Immediately after the death of Emperor Ioannes the Bulgarians rose in revolt and four brothers were chosen to govern them: David, Moses, Aaron and Samuil, sons of one of the all-powerful comites of the Bulgarians and for this reason named Kometopouli…Of the four brothers, David was immediately killed by some Wallachian vagabonds between Castoria, Prespa and the so-called “Fair Oak Wood.” While besieging Seres, Moses was hit by a stone cast from the wall and died. Aaron was killed by his brother Samuil on July 14 in the place called Razmetanitsa, together with all his kin, because he was a sup­porter, so they say, of the Byzantines, or because he was trying to seize power for himself. Only his son Vladislav Ivan was saved by Samuil’s son Radomir Roman. Thus Samuil became the absolute ruler of all Bulgaria …

Georgii Cedreni compendium, op. cit., pp. 434-435; cf. ГИБИ, VI. p. 275; the original is in Greek

The Byzantine historian Scylitzes describes the wars between Bulgaria under Tsar Samuil and Byzantium

11th-12th c.

Samuil set out against Thessalonica and deployed the main part of his army in ambushes and traps, and he sent only a small part on an incursion to Thessalonica itself … Samuil camped on the opposite bank. Because of the torrential rains, the river rose and caused floods, so that no battle was expected at that moment. The magister, however, by inspecting the upper and lower reaches of the river, found a place through which he thought he could cross. In the night, having roused his troops, he crossed the river and attacked Samuil’s soldiers in their carefree sleep. A very large number of them were massacred, without anybody thinking of defense. Samuil himself and his son Roman were wounded, receiving grave wounds, and would have been taken prisoners, had they not mixed with the dead, lying as though dead. When night fell, they secretly fled towards the Aetolian Mountains and from there, across the peaks of these mountains, crossed the Pindus and took refuge in Bulgaria. And the magister, after freeing the Byzantines who had been taken prisoners, and strip­ping the Bulgarians who had fallen, looted the enemy camp and with very rich booty returned to Thessalonica with his troops…In 6508, indiction 13, /= 999/ the Emperor sent a strong army against the Bulgarian fortresses beyond the Haemus Mountains … The Byzantine troops captured Great and Little Preslav, as well as Pliska, and returned unscathed and victorious.The following year, the Emperor again set out against the Bulgarians via Thessalonica. He was joined by the governor of Berrhoea, Dobromir, who sur­rendered the town to the Emperor and was honoured with the dignity of anthypatus. The defender of Servia Nikola, who, because of his small stature was called by the diminutive name of Nikolitsa, put up valiant resistance and cheerfully endured the siege imposed on him. The Emperor, however, set himself the task of capturing the fortress and succeeded, taking Nikolitsa himself prisoner. He deported the Bulgarians from there and left a garrison of Byzantines. After all this he returned to the capital, taking Nikolitsa with him, whom he honoured with the title of patrician. But the inconstant Nikolitsa es­caped from there and returning secretly to Samuil, together with him began to besiege Servia. The Emperor, however, moved swiftly and lifted the siege from the town and Nikolitsa fled with Samuil… The Emperor went to Thessaly and rebuilt the fortresses destroyed by Samuil, while those which were in the hands of Bulgarians he captured by siege and resettled the Bulgarians in the so-called Voleron. After posting strong garrisons in all fortresses, he returned to the place known as Voden. Voden is a small fortress situated on steep cliffs where the waters of the Ostrovo Lake fall after running unseen below the ground and coming to the surface again at this place. As the inhabitants of this town did not surrender of their own free will, the Emperor took it by siege. He deported them also to Voleron, then installed a strong guard in the town and returned to Thessalonica.…………….

In the following year, indiction 15 /= 1003/, the Emperor set out on a campaign against Vidin and captured it by force after full eight months of siege. While he was busy with the siege, Samuil with a swift movement suddenly fell on Adrianople on the very feast of the Assumption of the Virgin. With a sudden assault he also seized the fair annually held there and attended by a great crowd and, after collecting much booty, he returned to his country. And the Emperor, after fortifying Vidin very well returned to the capital without losses, having devastated and destroyed all the Bulgarian fortresses on his way. When he ap­proached the town of Skopje, he found Samuil calmly camping across the Axios river, which is now called Vardar. Relying on the river being in flood and thus impossible to ford, he had set up his camp in a negligent manner. But a soldier found a ford and led the Emperor through it. Shocked by his sudden appearance, Samuil hastily fled in confusion, and his tent and the entire camp were captured. And the town of Skopje was surrendered to the Emperor by Roman, the son of Peter, Tsar of the Bulgarians, and brother of Boris, called also Simeon after his grandfather and placed there as governor by Samuil. The Emperor received him and after honouring him for his decision with the title of patrician and prepositor, sent him as a strategus to Abydos.

Continuing from there, the Emperor set out for Pernik, whose defender was Krakra, a man excellent in military matters. He spent a considerable time there and lost no small number of soldiers in the siege. Finding the fortress im­pregnable and Krakra impervious to flattery or other promises and proposals, he returned to Philippopolis, whence he returned to Constantinople.

Georgii Cedreni compendium, op. cit, pp. 449-456; cf. ГИБИ, VI, pp. 278, 280, 283 285; the original is in Greek



The Byzantine historian Scylitzes describes the blinding of 15,000 captured Bulgarian soldiers by Basil II, the death of Samuil and the conquest of all Bulgaria

11th-12th c.

Every year the Emperor continued to invade Bulgaria and devastated and laid waste everything on his way. Samuil could not put up opposition in the open field, nor could he come out in an open battle against the Emperor, and he suffered defeats on all sides and began to lose his strength. For this reason he decided to dig trenches and block the Emperor’s road to Bulgaria … The Emperor was already losing hope of getting through when Nicephorus Xiphias, appointed it that time by him as strategus of Philippopolis, persuaded him to remain there and to keep up his constant assaults on the barrier, saying that he would go to see whether he could not do something advantageous and salutary. And so, having taken his soldiers …, all of a sudden, with cries and noise, he appeared on high ground in the rear of the Bulgarians. Terrified by his sudden appearance, they fled. The Emperor destroyed the abandoned palisade and began to pursue them. Many were slain and many more were captured. Samuil was barely saved from death by his son, who valiantly warded off the attackers. He put him on a horse and led him to the fortress called Prilep. And the Emperor blinded the captive Bulgarians, about 15,000 so they say, ordering each group of one hundred to be led by a soldier with one eye, and thus sent them to Samuil. When the latter saw them coming in rows of equal numbers he could not stand this suffering courageously and in silence, but became unwell, fainted and fell to the ground. Those present tried to restore his breathing with water and perfumes and succeeded in bringing him round a little. When he had recovered consciousness, he asked for cold water, but after taking a drink, he suffered a heart attack, and two days later he died. His son Gavril, called also Roman, who surpassed his father in might and force but was far inferior to him in wisdom and reason, took power over the Bulgarians. He was Samuil’s son by a slave girl from Larissa. He began to rule on September 15, indiction 13 /1014/. A year had not passed before he was murdered while out hunting by Aaron’s son, Ivan Vladislav, whom he had rescued from death when he was about to perish. Before these occurrences, at the time when Theophylactus Botaniates was sent as governor of Thessalonica, following Arianites, David Nestoritsa, a Bulgarian noble, was sent by Samuil with a large army against Thessalonica. Theophylactus met them with his son Michael, engaged in battle against them and utterly defeated them. He took much booty and many prisoners and brought them to the Emperor, who was besieging the barrier at the Gorge of Kleidion. Passing through the barrier, as we have already said, the Emperor advanced to Stroumitsa and captured the fortress, called Matzukion, situated near Stroumitsa. He also sent the Thessalonica duke Theophylactus Botaniates with his troops, ordering him to cross the hills at Stroumitsa, so as to burn the palisades on the roads to them and open a convenient road for him to Thessalonica. He set out, and the Bulgarians guarding these places let him pass everywhere unimpeded along the road. But when he was preparing to return to the Emperor after having fulfilled his orders, he fell into ambushes set up for this purpose and waiting in a long and narrow pass. When he entered it, sur­rounded from all sides and showered from above with stones and arrows, he fell dead without anyone being able to help him and without being able to make use of his hands, owing to the narrow and impassable place. A large part of the army perished with him. When this was reported to the Emperor, he was filled with great sorrow. It was because of this that he did not dare advance but turned back and arrived in Zagoria where the extremely strong fortress of Melnik stood, built on a rock and encircled on all sides by steep and very deep precipices. The Bulgarians from the area had gathered there and were not at all interested in the Byzantines. The Emperor sent to them one of his menservants, a eunuch named Sergius, an intelligent and eloquent man, to find out what their mood was. Once there, he succeeded by dint of much persuasion in con­vincing these people to lay down their arms and to surrender, together with the fortress, to the Emperor. The Emperor received them and conferred honours upon them, and leaving a sufficient garrison in the fortress, he returned to Mosynopolis. While he was there, they informed him also of Samuil’s death on October 24. The Emperor immediately left Mosynopolis and went down towards Thessalonica, and from there he went to Pelagonia, without devastating the lands on his way, and merely burning Gavril’s palaces in Buteli. Having sent troops, he captured the fortresses of Prilep and Stip. From there he reached the river called Cherna, which he crossed on rafts and inflated skins and returned to Voden , whence on January 9 /1015/ he went to Thessalonica.
Georgii Cedreni compendium, op. cit, pp. 457 464, 464-476; cf. ГИБИ, VI, pp. 283-296; the original is in Greek

However, Murad at that point decided to do away with the Venetian presence there once and for all, and marched on Thessalonica. The news burst like a thunderbolt upon the inhabitants; but a few more days were required for the arrival of confirmation, before the Venetians decided on defensive measures. On 17 March, the vice-admiral, Antonio Diedo, sailed into the harbour with three galleys to put some heart into the terror-stricken populace. Α count of the men on the walls revealed the alarming weakness of the defence: there was only one man to every two or three crenelles! Moreover the defenders possessed neither adequate armament nor the indispensable resources of morale.

