Emperor John Kantakouzenos And The Byzantine Civil Wars with Help of leaders Bulgaria Serbia and Ottomans

[jo the greek]

John Kantakouzenos was an interesting persona of Medieval age lived and knew well Orhan Osman
had strong friendship with the Emir of Ismir .

During his time faced great civil wars that their neighboards used Stefan Dushan Tsar Alexander of Bulgaria and Orhan.

He tried to reform and take measures against the decline of Byzantine empire but accept as final result the Turks taking over Asia Minor while there were many grounds that he could defend and accepted that Byzantines were incapable to have a strong Army.

He had huge Knowledge on Ancient history and Religious Matter and ended his life as a Monk.


His era is very depressing seeing the last good part of Byzantium torn apart from civil war .

He call Turks Persians Serbs Triballoi and Bulgarians Mysians

Ioahannes in Christo Deo fidelis et moderator Romanorum Cathacusinos

[jo the greek]

Are Bulgarian Turks and Serbs responsible for Byzantine Decline in the 14 century??

[clandestino]

The decline of Byzantium was long lasting process caused by many things, in 14th century the expansion of Serbia was more result of Byzantine decline then cause of it. On the other hand Seljuk and Ottoman Turks were more direct cause of decline because they were striping of the empire from its most valuable provinces for 3 centuries. Generally if we look for external causes of the decline of Byzantium those were Turks on the east and Norman-Frank '' crusaders '' from the west. When Byzantium was already very weakened by these powers, Serbia managed to conquer some lands from the dying empire however that was short-time gain.

[jo the greek]

The decline of Byzantium was long lasting process caused by many things, in 14th century the expansion of Serbia was more result of Byzantine decline then cause of it. On the other hand Seljuk and Ottoman Turks were more direct cause of decline because they were striping of the empire from its most valuable provinces for 3 centuries. Generally if we look for external causes of the decline of Byzantium those were Turks on the east and Norman-Frank '' crusaders '' from the west. When Byzantium was already very weakened by these powers, Serbia managed to conquer some lands from the dying empire however that was short-time gain.

Well at the last phase of 14 th cent the Byzantines seem to give up

afraid more for losign their faith from Latin than stopping Turks

The abandoning of Byz Navy and the Asian cities was terrible

Imaging that even 1390 the City of Philadelphia resisted Turks for years was a depressing thing.

But i think the Byzs lead Turks in the balkans during the civil wars against Serbs and Bulgarians
As one Of Turkish Merc sent by orhan denied to give a captured fort.

[The Noble Lord]

He call Turks Persians Serbs Triballoi and Bulgarians Mysians

What does 'Triballoi' mean and why did he call only Serbs, Turks and Persians that name??

[clandestino]

That was a fashion of many Byzantine historians to call contemporary people with names of ancient tribes that occupied their area in antiquity, so the Serbs were Triballi or Dalmatae (at Anna Comnena ), Bulgarians were Moesi. Since the Turks came from the east and in some aspect replaced Persians as the archenemies of the Rome ( Byzantium ) in that part of world, they were called Persians. Even more exaggerated archaisation was identification of Turks with homeric Teucri i.e Troyans. For some unknown reason Hungarians are sometimes called Paeonians and Dacians.

[jo the greek]

That was a fashion of many Byzantine historians to call contemporary people with names of ancient tribes that occupied their area in antiquity, so the Serbs were Triballi or Dalmatae (at Anna Comnena ), Bulgarians were Moesi. Since the Turks came from the east and in some aspect replaced Persians as the archenemies of the Rome ( Byzantium ) in that part of world, they were called Persians. Even more exaggerated archaisation was identification of Turks with homeric Teucri i.e Troyans. For some unknown reason Hungarians are sometimes called Paeonians and Dacians.

Indeed they wanted to impress with their knowledge like they did with every other barbarian lol

I find interesting that the Byzantines of the era didnt fell hostile against Serbians and Bulgarians but against Turks in many papers are hostile.

This has to cause of mixed relation between families or cause they so Serbs and Bulgarians as another Byzantine successor state

[NikeBG]

I find interesting that the Byzantines of the era didnt fell hostile against Serbians and Bulgarians but against Turks in many papers are hostile.

That's logical, considering the Serbs and Bulgarians were brothers in faith, even if they're a political adversary, while the Turks were a long-time infidel enemy.

