John II Komnenos’ campaign in Cilician Armenia

IF 0.2 3区 历史学 0 MEDIEVAL & RENAISSANCE STUDIES BYZANTINISCHE ZEITSCHRIFT Pub Date : 2021-09-01 DOI:10.1515/bz-2021-0065
Konstantinos Takirtakoglou
{"title":"John II Komnenos’ campaign in Cilician Armenia","authors":"Konstantinos Takirtakoglou","doi":"10.1515/bz-2021-0065","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The present paper challenges the assertion that John II Komnenos’ first campaign against Cilician Armenia (1137) was directly connected with the conflict between the Byzantines and the Principality of Antioch. The supposed anti-Byzantine alliance between the Armenians and the Crusaders is examined within this context; excerpts from the relevant sources not only cast doubt on its existence, but also allow the assertion that during the period under examination the relations between the Armenians and the Crusaders were hostile. Thus, the issue that arises is the following: If Levon was an enemy of the Crusaders, why did he not stand at the Byzantines’ side, instead waging war against them? The assertion of the present paper regarding this policy decision is that it was due to Levon’s alliance with John’s primary enemy in the East, the Danishmends. In fact, the sources indicate that the subjugation of Armenia was of greater priority for the Byzantine emperor in his campaign than the conquest of Antioch. This is demonstrated by the fact that John refused to conclude a treaty with the Rubenid lord similar to that which he had concluded with the prince of Antioch, and is supported by the operational maneuvers of the Byzantine forces during the campaign. To connect John’s activities in Cilicia with his subsequent campaign in Pontus and the Turkish reactions to these Byzantine strategic moves, the present paper asserts that John’s conquest of Cilicia was part of a wider policy of strategic encirclement of the Danishmends.","PeriodicalId":44281,"journal":{"name":"BYZANTINISCHE ZEITSCHRIFT","volume":"114 1","pages":"1329 - 1349"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BYZANTINISCHE ZEITSCHRIFT","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/bz-2021-0065","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"MEDIEVAL & RENAISSANCE STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract The present paper challenges the assertion that John II Komnenos’ first campaign against Cilician Armenia (1137) was directly connected with the conflict between the Byzantines and the Principality of Antioch. The supposed anti-Byzantine alliance between the Armenians and the Crusaders is examined within this context; excerpts from the relevant sources not only cast doubt on its existence, but also allow the assertion that during the period under examination the relations between the Armenians and the Crusaders were hostile. Thus, the issue that arises is the following: If Levon was an enemy of the Crusaders, why did he not stand at the Byzantines’ side, instead waging war against them? The assertion of the present paper regarding this policy decision is that it was due to Levon’s alliance with John’s primary enemy in the East, the Danishmends. In fact, the sources indicate that the subjugation of Armenia was of greater priority for the Byzantine emperor in his campaign than the conquest of Antioch. This is demonstrated by the fact that John refused to conclude a treaty with the Rubenid lord similar to that which he had concluded with the prince of Antioch, and is supported by the operational maneuvers of the Byzantine forces during the campaign. To connect John’s activities in Cilicia with his subsequent campaign in Pontus and the Turkish reactions to these Byzantine strategic moves, the present paper asserts that John’s conquest of Cilicia was part of a wider policy of strategic encirclement of the Danishmends.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
约翰二世在西里西亚亚美尼亚的战役
本论文挑战了约翰二世对西里西亚亚美尼亚(1137)的第一次战役与拜占庭和安提阿公国之间的冲突直接相关的断言。亚美尼亚人和十字军之间所谓的反拜占庭联盟是在这种背景下进行研究的;有关资料的摘录不仅使人怀疑其存在,而且还使人断言,在审查期间,亚美尼亚人和十字军之间的关系是敌对的。因此,出现的问题是:如果列文是十字军的敌人,为什么他没有站在拜占庭一边,而是对他们发动战争?本论文关于这一政策决定的断言是,这是由于Levon与约翰在东方的主要敌人,丹麦人结盟。事实上,资料表明,在拜占庭皇帝的战役中,征服亚美尼亚比征服安提阿更重要。约翰拒绝与鲁本尼领主签订类似于他与安提阿王子签订的条约,这一事实证明了这一点,并得到了拜占庭军队在战役期间的作战演习的支持。为了将约翰在基利西亚的活动与他随后在本都的战役以及土耳其人对这些拜占庭战略行动的反应联系起来,本文断言,约翰对基利西亚的征服是对丹麦人更广泛的战略包围政策的一部分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BYZANTINISCHE ZEITSCHRIFT
BYZANTINISCHE ZEITSCHRIFT MEDIEVAL & RENAISSANCE STUDIES-
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
33.30%
发文量
48
期刊介绍: Steeped in tradition, this organ of international Byzantine studies covers literature, history and art history, including the related and peripheral disciplines, equally in all sections (essays, reviews, bibliographies) and thus contributes significantly to the support and development of Byzantine Studies.
期刊最新文献
Of tortoise necks and dialects. A new edition of the Grammaticus Leidensis Constantin VII Porphyrogénète, Le livre des cérémonies, bespr. von Marek Jankowiak Το θέμα Θεσσαλονίκης (1259 – 1341). Συμβολή στη μελέτη της φορολογικής διοίκησης των επαρχιών κατά την πρώιμη παλαιολόγεια περίοδο, bespr. von Kostis Smyrlis Patria 3.8. and echoes of Byzantine military manuals The capacity for self-sufficiency of Middle Byzantine urban settlements
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1