At daybreak on Sunday 26 March, Murad’s army appeared on the horizon, though not drawn up for battle and with colours unfurled. For many Christians who accompanied the Sultan had told him that his mere appearence in front of the city would suffice for him to take it without a drop of blood being spilt. There were hopes, it would seem, of treachery and a peaceful surrender; and that Murad entertained such expectations is clearly shown by the fact that he immediately ordered a number of notable Christians from among his retinue to approach the wall and call upon the inhabitants to rise against the Venetians and surrecnder the city. But his emissaries were not given a chance to complete their speech before a shower of arrows forced them to withdraw.

Murad then disposed his great army around the walls and set in motion preliminaries for the great assault. Each day, long lines of camels and ox-carts could be seen bringing up siege-engines and other war-material. The preparations lasted three days; yet before giving the signal for a general assault, Murad made one more effort to secure the surrender of the city, but the Venetians would not hear of any such proposition. So as to feel quite sure of the attitude and behaviour of the inhabitants, the Venetians scattered amongst them the Getarii — a corps of adventurers of diverse provenance whom they employed as mercenaries. The Getarii had orders to dispatch on the spot anyone who showed the slightestsign of a disposition to surrender . Then it was a terrible piece of news filled the Venetians with alarm. Α Venetian corporal, who had managed to slip into the city — probably from the western land-walls over towards the harbour (see figs. 24 and 25) — made his way to the governors with the report that the Turks were waiting for six pirate vessels from the Vardar, which they intended to launch as fire-boats against the three Venetian galleys, knowing well that all the crews of the galleys were fighting on the battlements. Straightway the governors sent word to the vice-admiral, Antonio Diedo, to withdraw the galey-crews from the city, but they avoided communicating this disturbing news to the inhabitants. This move was to have disastrous results; for the inhabitants learnt of it a few hours later — in the unnerving darkness of the night — from the Turkish camp .

At midnight a number of Christians from Murad’s camp approached the walls and once more urged the garrisons to surrender, informing them that at dawn the Turks would launch a general assault not only against the land-walls but against the sea-walls at the same time. The news spread like lightning throughout the city and put the inhabitants in a turmoil. That night no one slept. Those who did not remain on the walls kept vigil in the churches, where full of humility and contrition they prayed to God and to St. Demetrius.

The fear and confusion of the citizens was further increased by their misunderstanding of the unavoidable transfer of Venetian troops from the land-walls to the sea-walls in a bid to meet the danger from that quarter. The Thessalonians concluded that the Venetians were getting ready to leave, with the result that a number of irresolute guards lost heart and left their posts to retire to their homes.

The sun had hardly risen when the Turks, with a deafening din and cries of ‘Ullah Allah!’, launched an attack at all points along the land-walls. “Their war-cry alone would have been enough to shake from its foundations an even greater and more populous city thanThessalonica”, so ran the Venetian war-report. Some carried planks, some ladders, and others pushed forward siege-engines; while from beyond them, archers put up such showers of well-aimed arrows that they prevented the defenders from showing their noses above the battlements. The general assault was under the command of Sinan Pasha, beylerbey of the Turkish European territories, ‘the general of the West’, as an eye-witness, John Anagnostes, calls him.

The intensity and vehemence of the attack increased as fresh waves of the enemy hurled themselves against the walls, taking the place of those who had become exhausted. Now, almost beneath the battlements, they threw stones up onto the ramparts with their bare hands, while some make set to work to undermine the base of the walls and breaches in them. The main weight of the fighting had fallen, as always, on the eastern wall, since it was unsound and comparatively easy to scale at that point (see fig. 26). In this sector — along the upper stretch of the wall from the Trigonion as far as the estate of the monastery of Chortaïtis (where the prison of Eptapyrgion stands today) — Murad had taken command in person so that he could survey his troops better from this vantage point, while keeping in view the interior of the city.

At the beginning the besieged, both men and women, put up a stout fight, but suffered heavy casualties. The accuracy of the enemy archers had compelled them to hurl their stones and other missiles blindly over the battlements. In this critical hour there were many defeatistswho completely Iost their nerve and crept away one by one, leaving the walls unmanned.

It was past nine o’clock in the morning when the first breakthrough occured somewhere near the Trigonion. At that point the battlements had been left well-nigh deserted, and the Turks were able to set up a ladder at the corner of a tower. One of them began to ascend, his sword between his teeth, to the top of the wall. Upon the battlements he came across a badly wounded Venetian; he cut off his head and threw it down at the feet of his comrades, urging them with triumphant shouts to climb up and follow him. The Turks burst into the city, some by means of ladders and others through breaches in the walls, and brandishing their swords, swept down through the streets towards the lower parts of the city. At the same time they broke through the walls at several points.

The Venetian governors and a few other officials just managed to make the harbour, “one in his mantle, the other in his undershirt”, as the Venetian report puts it. The losses suffered by the Venetians were considerable. From their three galleys alone they had lost 270 men, amongst whom were numbered the son of Paulo Contarini, the last duke of Thessaloniki; Leonardo Gradenigo, captain of one of the galleys; and many more besides.

Within a short while the streets, houses, churches and monasteries were flooded with the enemy both mounted and on foot. The air was filled with shouting and wailing, as the conquerors abandoned themselves to plundering and seizing slaves for themselves. Some 7.000 slaves were dragged off to the tents of the Turkish camp — an ill-assorted mass of men, women and children, bound together in lines.

In accordance with the unwritten custom of war in the East, three days were given over to plunder. Churches, monuments and other public buildings became the scene of frenzied searches for hidden treasure, as each and every stone was suspected of concealing some secreted hoard, and nothing went untouched. This was the prime reason for the widespread destruction of churches and monasteries in Thessalonica. The damage done to the church of St. Demetrius was particularly severe.

On the fourth day Murad put an end to pillage and restored order. He drove the soldiers from the houses which they had appropriated and which he now returned to their owners. He even set free a good number of eminent citizens, paying their ransom himself; others were ransomed by that pious Christian ruler of Northern Serbia, George Branković.

But those who were not lucky enough to be set free were carried off as slaves to all points of the compass.

Upon entering the city, Murad proceeded to worship in the ‘Acheropoeitos’ (see fig. 27), which was the first church he turned into a mosque to symbolize his victory. This act is commemorated by a Turkish inscription still to be seen today on the eighth column of the northern colonnade (counting from the sanctuary); it runs: “The Sultan Murad Khan took Thessalonica in the year of the Hegira 833″ (i.e. 1429-1430) (see fig. 28).

Thus ended the Venetian occupation of Thessalonica, which had cost ‘the Serene Republic’ 200.000 ducats, at a conservative estimate .

It is, incidentally, a most surprising fact that a number of arrows that had belonged to the defenders in this siege, were preserved right up to the beginning of the last century. Very short, and with their feathers moth-eaten, they were found inside chests in the magazines built into the fortress walls and in the ‘Barut-hane’ or Gunpowder Tower (formerly the Office of War Supplies). Also found were some helmets of blueserge of the kind the defenders wore, strengthened inside and out with metal strips laid in different directions. One wonders what has become of these relics of that historic era.

Α good number of the inhabitants of Thessalonica then embraced Islam. The same thing followed the capture of other cities, and one is led to ponder over the proportional extent of conversions in rural districts.

The capture of Thessalonica threw the Greek world into a state of great consternation. It was the prelude to the fall of Constantinople itself. It was not only the literary men of the time who sang a lament over this tragic event: the living folk traditions have carried the story of that fateful day through the centuries, adapting it to the mythological form of the folk medium.

One account, preserved to our day by Greek oral tradition, is that Thessalonica fell into Turkish hands as a result of treachery on the part of the monks of the monastery of Vlataeon (see fig. 29). Murad is said to have been on the point of abandoning the siege when these monks approached him and advised him to cut the water pipes leading from Chortiátis, so that the city would suffer severely from thirst. This he did, so the story goes. However, neither the chronicler who recorded the capture, John Anagnostes, nor the Venetian communiqué make any reference whatever to such treachery nor to the city’s shortage of water (see fig. 30). Nevertheless, Anagnostes does tell us that it was no secret in the city that the Venetians feared treachery on the part of the inhabitants. It is most likely, therefore, that after the collapse of the defence along the eastern wall, there were many amongst the defenders and inhabitants alike who were willing to come to terms with the Turks; and it could well be that such a situation gave rise to the legend about the treachery of the monks from the monastery of Vlataeon . We do know, atleast, from a firman issued by Bayezid II in 1486, that the monks payed a small tax levied on estates (vineyards, market-gardens, etc), and flocks, but there is no mention of any bygone treachery or of any kind of service they might have rendered to Sultan Murad II .