Btw, considering the topic, here's an interesting quote from the so-called Anonymous Bulgarian chronicle:
"And when Kantakouzenos saw that he can't feed his soldiers on the ships, because bread and pork were not enough, and the treasury itself was being emptied every day and there were no more dukats and silver, he thought and sent messengers in Tarnovo to the Bulgarian Tsar Alexander, so he could help him with the supplies for the marines and they could both protect the straits together.
But when the Bulgarians heard this, they laughed and swore at the Greeks, not only by insulting them, but also by swearing them on mother and wife, and then sent them away empty-handed. When he saw this, Kantakouzenos was struck with sorrow and sent messengers to the Serbian lords - Urosha, despot Uglesha and king Vukashin - to support the marines. But they also laughed and cursed at the Greeks, not only insulting them, but alsy by swearing them on mother and wife, and sent them away empty-handed. When Kantakouzenos heard this, he was struck again with grief and wondered what to do. Then Kantakouzenos sent to the Bulgarian tsars and the Serbian lords a message, telling them: "You didn't help us now, but you will be sorry later!" But they payed no attention to these words and replied: "When the Turks come against us, then we'll defend ourselves from them."
It's kinda sad to think how extremely short-sighted and disunited the Balkan rulers of the time seem to have been.

[jo the greek]

That's logical, considering the Serbs and Bulgarians were brothers in faith, even if they're a political adversary, while the Turks were a long-time infidel enemy.

Btw, considering the topic, here's an interesting quote from the so-called Anonymous Bulgarian chronicle:
"And when Kantakouzenos saw that he can't feed his soldiers on the ships, because bread and pork were not enough, and the treasury itself was being emptied every day and there were no more dukats and silver, he thought and sent messengers in Tarnovo to the Bulgarian Tsar Alexander, so he could help him with the supplies for the marines and they could both protect the straits together.
But when the Bulgarians heard this, they laughed and swore at the Greeks, not only by insulting them, but also by swearing them on mother and wife, and then sent them away empty-handed. When he saw this, Kantakouzenos was struck with sorrow and sent messengers to the Serbian lords - Urosha, despot Uglesha and king Vukashin - to support the marines. But they also laughed and cursed at the Greeks, not only insulting them, but alsy by swearing them on mother and wife, and sent them away empty-handed. When Kantakouzenos heard this, he was struck again with grief and wondered what to do. Then Kantakouzenos sent to the Bulgarian tsars and the Serbian lords a message, telling them: "You didn't help us now, but you will be sorry later!" But they payed no attention to these words and replied: "When the Turks come against us, then we'll defend ourselves from them."
It's kinda sad to think how extremely short-sighted and disunited the Balkan rulers of the time seem to have been.

Is it possible this is writen after 1453

But it is interesting John Kantakouzenos to be in a lot not Byzantine Greek texts

We know for his life from a TUrkish Poet

[The Noble Lord]

That's logical, considering the Serbs and Bulgarians were brothers in faith, even if they're a political adversary, while the Turks were a long-time infidel enemy.

Btw, considering the topic, here's an interesting quote from the so-called Anonymous Bulgarian chronicle:
"And when Kantakouzenos saw that he can't feed his soldiers on the ships, because bread and pork were not enough, and the treasury itself was being emptied every day and there were no more dukats and silver, he thought and sent messengers in Tarnovo to the Bulgarian Tsar Alexander, so he could help him with the supplies for the marines and they could both protect the straits together.
But when the Bulgarians heard this, they laughed and swore at the Greeks, not only by insulting them, but also by swearing them on mother and wife, and then sent them away empty-handed. When he saw this, Kantakouzenos was struck with sorrow and sent messengers to the Serbian lords - Urosha, despot Uglesha and king Vukashin - to support the marines. But they also laughed and cursed at the Greeks, not only insulting them, but alsy by swearing them on mother and wife, and sent them away empty-handed. When Kantakouzenos heard this, he was struck again with grief and wondered what to do. Then Kantakouzenos sent to the Bulgarian tsars and the Serbian lords a message, telling them: "You didn't help us now, but you will be sorry later!" But they payed no attention to these words and replied: "When the Turks come against us, then we'll defend ourselves from them."
It's kinda sad to think how extremely short-sighted and disunited the Balkan rulers of the time seem to have been.

If this account is true then it stands as a massive monument to the stupidity and shortsightedness of the Balkan rulers. Man, it is exasperating how shortsighted they were, to the point where you have to ask yourself that these rulers, where they really this dumb. I mean, there is a deadly enemy at the gates, enemy that can and is very much willing to destroy them all, and their response is bickering, shortsightedness, backstabbing, and petty jealousy. Unbelievable.

