron.

Syr._, 572; Bertrandon de la Broquière (éd. Schéfer), introd., lv. 90-1.

[792] Finlay, iv. 386-92; Panaretos, _passim_.

[793] Ibn Batutah, ii. 314; Cant. ii. 13, pp. 388-90; Phr. i. 8, p. 37;

Greg. xi. 9, p. 554; Sauli, i. 256-7. See also in text of this book

under Orkhan.

[794] Matteo Villani, in Muratori, xiv. 650, under spring of 1360,

says: ‘E per tante guerre e divisioni de’ Turchi gli paesi loro erano

rotti e in grande tribulazione. E per questa cagione i Greci havieno

minore persecuzione da loro. E più ciò fu materia al Re di Cipro di

fare l’impresa sopra loro con honore e vittoria grande.’ Mas-Latrie, in

_Bibl. de l’École des Chartes_, 2e série, ii. 122-3, says that the

Karamanian army was defeated before Gorhigos in 1361, and that Cyprus,

then at the height of its power, was able to impose tribute on the

emirs of Asia Minor.

[795] Ibn Batutah, ii. 288-95.

[796] See above under Smyrna, Aïdin, Menteshe, Fukeh, and Tawas. Also

in text of book, p. 44.

[797] Cf. Weil, iv. _passim._

[798] See above, p. 123.

[799] The ordinals following the names of Byzantine emperors are a

cause of confusion, as there is no universal agreement as to the

method of numbering. Some historians count by sovereigns _of the same

family_ bearing a particular name (i. e. John I Palaeologos and John II

Palaeologos), while others number by the imperial line as a whole (i.

e. John V Palaeologos, John VI Cantacuzenos, John VII Palaeologos). I

have used the second system.