In conclusion, I should like to record a rather beautiful Turkish tradition connected with the capture of Thessalonica, and which was engraved on a marble slab over the Letaean gate (soe fig. 31). While Murad was asleep in his palace at Yenitsa, the story has it that, God appeared to him in a dream and gave him a lovely rose to smell, full of perfume. The sultan was so amazed by its beauty tlıat he begged God to give it to him. God replied, “This rose, Murad, is Thessalonica. Know that it is to you granted by heaven to enjoy it. Do not waste time; go and take it”. Complying with this exhortation from God, Murad marched against Thessalonica and, as it has been written, captured it .

History of Macedonia 1354-1833,IMXA,1973
Apostolos Vacalopoulos
pages 89-98

Back

However, Murad at that point decided to do away with the Venetian presence there once and for all, and marched on Thessalonica. The news burst like a thunderbolt upon the inhabitants; but a few more days were required for the arrival of confirmation, before the Venetians decided on defensive measures. On 17 March, the vice-admiral, Antonio Diedo, sailed into the harbour with three galleys to put some heart into the terror-stricken populace. Α count of the men on the walls revealed the alarming weakness of the defence: there was only one man to every two or three crenelles! Moreover the defenders possessed neither adequate armament nor the indispensable resources of morale.

At daybreak on Sunday 26 March, Murad’s army appeared on the horizon, though not drawn up for battle and with colours unfurled. For many Christians who accompanied the Sultan had told him that his mere appearence in front of the city would suffice for him to take it without a drop of blood being spilt. There were hopes, it would seem, of treachery and a peaceful surrender; and that Murad entertained such expectations is clearly shown by the fact that he immediately ordered a number of notable Christians from among his retinue to approach the wall and call upon the inhabitants to rise against the Venetians and surrecnder the city. But his emissaries were not given a chance to complete their speech before a shower of arrows forced them to withdraw.

Murad then disposed his great army around the walls and set in motion preliminaries for the great assault. Each day, long lines of camels and ox-carts could be seen bringing up siege-engines and other war-material. The preparations lasted three days; yet before giving the signal for a general assault, Murad made one more effort to secure the surrender of the city, but the Venetians would not hear of any such proposition. So as to feel quite sure of the attitude and behaviour of the inhabitants, the Venetians scattered amongst them the Getarii — a corps of adventurers of diverse provenance whom they employed as mercenaries. The Getarii had orders to dispatch on the spot anyone who showed the slightestsign of a disposition to surrender . Then it was a terrible piece of news filled the Venetians with alarm. Α Venetian corporal, who had managed to slip into the city — probably from the western land-walls over towards the harbour (see figs. 24 and 25) — made his way to the governors with the report that the Turks were waiting for six pirate vessels from the Vardar, which they intended to launch as fire-boats against the three Venetian galleys, knowing well that all the crews of the galleys were fighting on the battlements. Straightway the governors sent word to the vice-admiral, Antonio Diedo, to withdraw the galey-crews from the city, but they avoided communicating this disturbing news to the inhabitants. This move was to have disastrous results; for the inhabitants learnt of it a few hours later — in the unnerving darkness of the night — from the Turkish camp .

At midnight a number of Christians from Murad’s camp approached the walls and once more urged the garrisons to surrender, informing them that at dawn the Turks would launch a general assault not only against the land-walls but against the sea-walls at the same time. The news spread like lightning throughout the city and put the inhabitants in a turmoil. That night no one slept. Those who did not remain on the walls kept vigil in the churches, where full of humility and contrition they prayed to God and to St. Demetrius.

The fear and confusion of the citizens was further increased by their misunderstanding of the unavoidable transfer of Venetian troops from the land-walls to the sea-walls in a bid to meet the danger from that quarter. The Thessalonians concluded that the Venetians were getting ready to leave, with the result that a number of irresolute guards lost heart and left their posts to retire to their homes.

The sun had hardly risen when the Turks, with a deafening din and cries of ‘Ullah Allah!’, launched an attack at all points along the land-walls. “Their war-cry alone would have been enough to shake from its foundations an even greater and more populous city thanThessalonica”, so ran the Venetian war-report. Some carried planks, some ladders, and others pushed forward siege-engines; while from beyond them, archers put up such showers of well-aimed arrows that they prevented the defenders from showing their noses above the battlements. The general assault was under the command of Sinan Pasha, beylerbey of the Turkish European territories, ‘the general of the West’, as an eye-witness, John Anagnostes, calls him.

The intensity and vehemence of the attack increased as fresh waves of the enemy hurled themselves against the walls, taking the place of those who had become exhausted. Now, almost beneath the battlements, they threw stones up onto the ramparts with their bare hands, while some make set to work to undermine the base of the walls and breaches in them. The main weight of the fighting had fallen, as always, on the eastern wall, since it was unsound and comparatively easy to scale at that point (see fig. 26). In this sector — along the upper stretch of the wall from the Trigonion as far as the estate of the monastery of Chortaïtis (where the prison of Eptapyrgion stands today) — Murad had taken command in person so that he could survey his troops better from this vantage point, while keeping in view the interior of the city.

At the beginning the besieged, both men and women, put up a stout fight, but suffered heavy casualties. The accuracy of the enemy archers had compelled them to hurl their stones and other missiles blindly over the battlements. In this critical hour there were many defeatistswho completely Iost their nerve and crept away one by one, leaving the walls unmanned.

It was past nine o’clock in the morning when the first breakthrough occured somewhere near the Trigonion. At that point the battlements had been left well-nigh deserted, and the Turks were able to set up a ladder at the corner of a tower. One of them began to ascend, his sword between his teeth, to the top of the wall. Upon the battlements he came across a badly wounded Venetian; he cut off his head and threw it down at the feet of his comrades, urging them with triumphant shouts to climb up and follow him. The Turks burst into the city, some by means of ladders and others through breaches in the walls, and brandishing their swords, swept down through the streets towards the lower parts of the city. At the same time they broke through the walls at several points.

The Venetian governors and a few other officials just managed to make the harbour, “one in his mantle, the other in his undershirt”, as the Venetian report puts it. The losses suffered by the Venetians were considerable. From their three galleys alone they had lost 270 men, amongst whom were numbered the son of Paulo Contarini, the last duke of Thessaloniki; Leonardo Gradenigo, captain of one of the galleys; and many more besides.

Within a short while the streets, houses, churches and monasteries were flooded with the enemy both mounted and on foot. The air was filled with shouting and wailing, as the conquerors abandoned themselves to plundering and seizing slaves for themselves. Some 7.000 slaves were dragged off to the tents of the Turkish camp — an ill-assorted mass of men, women and children, bound together in lines.

In accordance with the unwritten custom of war in the East, three days were given over to plunder. Churches, monuments and other public buildings became the scene of frenzied searches for hidden treasure, as each and every stone was suspected of concealing some secreted hoard, and nothing went untouched. This was the prime reason for the widespread destruction of churches and monasteries in Thessalonica. The damage done to the church of St. Demetrius was particularly severe.

On the fourth day Murad put an end to pillage and restored order. He drove the soldiers from the houses which they had appropriated and which he now returned to their owners. He even set free a good number of eminent citizens, paying their ransom himself; others were ransomed by that pious Christian ruler of Northern Serbia, George Branković.

But those who were not lucky enough to be set free were carried off as slaves to all points of the compass.

Upon entering the city, Murad proceeded to worship in the ‘Acheropoeitos’ (see fig. 27), which was the first church he turned into a mosque to symbolize his victory. This act is commemorated by a Turkish inscription still to be seen today on the eighth column of the northern colonnade (counting from the sanctuary); it runs: “The Sultan Murad Khan took Thessalonica in the year of the Hegira 833″ (i.e. 1429-1430) (see fig. 28).

Thus ended the Venetian occupation of Thessalonica, which had cost ‘the Serene Republic’ 200.000 ducats, at a conservative estimate .

It is, incidentally, a most surprising fact that a number of arrows that had belonged to the defenders in this siege, were preserved right up to the beginning of the last century. Very short, and with their feathers moth-eaten, they were found inside chests in the magazines built into the fortress walls and in the ‘Barut-hane’ or Gunpowder Tower (formerly the Office of War Supplies). Also found were some helmets of blueserge of the kind the defenders wore, strengthened inside and out with metal strips laid in different directions. One wonders what has become of these relics of that historic era.

Α good number of the inhabitants of Thessalonica then embraced Islam. The same thing followed the capture of other cities, and one is led to ponder over the proportional extent of conversions in rural districts.

The capture of Thessalonica threw the Greek world into a state of great consternation. It was the prelude to the fall of Constantinople itself. It was not only the literary men of the time who sang a lament over this tragic event: the living folk traditions have carried the story of that fateful day through the centuries, adapting it to the mythological form of the folk medium.