[The Noble Lord]

That was a fashion of many Byzantine historians to call contemporary people with names of ancient tribes that occupied their area in antiquity, so the Serbs were Triballi or Dalmatae (at Anna Comnena ), Bulgarians were Moesi. Since the Turks came from the east and in some aspect replaced Persians as the archenemies of the Rome ( Byzantium ) in that part of world, they were called Persians. Even more exaggerated archaisation was identification of Turks with homeric Teucri i.e Troyans. For some unknown reason Hungarians are sometimes called Paeonians and Dacians.

I see. Thanks Clandestino, that was very detailed and explanatory!

I find interesting that the Byzantines of the era didnt fell hostile against Serbians and Bulgarians but against Turks in many papers are hostile.

This has to cause of mixed relation between families or cause they so Serbs and Bulgarians as another Byzantine successor state

Well it makes perfect sense since Byzantines were much more familiar and closer to the Serbs and Bulgarians than to the Turks. Plus, like you said Serbs and Bulgarians pictured themselves to be the successors to the Byzantium, they were Orthodox, and many other things. Also, many times families conducted intermarriage. Even though that was the tool of politics in those days and it was practiced all over Europe, still it brought more closeness to certain groups. For example, last Byzantine Emperor Constantine Paleologus who fought and died on the walls of Constantinople in 1453 was half Serbian and was said that he spoke Serbian better than he did Greek.
Furthermore, the funny thing is that Ottomans also saw themselves to be the heir to Byzantium and some Ottoman Sultans were very proud of the fact that they are the successors to the Empire of the Romans/Byzantium. Mehmed the Conqueror for example and such.

[jo the greek]

I see. Thanks Clandestino, that was very detailed and explanatory!



Well it makes perfect sense since Byzantines were much more familiar and closer to the Serbs and Bulgarians than to the Turks. Plus, like you said Serbs and Bulgarians pictured themselves to be the successors to the Byzantium, they were Orthodox, and many other things. Also, many times families conducted intermarriage. Even though that was the tool of politics in those days and it was practiced all over Europe, still it brought more closeness to certain groups. For example, last Byzantine Emperor Constantine Paleologus who fought and died on the walls of Constantinople in 1453 was half Serbian and was said that he spoke Serbian better than he did Greek.
Furthermore, the funny thing is that Ottomans also saw themselves to be the heir to Byzantium and some Ottoman Sultans were very proud of the fact that they are the successors to the Empire of the Romans/Byzantium. Mehmed the Conqueror for example and such.

There is not need to refere in 100 years later


John Kantakouzenos was married to Bulgarian woman from the house of Asen his wife during the siege of Dithimoteixo Double wall in Greek Thrace asked for Bulgarian help hers relativs arrived to help but had other plans.

And when the Stefan Dousans empire collapsed the Greek cities serbian guards joined some Byzantine rivals.


But more interesting is that
Orhan the Osman married to John Kantakouzenos daughter tried to assinate
his coemperor of John Kantakouzenos John V Palaiologos .

Now if you think that Ottomans Sultan always tried to assinate his rivals to throne you can say

that Orhan had an eye on the throne ????

[The Noble Lord]

Now if you think that Ottomans Sultan always tried to assinate his rivals to throne you can say

that Orhan had an eye on the throne ????

It's all politics in those days, you didn't trust your own father or brother let alone somebody else. And marriage thing, it was purely done for alliances and political moves, and Byzantines were practicing it for many centuries, they were experts in that.

[jo the greek]

It's all politics in those days, you didn't trust your own father or brother let alone somebody else. And marriage thing, it was purely done for alliances and political moves, and Byzantines were practicing it for many centuries, they were experts in that.

The practical things is that

is like comparing Roman Militairy Machine vs Ancient Greek one

IS that the ottoman Logic for succession although Cruel worked while Byzantine was trapped in Christian Ethics and not exterminating your rival but that rather controlling him.

And is very interesting to see that in the same era.

[clandestino]

I find interesting that the Byzantines of the era didnt fell hostile against Serbians and Bulgarians but against Turks in many papers are hostile.

