Natalia Zhigalova

Based on materials from Byzantine, Venetian and Ottoman sources the author of this article
analyzes the political situation in the Peloponnese in the 1420s. Also, in the framework of this study,
an attempt is made to determine the nature of the relationship between the despots of Morea and the
Latin rulers in the Peloponnese in the context of the general opposition to Ottoman aggression. The
author concludes that the capture of the key fortresses of Achaea, as well as the conclusion of
matrimonial unions, allowed the Palaiologos to unite under their rule almost all Byzantine territories
in Morea which were lost in the 13th century during the Latin conquest. This fundamentally
changed the political situation in the Peloponnese, however, the permanent intervention of the
Ottoman state in the affairs of the Byzantines did not allow the despots of Morea to pursue an
independent and separate policy on the peninsula, and this greatly impeded the consolidation of the
Greek forces and their military potential.

The article is devoted to the problem of relations between the Byzantine emperors and successors of
the Ottoman Sultan Bayezid I after the battle of Ankara in 1402. Based on the information of
Byzantine historians of XV century, the author analyzes the nature of the contacts of the Byzantine
rulers with the candidates for the Ottoman throne and identifies the priorities and contradictions of
the Byzantine policy towards the Ottomans. The article shows that the authority of the Byzantine
emperor among the Ottoman rulers was quite high, and this allowed Manuel II Palaeologus to play
on the dynastic ambitions of applicants for the Ottoman throne and influence the policy of the
Ottoman state until the beginning of the reign of Sultan Murad II, grandson of Bayezid I, in 1421.

This article, based on Venetian and Byzantine sources, makes an attempt to consider the measures of the Venetian government of Thessaloniki to organize the defense of the city during its siege by the troops of the Ottoman Sultan Murad II in 1422-1430, and also to evaluate their effectiveness. It is noted that Thessaloniki was not adequately provided with either weapons or military units capable of effectively resisting the Ottoman army of many thousands attacking the walls of the city. The author concludes that the reason for this was probably the reluctance of the Venetians to enter into open confrontation with the Ottoman Sultan, as well as the sabotage of the activities of the Venetian government by the Greek population of Thessaloniki.

Denoting a particular nation, the Byzantines did not limit themselves to using the Greekised self-designations of these ethnic groups. The peculiarity of the Byzantine ethnonymic lexicon was the reproduction of archaic names, the use of the pejorative name “Barbarians” or collective nominations. The choice by Byzantine authors of one nomination or another to refer to a specific people reflects the nature of the Romans’ cultural perception of other ethnic groups and their attitude towards them in certain historical conditions. The purpose of this study is to analyse the synonymous series used by late Byzantine historians Doukas and Laonikos Chalkokondyles to describe the Ottomans, to reveal the peculiarities of the use of these names, as well as the cultural and historical characteristics thereof.
Based on the method of content analysis of historical works of Doukas and Laonikos Chalkokondyles, the author distinguishes the following synonymous series: “Turks”, “Barbarians”, “Ottomans”, “Muslims”, and “Infidels”, and analyses the frequency of these designations and the contexts in which they occur. According to the study, the terms “Ottomans” or “Muslims” were used by the authors on a situational basis, depending on a strictly defined context, and did not carry positive or negative connotations. Using the name “Barbarians”, the historians designated representatives of another religion, different from Christianity, and applied it exclusively to Muslim peoples of Turkic origin. The word “Infidels” was applied by Doukas only to the Ottoman Turks in order to emphasise their religious otherness and hostility to Christian faith, while Chalkokondyles generally avoided the use of this semantically overloaded word.
The most commonly used designation was the neutral ethnonym “Turks”, which was more typical among the Byzantines and, probably, was universally used in everyday speech practice.

The article deals with the problem of proliferation pro-Ottoman sentiments in the Byzantine society in the XV century after the capture of the Byzantine Empire in 1453 by the Ottoman Turks. On the basis of comparative analysis of the works of the so-called Byzantine pro-Ottoman writers (Michael Kritoboulos, George Amiroutzes, George of Trebizond) the author identifies the main accents which can most clearly demonstrate a pro-Ottoman position of the authors and discusses the reasons which are motivated the Byzantine intellectuals in his works to chant a dignities of the conqueror of Byzantium Mehmed II.
The author concludes that the Byzantine turkophilia was not so much an ideological and political trend among the selfish Byzantines, as a kind of philosophical concept, which allowed to explain and accept the Turkish conquest of Byzantium as a given, as well as find a way to coexist with the invaders.

The research is devoted to the analysis of the evidences of Byzantine writers about the Janissaries and the Turkish devshirme system in the XV century. Devshirme was a specific system of taxation, under the conditions of which boys from Christian families had to undergo special training for subsequent service at the court of the Ottoman Sultan or in the Janissary corps. Based on the works of Doukas, Michael Kritoboulos, Laonikos Chalkokondyles and Paraspondylos Zotikos, we try to show how the Greeks perceived the Turkish practice of devshirme, what they knew about the Janissary corps and how they assessed the role of the Janissaries at the court and military structures of the Ottoman state. The author comes to the conclusion that the Janissaries were not only a powerful military force, but also an instrument in the intra-dynastic quarrels, and also a reliable stronghold of the power of the Ottoman sultans.

The article is devoted to the problem of strengthening of anti-Latin sentiment in Thessaloniki on the eve of its capture by the Turks in 1430. The author affects the problem of discontent of Greek population for the Venetian power in Thessaloniki during the Venetian rule 1423-1430. According to the materials composing by the Byzantine writer John Anagnostes is characterized relations between Greeks and Latins in Thessalonica and Greek’s attitude to the Venetian government. Attention is also given to the author's characterization of the Venetians.

The article considers the problem of a perception of activity of the national Albanian hero George Castriot (Skanderbeg) and his role in the anti-Turkish resistance on the Balkans by Byzantine historians of the XV century. Based on the materials from the works of the Byzantine writers is reconstructed the image of the Albanian leader and his main military operations and diplomatic agreements. The author concludes that the Byzantine writers saw Skanderbeg as outstanding general, active and wise military and political leader whose efforts helped the Balkans for decades to resist the Turkish onslaught.

The article focuses on the issue of Byzantines’ voluntary transition into the authority of Ottoman Turks as
regarded by Byzantine writers. Referring to a number of works of intellectuals of the late 14th — early 15th
century, the author identifies the reasons and motives that forced the Greek population to prefer the Ottoman
rule. Contemporaries noted the plight of the Greeks in the besieged cities, the difficult economic situation
and public dissatisfaction with the Byzantine government, which was unable to provide proper defense.
Information given by Symeon of Thessalonica about the history of Thessaloniki in 1382–1429 allows recreating
the picture of the Greek population’s life in the times of sieges, and tells about changes of government
in the city, its political and economic instability. The author concludes that the main motive of the Byzantines
to move to the side of the invaders was to secure a stable and peaceful life which the Byzantine administration
being unable to repel the Turks proved unable to provide, as well as previous experience of Turkish rule
to ensure the loyalty of the Greeks.