One account, preserved to our day by Greek oral tradition, is that Thessalonica fell into Turkish hands as a result of treachery on the part of the monks of the monastery of Vlataeon (see fig. 29). Murad is said to have been on the point of abandoning the siege when these monks approached him and advised him to cut the water pipes leading from Chortiátis, so that the city would suffer severely from thirst. This he did, so the story goes. However, neither the chronicler who recorded the capture, John Anagnostes, nor the Venetian communiqué make any reference whatever to such treachery nor to the city’s shortage of water (see fig. 30). Nevertheless, Anagnostes does tell us that it was no secret in the city that the Venetians feared treachery on the part of the inhabitants. It is most likely, therefore, that after the collapse of the defence along the eastern wall, there were many amongst the defenders and inhabitants alike who were willing to come to terms with the Turks; and it could well be that such a situation gave rise to the legend about the treachery of the monks from the monastery of Vlataeon . We do know, atleast, from a firman issued by Bayezid II in 1486, that the monks payed a small tax levied on estates (vineyards, market-gardens, etc), and flocks, but there is no mention of any bygone treachery or of any kind of service they might have rendered to Sultan Murad II .

In conclusion, I should like to record a rather beautiful Turkish tradition connected with the capture of Thessalonica, and which was engraved on a marble slab over the Letaean gate (soe fig. 31). While Murad was asleep in his palace at Yenitsa, the story has it that, God appeared to him in a dream and gave him a lovely rose to smell, full of perfume. The sultan was so amazed by its beauty tlıat he begged God to give it to him. God replied, “This rose, Murad, is Thessalonica. Know that it is to you granted by heaven to enjoy it. Do not waste time; go and take it”. Complying with this exhortation from God, Murad marched against Thessalonica and, as it has been written, captured it .

History of Macedonia 1354-1833,IMXA,1973
Apostolos Vacalopoulos
pages 89-98

Back

©2001 Andrea Hicks

from Peasant Society in the Late Byzantine Empire by Angeliki E. Laiou-Thomadakis, Princeton University Press, 1977, ISBN 0-691-95252-2.

As the main source of wealth, the land was distributed by the Palaeologan Emperors to their followers and to civil and military officials in the form of pronoia. The original grants carried an obligation of service, military or other. Eventually the pronoia became hereditary and the holders did not necessarily fulfill their obligations. Furthermore, what had been primarily a grant of revenues often became a grant of territorial rights as well. Their revenues consisted of the taxes which the peasants had at first paid to the state, plus part of the surplus, paid as rent and collected in the form of part of the yield. The peasants became dependent peasants, as groups of families and villages were granted to the landlord. The Palaiologoi, the Kantakouzenoi and the Synadenoi among others, became The Great Magnates who had much larger properties that yielded immense revenues. The largest landlord, however, was the church.

http://www.maridonna.com/onomastics/lay.htm

by Maridonna Benvenuti

ã Andrea Hicks 2001

From Peasant Society in the Late Byzantine Empire by Angeliki E. Laiou-Thomadakis, Princeton University Press, 1977, ISBN 0-691-95252-2.

The Byzantine peasants of the 14th century were commonly identified by a given or baptismal name and some other form of identification: a occupational byname, patronym or matronym, a nickname , or toponymn.

Although the author’s data could define only a fragmentary pattern for peasant naming in the 14th century, baptismal names as might be expected fall into these categories: (1) those referring to God, Christ, and the Virgin; (2) saints; (3) those deriving from feasts, of which Christmas and Easter are the most important.

(4) “great” family names like Komene and Choniatissa; (5) names of obviously foreign origin. Children were habitually named after the paternal or maternal grandparents, after parents, or siblings as they are today.

In the 12th century records of Lavra, 87% of the heads of households were identified only by family relationships or rubric. In the 15th century villages of Gomatou, Pinsson and Drymosita, 7 % were identified by craft or profession; 12% were identified by a toponymn and 4% were mentioned by first name only. The other 77% was identified by nickname, or by a ‘proper’ name derived from a baptismal name or a stated relationship to someone else. I think the author means surname when saying ‘proper’ name. Her data has a couple of examples of inherited names which was just taking hold.

The heads of households were identified in a number of ways.

(1) They may have both a baptismal (given) and a second name (by-name).

Konstantinos the Pelekites

Demetrios the shoemaker from Voleron

Widow Anatolike, identifies a woman through a topomyn

(2) Identification may be made on the basis of relationship with others.

widow Kale, wife of Konstantinos the Pelekites

widow Theodora Pelekito

Ioannes, son of Chalkeus

Michael, brother of Nikolaos Chalkeus

Theodora, daughter of Kelliotes

(Argyre) “wife of Kelliotes”

Demetrios, son-in-law of Panagiotes:

Widows could also keep their father’s or grandfather’s names. In 1301 Zoe, daughter of Theodoros Tzykalas, was married to a man named Michael, but after his death she appears as ‘widow Zoe of Tzykalas’. Zoe’s daughter, Anna, who was also a widow retained her grandfather’s name and was known as Anna, widow of Tzykalas.

(3) It was possible to the have the head of the houseold identified by one name, the baptismal name. These men were extremely poor or had little property.

For the table with names check here:
http://www.maridonna.com/onomastics/macedonia.htm

Sources:

Monastery of Iveron, villages Gomatou, Melintziani, Ierissos, Kato Volvos, and Xylorygion, in 1301, 1320, 1341. Dölger, “Sech Praktika,” Praktika, A, P, V.

Monastery of Lavra, villages Gomatou, Ierissos, Selas, Gradista, and Metalin in 1300. Gomatous, Selas, Gradista, Metalin, Gournai, Aghia Euphemia, Sarantarea, Pinsson, Karvaioi, Skelochorion, Panaghia, Neochorion, Kyra Pegadia, Paschali, Genna, Loroton in 1321. Unpublished praktika of 1300 and 1321, College de France, nos. II, 91 and 109.

Monastery of Xenophon, village Stomion in 1300, 1320, 1338; villages Psalidofourna-Neakitou and Ierissos in 1320 and 1338. L. Petit, Actes de Xénophon, Vizantiiskij Vremennik, 10 (1903), appendix 1, nos. 3, 7, 11.

Monastery of Zographou, villages of Ierissos and Symeon in 1300, 1320; villages Ano Volvos and Epano Antigonia in 1320. Regel-Kurtz-Korablev, Zographou, nos. XV,XVII. For the dates, cf. Ostrogorskij, Féodalité, 266-271.

Monastery of Chilandar, villages of Leipsochorion and Evnouchou in 1318. L. Petit, Actes de Chilabndar, I, Actes grecs, Vizantiiskij Vremennik, 17 (1911), appendix I, no.38; on the date cf. Ostrogorskij, Féodalité,273.

Bompaire, J. Actes de Xéropotamou, Paris, 1964.

Guillou, A. Les archives de Saint-Jean Prodrome sur le mont Ménécée. Paris, 1955.

Lexicon of Greek Personal Names, on-line, Vol. III.B, Oxford Univ. , http://www.lgpn.ox.ac.uk/names2.html

Lefort, J. Actes d’Esphiigménou. Paris, P. Lethielleux, 1973.

Lemerle, P. “un praktikon inédit des archives de Karakala (Janvier 1342) et la situation en Macédoine orientale au moment del’usurpation de Cantacuzène,” vol. 1, Athens, 1965, 278-298.

———- Actes de Kutlumus. Paris, P. Lethielleux, 1945.

Mošin, V. “Akti iz svetogorshkih arhiva,” Crpska kraljevska Akademija, Spomennik, 12 (Belgrade, 1939), 155-260.

Oikonomidès, N. Actes de Dionysiou. Paris, 1968.

Petit, L. Actes de Pantocrator, Vizantiiskj Vremennik, 10, 1903, appendix II.

Regel, W. , E. Kurtz, B. Korblev, Actes de Philothée, Vizantiiskij Vremennik, 20 (1913), appemdix 1.

Regel, W. Χρυσόβουλλα καì Γράματα της εν τω˛ Άγίω˛ όρει ίερâς καì σεβασμίς μεγίστης μονηˆς τουˆ Βατοπεδίον. St. Petersburg, 1898.

Unpublished Documents

Vatopedi

College de France; Praktikons of possessions in the Themes of Thessaloniki and Strymon, nos. 338 & 334. 1300-01; 14th C.

Lavra

College de France: Periorismos of the domains of Lavra in Macedonia, Theme of Thessaloniki, 1300 & 1321.

No. II, 91of the College de France: Praktikon of possessions in the Theme of Thessaloniki 1300.

No. II, 109 of the.College de France: Praktikon of possessions of Lavra near Thessaloniki 1321.

No. 215 of the College de France: Praktikon of possessions of Lavra in the Theme of Thessaloniki, 1409.

Nos. II, 35, 36 of the College de France: Praktikon of possessions in the Theme of Strymon, 1317.

No. 138 of the College de France: Praktikon of possessions in the Theme of Strymon, 1336

Nos. II, 103, 105 of the College de France: Praktika of possessions in the Theme of Strymon.

Iveron

No. 43 of the College de France: Praktikon of possessions in the Theme of Strymon. Probable date, 1320.

Two unpublished praktika given to Michael Saventzes and Nikolaos Maroules, preserved in the archives of the monastery of Xenophon.

Back

©2001 Andrea Hicks

from Peasant Society in the Late Byzantine Empire by Angeliki E. Laiou-Thomadakis, Princeton University Press, 1977, ISBN 0-691-95252-2.

As the main source of wealth, the land was distributed by the Palaeologan Emperors to their followers and to civil and military officials in the form of pronoia. The original grants carried an obligation of service, military or other. Eventually the pronoia became hereditary and the holders did not necessarily fulfill their obligations. Furthermore, what had been primarily a grant of revenues often became a grant of territorial rights as well. Their revenues consisted of the taxes which the peasants had at first paid to the state, plus part of the surplus, paid as rent and collected in the form of part of the yield. The peasants became dependent peasants, as groups of families and villages were granted to the landlord. The Palaiologoi, the Kantakouzenoi and the Synadenoi among others, became The Great Magnates who had much larger properties that yielded immense revenues. The largest landlord, however, was the church.

http://www.maridonna.com/onomastics/lay.htm

by Maridonna Benvenuti

ã Andrea Hicks 2001

From Peasant Society in the Late Byzantine Empire by Angeliki E. Laiou-Thomadakis, Princeton University Press, 1977, ISBN 0-691-95252-2.

The Byzantine peasants of the 14th century were commonly identified by a given or baptismal name and some other form of identification: a occupational byname, patronym or matronym, a nickname , or toponymn.

Although the author’s data could define only a fragmentary pattern for peasant naming in the 14th century, baptismal names as might be expected fall into these categories: (1) those referring to God, Christ, and the Virgin; (2) saints; (3) those deriving from feasts, of which Christmas and Easter are the most important.

(4) “great” family names like Komene and Choniatissa; (5) names of obviously foreign origin. Children were habitually named after the paternal or maternal grandparents, after parents, or siblings as they are today.

In the 12th century records of Lavra, 87% of the heads of households were identified only by family relationships or rubric. In the 15th century villages of Gomatou, Pinsson and Drymosita, 7 % were identified by craft or profession; 12% were identified by a toponymn and 4% were mentioned by first name only. The other 77% was identified by nickname, or by a ‘proper’ name derived from a baptismal name or a stated relationship to someone else. I think the author means surname when saying ‘proper’ name. Her data has a couple of examples of inherited names which was just taking hold.

The heads of households were identified in a number of ways.

(1) They may have both a baptismal (given) and a second name (by-name).

Konstantinos the Pelekites

Demetrios the shoemaker from Voleron

Widow Anatolike, identifies a woman through a topomyn

(2) Identification may be made on the basis of relationship with others.

widow Kale, wife of Konstantinos the Pelekites

widow Theodora Pelekito

Ioannes, son of Chalkeus

Michael, brother of Nikolaos Chalkeus

Theodora, daughter of Kelliotes

(Argyre) “wife of Kelliotes”

Demetrios, son-in-law of Panagiotes:

Widows could also keep their father’s or grandfather’s names. In 1301 Zoe, daughter of Theodoros Tzykalas, was married to a man named Michael, but after his death she appears as ‘widow Zoe of Tzykalas’. Zoe’s daughter, Anna, who was also a widow retained her grandfather’s name and was known as Anna, widow of Tzykalas.

(3) It was possible to the have the head of the houseold identified by one name, the baptismal name. These men were extremely poor or had little property.

For the table with names check here:
http://www.maridonna.com/onomastics/macedonia.htm

Sources:

Monastery of Iveron, villages Gomatou, Melintziani, Ierissos, Kato Volvos, and Xylorygion, in 1301, 1320, 1341. Dölger, “Sech Praktika,” Praktika, A, P, V.

Monastery of Lavra, villages Gomatou, Ierissos, Selas, Gradista, and Metalin in 1300. Gomatous, Selas, Gradista, Metalin, Gournai, Aghia Euphemia, Sarantarea, Pinsson, Karvaioi, Skelochorion, Panaghia, Neochorion, Kyra Pegadia, Paschali, Genna, Loroton in 1321. Unpublished praktika of 1300 and 1321, College de France, nos. II, 91 and 109.

Monastery of Xenophon, village Stomion in 1300, 1320, 1338; villages Psalidofourna-Neakitou and Ierissos in 1320 and 1338. L. Petit, Actes de Xénophon, Vizantiiskij Vremennik, 10 (1903), appendix 1, nos. 3, 7, 11.

Monastery of Zographou, villages of Ierissos and Symeon in 1300, 1320; villages Ano Volvos and Epano Antigonia in 1320. Regel-Kurtz-Korablev, Zographou, nos. XV,XVII. For the dates, cf. Ostrogorskij, Féodalité, 266-271.

Monastery of Chilandar, villages of Leipsochorion and Evnouchou in 1318. L. Petit, Actes de Chilabndar, I, Actes grecs, Vizantiiskij Vremennik, 17 (1911), appendix I, no.38; on the date cf. Ostrogorskij, Féodalité,273.

Bompaire, J. Actes de Xéropotamou, Paris, 1964.

Guillou, A. Les archives de Saint-Jean Prodrome sur le mont Ménécée. Paris, 1955.

Lexicon of Greek Personal Names, on-line, Vol. III.B, Oxford Univ. , http://www.lgpn.ox.ac.uk/names2.html

Lefort, J. Actes d’Esphiigménou. Paris, P. Lethielleux, 1973.

Lemerle, P. “un praktikon inédit des archives de Karakala (Janvier 1342) et la situation en Macédoine orientale au moment del’usurpation de Cantacuzène,” vol. 1, Athens, 1965, 278-298.

———- Actes de Kutlumus. Paris, P. Lethielleux, 1945.

Mošin, V. “Akti iz svetogorshkih arhiva,” Crpska kraljevska Akademija, Spomennik, 12 (Belgrade, 1939), 155-260.

Oikonomidès, N. Actes de Dionysiou. Paris, 1968.

Petit, L. Actes de Pantocrator, Vizantiiskj Vremennik, 10, 1903, appendix II.

Regel, W. , E. Kurtz, B. Korblev, Actes de Philothée, Vizantiiskij Vremennik, 20 (1913), appemdix 1.

Regel, W. Χρυσόβουλλα καì Γράματα της εν τω˛ Άγίω˛ όρει ίερâς καì σεβασμίς μεγίστης μονηˆς τουˆ Βατοπεδίον. St. Petersburg, 1898.

Unpublished Documents

Vatopedi

College de France; Praktikons of possessions in the Themes of Thessaloniki and Strymon, nos. 338 & 334. 1300-01; 14th C.

Lavra

College de France: Periorismos of the domains of Lavra in Macedonia, Theme of Thessaloniki, 1300 & 1321.

No. II, 91of the College de France: Praktikon of possessions in the Theme of Thessaloniki 1300.

No. II, 109 of the.College de France: Praktikon of possessions of Lavra near Thessaloniki 1321.

No. 215 of the College de France: Praktikon of possessions of Lavra in the Theme of Thessaloniki, 1409.

Nos. II, 35, 36 of the College de France: Praktikon of possessions in the Theme of Strymon, 1317.

No. 138 of the College de France: Praktikon of possessions in the Theme of Strymon, 1336

Nos. II, 103, 105 of the College de France: Praktika of possessions in the Theme of Strymon.

Iveron

No. 43 of the College de France: Praktikon of possessions in the Theme of Strymon. Probable date, 1320.

Two unpublished praktika given to Michael Saventzes and Nikolaos Maroules, preserved in the archives of the monastery of Xenophon.

Back

Andronikos Kallistos (b.Thessaloniki, 1400 – d. London, 1486). He lived and studied in Constantinople. After its fall he went to Italy where he joined Vissarion. He taught in Bologna (1464), Rome (1469), Florence, Paris and London (1476). From there he began the systematic teaching of Greek literature in France. He communicated the principles of Aristotelian thought to many of his students, whose learning won them distinction in Europe. He possessed a large collection of Greek manuscripts.
Damaskinos (Stouditis) (b. Thessaloniki – d. 1577). A student of Th. Eleavoulkos in Constantinople. Bishop of Liti and Rendini (1564). Metropolitan of Nafpaktos and Arta. Patriarchal exarch of Aitolia.

Malachias Rizos (b. Thessaloniki). Abbot of a Unitist monastery near Palermo.

Dimitrios the Deacon (b. Thessaloniki). Student of Michail Ermodoros Listarchos from Constantinople. Multilingual. A monk in Egypt. Sent to Germany by the Ecumenical Patriarch Iosaph the Magnificent, to investigate the new heresy of Protestantism. He resided in Wittemberg for six months (1559). He made a great impression on Melangthonas, to whom he presented the Confessions of Augustine as a gift for the Patriarch.

Theofilos (b. Zichni, Serres, circa 1460-1470). A monk at Iveron Monastery. Copyist of many codices and probable founder of the monastery’s fine library.

Ioannis Kottounios (b. Veroia, 1572 – d. Padua, 1657). Student at the Greek college of Ayios Athanasios in Rome (1605-1613). He studied medicine, Greek literature, theology and philosophy at Italian universities. He taught at the universities of Padua, Bologna and Pisa, where he became particularly well known. A student of the renowned Italian philosopher Cesare Cremonini and his successor to the chair of philosophy at Padua. In 1653 he founded the Kottounian Hellinomouseio (a boarding school for Greek boys). He was a friend of Mart. Krousios, Leon Allatios and other personalities of his time. An eminent scholar and commentator on the works of Aristotle.

Mitrofanis Kritopoulos (b. Veroia, 1589 – d. Wallachia, 1639). A monk on Mount Athos. He was a close associate of Kyrillos Loukaris. He studied in England and Germany. He traveled to Europe and mingled with the greatest scholars and theologians of his day. He made Orthodoxy known in the West and was particularly concerned with the problem of unifying the Orthodox Church with the churches of Western Europe. He taught Greek in Vienna (1627-1630). Elected patriarch of Alexandria (1636), where he put together an important library.

Kallinikos Manios (b. Veroia, 1624 – d. 1665). Student at the Greek College of Ayios Athanasios in Rome (1642-1647) and later at the Collegio Urbano de Propaganda Fide. He returned to Veroia where he was active in the field of education (1649) and was instrumental in the founding of the town’s first school.

Konstantinos Kallokratos (b. Veroia, 1589). Student at the Greek College of Ayios Athanasios in Rome (1600-1610), where he studied philosophy and theology. He taught at a school in Calabria for Greek-speaking Albanians. His bosom friend was Leon Allatios. A brilliant man and a skilled poet.

Georgios (Grigorios) Kontaris (b. Servia). A monk, he studied Latin and Italian in Venice (1665), becoming a master of philosophy. School principal in Kozani (1668-1678). Later teacher in Servia. Elected metropolitan of Servia and Kozani (1673-), metropolitan of Athens and metropolitan of Smyrna (1690). He was the first to show interest in Ancient Greek history.

Anastasios Michail (b. Naousa – d. Russia, after 1722). General studies in Ioannina with G. Sougdouris as his teacher of rhetoric and philosophy. In 1702 he met with distinguished German theologians in Constantinople. He went to Halle and was later elected a member of the Berlin Academy of Sciences. He produced enlightening work for Christians and Greeks in Moscow, where he won renown for his theological and philosophical knowledge.

Georgios Parakeimenos (b. Kozani). He studied medicine and philosophy at Padua. Director of the Kozani school (1694-1707). Physician and preacher.

Sevastos Leontiadis (b. Kastoria, 1690 – d. 1765). Student of Anthrakitis in Siatista, Kastoria and Ioannina. Studies in Italy. Director of the Kastoria school (1726-1728). He taught in Kozani (1728-1733) and Moschopolis.

Dimitrios Karakasis (b. Siatista, 1734). He studied medicine, philosophy and mathematics at Halle, Saxony. Degree in medicine (1760). Physician in Vienna, Larisa, Siatista, Kozani, Bucharest. Taught in Siatista.

Manassis Iliadis (b. Meleniko, early 18th century – d. Bucharest, 1785). Studied medicine at Padua and Bologna, physics and mathematics in Germany and Italy. Physician in Bucharest. He taught philosophy and physics at the Bucharest Academy.

Michail Papageorgiou (b. Siatista, 1727 – d. Vienna, 1796). Studied philosophy in Ioannina under Eugenios Voulgaris. Studied philosophy and medicine in Germany. Taught in his birthplace, Selitsa, Meleniko, Vienna and Budapest.

Konstantinos Michail (b. Kastoria). A philosopher-physician and linguist, he spoke Greek, Latin, French and German. Student of Michail Papageorgiou. He left all his books to the schools of Kastoria.

Ioannis Emmanouil (b. Kastoria). Studied philosophy in Pest and Vienna.

Thomas Mandakasis (b. Kastoria, early 19th century). Studied medicine and philosophy at Leipzig. Degree in medicine (1758). Physician abroad. Director of the Kastoria school (1767-1770).

Dimitrios Darvaris (b. Kleisoura, 1754 – d. Vienna, 1823). He studied Latin, Greek and Slavonic in Budapest, Zemun and Bucharest; philosophy at Halle, Saxony. He taught Greek in Zemun.

Georgios Sakellarios (b. Kozani, 1765 – d. 1838). Student of Kallinikos Barkosis and Amphilohios Paraskevas. He studied German and French as well as philosophy in Hungary. He also studied medicine in Vienna and practiced medicine in Kozani, Naousa, Tsaritsani and Kastoria. He was chief physician at the court of Ali Pasha. He was an associate of Rigas Ferraios and Perraivos.

Michail Perdikaris (b. Kozani, 1766 – d. Monastir, 1828). Physician, scholar. He studied medicine and literature at Italian universities and in Vienna. Conservative, yet a true ideologue, he was a faithful student of Amphilohios Paraskevas and Harisios Megdanis. He taught in the Danubian principalities and practiced medicine in Epirus, Kozani, Thessaloniki, Monastir and elsewhere.

Michail Doukas (b. Siatista – d. Mount Athos). He studied philosophy in Vienna, where he was also a merchant.

Harisios Megdanis (b. Kozani, 1769 – d. 1823). A student of Amphilohios Paraskevas. He studied rhetoric, philosophy and mathematics at Livadi. A private tutor in Pest. He returned to Kozani and entered the priesthood. He taught in Kozani and other Macedonian towns. He also acted as both physician and preacher.

Grigorios Zaviras (b. Siatista, 1744 – d. Shabat Shalashi, Hungary, 1804). A student of Varkosis in Siatista. A merchant in Budapest. He founded a school for the Greek community in Kalocsa, Hungary, where he also taught. His wonderful library, which he donated to the Greek Church in Pest, has been preserved. A sage of his time, with a multitude of diverse interests and enormous intellectual powers.

Vasilios Papaefthymiou (b. Kostantziko). He taught at the Greek community’s school in Vienna (1802-1804).

Athanasios Christopoulos (b. Kastoria, 1772 – d. Transylvania, 1847). He studied medicine, philosophy and law in Budapest and Padua. A student and friend of professor Lambros Fotiadis. Courtier of the prince Alexandros Mourouzis and judge in Wallachia, where he was the “Spokesman for foreign cases.” He helped to draft the urban law code in Wallachia, which was also the first document of its kind in Modern Greek. Emissary of the ‘Philiki Etaireia’. He lived in Greece from 1828 to 1836.

Grigorios Zalykis or Zalykoglous (b. Thessaloniki, 1777 – d. Paris, 1827). He studied Greek, Latin and French philosophy in Bucharest. A student of the famous teacher Lambros Fotiadis. He enthusiastically espoused the views of Korais. Secretary to Choiseul Goffier (from 1802). Co-founder of the “Greek Language Hotel” in Paris (an organization aimed at the liberation of Greece (1809), a forerunner of the ‘Philiki Etaireia’). First Secretary at the Ottoman Embassy in Paris (1816-1820). When the Greek War of Independence broke out in 1821, he took refuge in Transylvania, Bessarabia and St. Petersburg under the wing of Tsar Alexander.

Eufronios Rafail Popovits (b. Kozani, 1774 – d. Iasio, 1853). He studied rhetoric, philosophy, physics, political science and economics in Hungary. He completed his studies in Vienna. He taught at the Greek schools in Pest, Vienna and Zemun and also engaged in journalistic activity in Vienna, where he edited the newspaper “News from Eastern Places” (2 July 1811-27 December 1811). He bequeathed his library to Kozani.

Georgios Rousiadis (b. Kozani, 1783 – d. Athens, 1854). A student of Amphilohios Paraskevas. He studied in Vienna. A teacher in the Greek community in Vienna and the Greek community in Pest. A member of the ‘Philiki Etaireia’, he took part in the Greek War of Independence. After the liberation, he lived in Western Europe. He returned to Athens in 1848.

Minas Minoidis (d. France). A student of Athanasios Parios. He taught rhetoric and philosophy in Serres and Thessaloniki. He also taught Ancient Greek language and literature in Paris. Interpreter at the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Chevalier of the Legion of Honour. Militantly opposed to Korais’ ideas on the Language Question, he was his most severe and unfair critic. A fervent supporter of the fight for independence. He discovered the verse myths of Vavrios in a Mount Athos manuscript.

http://www.historicalmacedonia.com/h…h-century.html

Andronikos Kallistos (b.Thessaloniki, 1400 – d. London, 1486). He lived and studied in Constantinople. After its fall he went to Italy where he joined Vissarion. He taught in Bologna (1464), Rome (1469), Florence, Paris and London (1476). From there he began the systematic teaching of Greek literature in France. He communicated the principles of Aristotelian thought to many of his students, whose learning won them distinction in Europe. He possessed a large collection of Greek manuscripts.
Damaskinos (Stouditis) (b. Thessaloniki – d. 1577). A student of Th. Eleavoulkos in Constantinople. Bishop of Liti and Rendini (1564). Metropolitan of Nafpaktos and Arta. Patriarchal exarch of Aitolia.

Malachias Rizos (b. Thessaloniki). Abbot of a Unitist monastery near Palermo.

Dimitrios the Deacon (b. Thessaloniki). Student of Michail Ermodoros Listarchos from Constantinople. Multilingual. A monk in Egypt. Sent to Germany by the Ecumenical Patriarch Iosaph the Magnificent, to investigate the new heresy of Protestantism. He resided in Wittemberg for six months (1559). He made a great impression on Melangthonas, to whom he presented the Confessions of Augustine as a gift for the Patriarch.

Theofilos (b. Zichni, Serres, circa 1460-1470). A monk at Iveron Monastery. Copyist of many codices and probable founder of the monastery’s fine library.

Ioannis Kottounios (b. Veroia, 1572 – d. Padua, 1657). Student at the Greek college of Ayios Athanasios in Rome (1605-1613). He studied medicine, Greek literature, theology and philosophy at Italian universities. He taught at the universities of Padua, Bologna and Pisa, where he became particularly well known. A student of the renowned Italian philosopher Cesare Cremonini and his successor to the chair of philosophy at Padua. In 1653 he founded the Kottounian Hellinomouseio (a boarding school for Greek boys). He was a friend of Mart. Krousios, Leon Allatios and other personalities of his time. An eminent scholar and commentator on the works of Aristotle.

Mitrofanis Kritopoulos (b. Veroia, 1589 – d. Wallachia, 1639). A monk on Mount Athos. He was a close associate of Kyrillos Loukaris. He studied in England and Germany. He traveled to Europe and mingled with the greatest scholars and theologians of his day. He made Orthodoxy known in the West and was particularly concerned with the problem of unifying the Orthodox Church with the churches of Western Europe. He taught Greek in Vienna (1627-1630). Elected patriarch of Alexandria (1636), where he put together an important library.

Kallinikos Manios (b. Veroia, 1624 – d. 1665). Student at the Greek College of Ayios Athanasios in Rome (1642-1647) and later at the Collegio Urbano de Propaganda Fide. He returned to Veroia where he was active in the field of education (1649) and was instrumental in the founding of the town’s first school.

Konstantinos Kallokratos (b. Veroia, 1589). Student at the Greek College of Ayios Athanasios in Rome (1600-1610), where he studied philosophy and theology. He taught at a school in Calabria for Greek-speaking Albanians. His bosom friend was Leon Allatios. A brilliant man and a skilled poet.

Georgios (Grigorios) Kontaris (b. Servia). A monk, he studied Latin and Italian in Venice (1665), becoming a master of philosophy. School principal in Kozani (1668-1678). Later teacher in Servia. Elected metropolitan of Servia and Kozani (1673-), metropolitan of Athens and metropolitan of Smyrna (1690). He was the first to show interest in Ancient Greek history.

Anastasios Michail (b. Naousa – d. Russia, after 1722). General studies in Ioannina with G. Sougdouris as his teacher of rhetoric and philosophy. In 1702 he met with distinguished German theologians in Constantinople. He went to Halle and was later elected a member of the Berlin Academy of Sciences. He produced enlightening work for Christians and Greeks in Moscow, where he won renown for his theological and philosophical knowledge.

Georgios Parakeimenos (b. Kozani). He studied medicine and philosophy at Padua. Director of the Kozani school (1694-1707). Physician and preacher.

Sevastos Leontiadis (b. Kastoria, 1690 – d. 1765). Student of Anthrakitis in Siatista, Kastoria and Ioannina. Studies in Italy. Director of the Kastoria school (1726-1728). He taught in Kozani (1728-1733) and Moschopolis.

Dimitrios Karakasis (b. Siatista, 1734). He studied medicine, philosophy and mathematics at Halle, Saxony. Degree in medicine (1760). Physician in Vienna, Larisa, Siatista, Kozani, Bucharest. Taught in Siatista.

Manassis Iliadis (b. Meleniko, early 18th century – d. Bucharest, 1785). Studied medicine at Padua and Bologna, physics and mathematics in Germany and Italy. Physician in Bucharest. He taught philosophy and physics at the Bucharest Academy.

Michail Papageorgiou (b. Siatista, 1727 – d. Vienna, 1796). Studied philosophy in Ioannina under Eugenios Voulgaris. Studied philosophy and medicine in Germany. Taught in his birthplace, Selitsa, Meleniko, Vienna and Budapest.

Konstantinos Michail (b. Kastoria). A philosopher-physician and linguist, he spoke Greek, Latin, French and German. Student of Michail Papageorgiou. He left all his books to the schools of Kastoria.

Ioannis Emmanouil (b. Kastoria). Studied philosophy in Pest and Vienna.

Thomas Mandakasis (b. Kastoria, early 19th century). Studied medicine and philosophy at Leipzig. Degree in medicine (1758). Physician abroad. Director of the Kastoria school (1767-1770).

Dimitrios Darvaris (b. Kleisoura, 1754 – d. Vienna, 1823). He studied Latin, Greek and Slavonic in Budapest, Zemun and Bucharest; philosophy at Halle, Saxony. He taught Greek in Zemun.

Georgios Sakellarios (b. Kozani, 1765 – d. 1838). Student of Kallinikos Barkosis and Amphilohios Paraskevas. He studied German and French as well as philosophy in Hungary. He also studied medicine in Vienna and practiced medicine in Kozani, Naousa, Tsaritsani and Kastoria. He was chief physician at the court of Ali Pasha. He was an associate of Rigas Ferraios and Perraivos.

Michail Perdikaris (b. Kozani, 1766 – d. Monastir, 1828). Physician, scholar. He studied medicine and literature at Italian universities and in Vienna. Conservative, yet a true ideologue, he was a faithful student of Amphilohios Paraskevas and Harisios Megdanis. He taught in the Danubian principalities and practiced medicine in Epirus, Kozani, Thessaloniki, Monastir and elsewhere.

Michail Doukas (b. Siatista – d. Mount Athos). He studied philosophy in Vienna, where he was also a merchant.

Harisios Megdanis (b. Kozani, 1769 – d. 1823). A student of Amphilohios Paraskevas. He studied rhetoric, philosophy and mathematics at Livadi. A private tutor in Pest. He returned to Kozani and entered the priesthood. He taught in Kozani and other Macedonian towns. He also acted as both physician and preacher.

Grigorios Zaviras (b. Siatista, 1744 – d. Shabat Shalashi, Hungary, 1804). A student of Varkosis in Siatista. A merchant in Budapest. He founded a school for the Greek community in Kalocsa, Hungary, where he also taught. His wonderful library, which he donated to the Greek Church in Pest, has been preserved. A sage of his time, with a multitude of diverse interests and enormous intellectual powers.

Vasilios Papaefthymiou (b. Kostantziko). He taught at the Greek community’s school in Vienna (1802-1804).

Athanasios Christopoulos (b. Kastoria, 1772 – d. Transylvania, 1847). He studied medicine, philosophy and law in Budapest and Padua. A student and friend of professor Lambros Fotiadis. Courtier of the prince Alexandros Mourouzis and judge in Wallachia, where he was the “Spokesman for foreign cases.” He helped to draft the urban law code in Wallachia, which was also the first document of its kind in Modern Greek. Emissary of the ‘Philiki Etaireia’. He lived in Greece from 1828 to 1836.

Grigorios Zalykis or Zalykoglous (b. Thessaloniki, 1777 – d. Paris, 1827). He studied Greek, Latin and French philosophy in Bucharest. A student of the famous teacher Lambros Fotiadis. He enthusiastically espoused the views of Korais. Secretary to Choiseul Goffier (from 1802). Co-founder of the “Greek Language Hotel” in Paris (an organization aimed at the liberation of Greece (1809), a forerunner of the ‘Philiki Etaireia’). First Secretary at the Ottoman Embassy in Paris (1816-1820). When the Greek War of Independence broke out in 1821, he took refuge in Transylvania, Bessarabia and St. Petersburg under the wing of Tsar Alexander.

Eufronios Rafail Popovits (b. Kozani, 1774 – d. Iasio, 1853). He studied rhetoric, philosophy, physics, political science and economics in Hungary. He completed his studies in Vienna. He taught at the Greek schools in Pest, Vienna and Zemun and also engaged in journalistic activity in Vienna, where he edited the newspaper “News from Eastern Places” (2 July 1811-27 December 1811). He bequeathed his library to Kozani.

Georgios Rousiadis (b. Kozani, 1783 – d. Athens, 1854). A student of Amphilohios Paraskevas. He studied in Vienna. A teacher in the Greek community in Vienna and the Greek community in Pest. A member of the ‘Philiki Etaireia’, he took part in the Greek War of Independence. After the liberation, he lived in Western Europe. He returned to Athens in 1848.

Minas Minoidis (d. France). A student of Athanasios Parios. He taught rhetoric and philosophy in Serres and Thessaloniki. He also taught Ancient Greek language and literature in Paris. Interpreter at the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Chevalier of the Legion of Honour. Militantly opposed to Korais’ ideas on the Language Question, he was his most severe and unfair critic. A fervent supporter of the fight for independence. He discovered the verse myths of Vavrios in a Mount Athos manuscript.

http://www.historicalmacedonia.com/h…h-century.html

Quote:

<Georgios Akropolitis, `Annales’, Patrologia
Graecae, vol.140 col: 1196a (80)>

Quote:

<Theophylactos of Ohrid, “To the Despoina Lady
Maria [Alani],” 58-59>

Constantine Poryphorgenitus:

“

Quote:

De Administrando Imperial, Constantine Porphyrogenitus, 50

I love this one. Using Macedonians (and Thracians) to put down the Slavs.

“

Quote:

Slavs on the fars side of the river (across the Danube)

Quote:

No ‘Macedonians’ in the Slavic regions.

More from Maurice’s Strategikon (5-6th century):

“

Quote:

Maurice’s Strategikon, Book 11.4 , page 120

Hardly civilized Macedonians.

“

Quote:

Book 11.4, 122-123

Slavs over the Danube yet again.

The Miracles of St. Demetrius, Anastasius the Librarian (8th century)

Miracle 9

Quote:

The contradiction between the barbarian Slavs and the civilized Thessaloniki with it’s loyal Saint, Demetrius, is obvious.
 

Quote:

“The Administrator’s Report on the Crimean Peninsula.” (in 964?): #2

Quote:

Anna Komnini (in 1148-53).
“Alexiad”: 10.8.5-6

Quote:

Georgios Plithon Gemistos (in 1418)
“About the Matters in Peloponnisos”:

Quote:

Nikiforos Grigoras (in 1327).
“Epistle to Sir Andronikos Zaridis”:

Quote:

Dimitrios Kydonis (in 1366).
“Advising the Romans”:

Quote:

Emperor Maurikios? (590-620?).
“On Strategy”: 1.8

Quote:

Arethas of Kaisaria (in 900s), “Public Anathematization of Polygamy”

Quote:

Anna Komnini (in 1148-53), “Alexiad”: 5:8.8

Quote:

<Georgios Akropolitis, `Annales’, Patrologia
Graecae, vol.140 col: 1196a (80)>

Quote:

<Theophylactos of Ohrid, “To the Despoina Lady
Maria [Alani],” 58-59>

Constantine Poryphorgenitus:

“

Quote:

De Administrando Imperial, Constantine Porphyrogenitus, 50

I love this one. Using Macedonians (and Thracians) to put down the Slavs.

“

Quote:

Slavs on the fars side of the river (across the Danube)

Quote:

No ‘Macedonians’ in the Slavic regions.

More from Maurice’s Strategikon (5-6th century):

“

Quote:

Maurice’s Strategikon, Book 11.4 , page 120

Hardly civilized Macedonians.

“

Quote:

Book 11.4, 122-123

Slavs over the Danube yet again.

The Miracles of St. Demetrius, Anastasius the Librarian (8th century)

Miracle 9

Quote:

The contradiction between the barbarian Slavs and the civilized Thessaloniki with it’s loyal Saint, Demetrius, is obvious.
 

Quote:

“The Administrator’s Report on the Crimean Peninsula.” (in 964?): #2

Quote:

Anna Komnini (in 1148-53).
“Alexiad”: 10.8.5-6

Quote:

Georgios Plithon Gemistos (in 1418)
“About the Matters in Peloponnisos”:

Quote:

Nikiforos Grigoras (in 1327).
“Epistle to Sir Andronikos Zaridis”:

Quote:

Dimitrios Kydonis (in 1366).
“Advising the Romans”:

Quote:

Emperor Maurikios? (590-620?).
“On Strategy”: 1.8

Quote:

Arethas of Kaisaria (in 900s), “Public Anathematization of Polygamy”

Quote:

Anna Komnini (in 1148-53), “Alexiad”: 5:8.8

All neutral sources mention that the two brothers had Greek names (we are keeping in mind Cyril was baptised as konstantinos), they were members of a noble family, their father Leon was a Greek military man and their mother of slavic background. Furthermore both brothers were born in Thessaloniki, were educated in Konstantinople where they took a highly Byzantine education and lived all their lives into Byzantine Empire apart from the fact they were send out on missions to bring christianity to various regions.We can find the following evidence from records of their Greek conscience on the Honorary Volume to Cyrillos and Methodios for the 1100 years, Thessaloniki-1968 by Henriette Ozanne. For example, the below for Cyrillos:In his dialog with the Muslims, he points out that “…every science stem from us…” implying the Greeks and the Greek culture .During the Hazars’ mission, the hagan of the Hazars asked him what present he wished to have offered to him and he said “…Give me all the Greek prisoners of war you have here. They are more valuable to me than any other present…” – Scientif Annals of the Theology Faculty of the Thessaloniki University (1968) Also many non-Greeks accept that the 2 brothers were Greeks:The Slav Pope John Paul II who in 31/12/1980 (in an official encyclical-Egregiae Virtutis-to the Catholic Church) and 14/2/1981(in the S.Clement church in Rome) said that Cyrillos and Methodios were “Greek brothers, born in Thessaloniki”the Serb historian V.Bogdanovich, says that “Kyrillos and Methodios were born in Thessaloniki and were Greeks in origin, not Slavs” (History of the ancient Serbian literature, Belgrade 1980, pg.119).To anyone that has no ties with blind nationalism, it seems to be no doubt that Cyrill and Methodius were Greek, not only by birth but most importantly culturally as it was analyzed above.

As it is known both Cyrill and Methodius played probably one of the most important roles in spreading Orthodoxy among the Slavic population. Hence they were named “Apostles of the Slavs“, having the meaning simply that they brought the Christian faith to the Slavs.

I have to underline here of the false notion some have about the title “Apostle“. Fact is that having spread Christian faith among a certain population doesnt mean that they belong ethnically to any of the people they converted. If we followed this flawed logic Khazars would also claim them as Khazars since they went to covert them to Christianity even before they went to the Slavs or even Arabs since Konstantinos undertook a mission to the Arabs.

One of the many examples is the story of Saint Boniface. Saint Boniface – original name Winfrid or Wynfrith – was born at Crediton in Devon, England and was sent to propagate Christianity in the Frankish Empire during the 8th century. Rightfully Saint Boniface was named as “Apostle of the Germans” and another example is St.Thomas who is called “the Indian Apostle,” but we all know that he was not an Indian. Instead he simply brought Christianity to the Indians. Neither Germans nor Indians are upon the tiresome and flawed notion of claiming St Boniface and St Thomas ethnicities as the well-known propagandists do.
Professors Ivan Lazaroff, Plamen Pavloff, Ivan Tyutyundzijeff and Milko Palangurski of the Faculty of History of Sts. Cyril and Methodius University in Veliko Tŭrnovo, Bulgaria in their book, Kratka istoriya na bŭlgarskiya narod (Short History of the Bulgarian Nation, pp 36-38), state very explicitly that the two brothers were Hellenes (Greeks) from Thessaloniki.

The late Oscar Halecki, Professor of Eastern European History, in his book Borderlands of Western Civilization, A History of East Central Europe (chapter Moravian State and the Apostles of the Slavs) agrees with the authors of Kratka istoriya na bŭlgarskiya narod.

As you see the real scholars and not the fake admit the historical truth.

Also according Pope John Paul II in an official apostolic homily to the entire Catholic Church proclaimed that Methodius and Cyril “Greek brethren born in Thessaloniki” are consecrated as “heavenly protectors of Europe”. John Paul II’ repeated this statement in a speech delivered in the church of Saint Clements, in Rome.
References from books about the ethnicity of Cyril and Methodius.
1.

Then in the ninth century Cyril and Methodius, two Greek monks from Thessaloniki , developed the Cyrillic alphabet and spread both literacy and Christianity to the Slavs.

“The macedonian conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a transnational world” by Loring Danforth
 2.

Two Greek brothers from Salonika, Constantine, who later later became a monk and took the name Cyril, and Methodius came to Great Moravia in 863 at the invitation of the Moravian Prince Rostislav

“Comparative history of Slavic Literatures” by Dmitrij Cizevskij, page vi
3.

the Byzantine court entrusted it to two brothers with wide experience o missionary work: Constantine the Philosopher, better known by his monastic name, Cyril and Methodius. Cyril and Methodius were Greeks.

“Czechoslovakian Miniatures from Romanesque and Gothic Manuscripts” by Jan Kvet, p. 6
 

4.

In answer to this appeal the emperor sent the two brothers Cyril and Methodius, who were Greeks of Salonika and had considerable knowledge of Slavonic languages.

The Balkans: A history of Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece, Rumania, Turkey (1916)” by Forbes, Nevil, p. 21
 5.

In order to convert the Slavs to Christianity, Greek missionaries Cyril and Methodius learned the language.

“Lonely Planet Croatia” by Jeanne Oliver, P.35
 6.

two brothers, the Apostles of the Sclavonians or Slavs, born in Greece and educated in Constantinople.

“Book of the Saints 1921″ by Monks Benedictine, P. 74
7.

Cyril, St 827-69 and Methodius, St 826-85, known as the Apostles of the Slavs – Greek Christian missionaries- They were born in Thessalonica.

“The Riverside Dictionary of Biography” by the American Heritage Dictionaries, p. 208
 8.

two greek brothers, Cyril and Methodius, were sent in response to this request. This development was of particular importance to the formation of eastern european culture.

“historical Theology” by McGrath, p.125
 9.

the byzantine emperor sent two greek monks, Cyril and Methodius, to spread Christianity to the slavic people.

“Global History and Geography” by Phillip Lefton, p. 130
 10.

As the Slav tribes feel under the influence of Byzantium a considerable number of them were baptised but they were first converted to Christianity in Mass by the Greek brothers, Cyril and Methodius

Black lamb and Grey Falcon: A journey through Yugoslave” by Rebecca West, P. 710
 11.

“Cyrillus autem et Methodius fratres, Graeci, Thessalonicae nati…”

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/j…irtutis_lt.htmlhttp://www.vatican.va/holy_father/jo…rtutis_lt.html Pope John Paul II.
 12.
R. L. Wilkens book “Judaism and the Early Christian Mind” (1971)
Quote:

14.

Quote:

15.

Quote:

16.
Quote:

17.

Quote:

18.

Quote:

Back