Essentially Serbs and Bulgarians weren't '' foreign elements '' as the Turks were, they had same religion and belonged to same civilization, they were under Byzantine influence for centuries and shared pretty much everything except for the language. In that sense, even when Bulgarians and Serbs strove to conquer the Byzantium they didn't strive to destroy it or change it, they were just trying to do what Byzantum tried, to unite the people into one universal, orthodox empire. The only difference would be that in some Serbian-Greek or Bulgarian-Greek empire the dynasty and ruling class would be Serbian/Bulgarian. For example when Serbs briefly occupied western part of Byzantine empire they haven't change almost nothing, they just brought Serbs for governors of the provinces and important towns and replaced some of the Greek bishops with Serbian ones, however Byzantine laws remained in power in Greek cities and most of the Greek landlords retained their lands and rights, and even got places in state apparatus. For lower classes this change probably went undetected, everything remained the same except that emperor wasn't in Constantinople but in Skopje or Prizren. They faith, culture, language, customs weren't change, there weren't any colonization or settling of foreign people, nor any change of their legal status. Only major changes happened in Epiros where local Serbian governors started to confiscate land from Greek noblemen and give it to the Serbs and Albanians, and settle Albanian herdsmen on the account of Greek population. That's why Serbian rule had greatest opposition in Epiros.

[clandestino]

Well it's unfair to say that Serbs and Bulgarians were short-sighted cause they didn't want to give money to John Kantakuouzenos, the man who pulled empire into civil war in the worst possible moment and even used Turks to fight against his own state and people. If anyone was short-sighted and selfish those were Byzantine magnates and members of Palaiologos dynasty, Andronikos II and Andronikos III, Kantakouzenos and Apokaukos who fought against each other while the Turks were devastating their land. Not even to mention Greek lords of Thessaly and Epiros who openly fought against unification with Constantinopolitan empire. Also it is very questionable how much would such financial aid help stopping Ottomans crossing the straights, Byzantine empire barely had any fleet and the one it had it wasted in wars between Genoa and Venice. If the stopping the Turks was primary goal of the Kantakouzenos and John Palaiologos then they should give up the throne and give what was left of Byzantium to Serbia as military most capable state on the peninsula in that moment and only one capable to stand up to Turks. That would be far-sighted of them.

[The Noble Lord]

Well it's unfair to say that Serbs and Bulgarians were short-sighted cause they didn't want to give money to John Kantakuouzenos, the man who pulled empire into civil war in the worst possible moment and even used Turks to fight against his own state and people. If anyone was short-sighted and selfish those were Byzantine magnates and members of Palaiologos dynasty, Andronikos II and Andronikos III, Kantakouzenos and Apokaukos who fought against each other while the Turks were devastating their land. Not even to mention Greek lords of Thessaly and Epiros who openly fought against unification with Constantinopolitan empire.

I agree that Byzantine ruling families and powerful land magnates were to blame, I blame them for the disaster of Manzikert, as a matter of fact main blame for the Manzikert defeat is with the Ducas and Phocas families that hated the Emperor so much and were blinded by their hatred so they didn't see much more dangerous enemy approaching, an enemy that destroyed them all.
In regards to the Balkans, I also blame Serbian and Bulgarian rulers together with Byzantine rulers and noblemen who couldn't or just didn't want to see that they had to unite and together and only together they could stop new enemy that is really bent on destroying them all. I mean, any way you look at it the truth is that those rulers were shortsighted and selfish to the default!

[jo the greek]

I agree that Byzantine ruling families and powerful land magnates were to blame, I blame them for the dister of the Manzikert, as a matter of fact main blame for the Manzikert defeat is with the Ducas and Phocas families that hated the Emperor so much and were blinded by their hatred so they didn't see much more dangerous enemy approaching, an enemy that destroyed them all.
In regards to the Balkans, I also blame Serbian and Bulgarian rulers together with Byzantine rulers and noblemen who couldn't or just didn't want to see that they had to unite and together and only together they could stop new enemy that is really bent on destroying them all. I mean, any way you look at it the truth is that those rulers were shortsighted and selfish to the default!

I dont think how aware of the Turkish expanding it was not like education in that years was standard to be a leader in those years . And Byzantines did much more narrow head things in that years

[The Noble Lord]

I dont think how aware of the Turkish expanding it was not like education in that years was standard to be a leader in those years . And Byzantines did much more narrow head things in that years

There was no universal education during that time but upper classes and leadership including ruling families and most definitely emperors were very much aware what was going on and thanks to their very capable diplomats and spies they KNEW what Ottomans were up to, where they are heading and what would be the result. Only dumb and ridiculously shortsighted and selfish rulers would do nothing, and that is exactly what happened. They preferred to have their families and lands ravaged and put to the sword because they couldn't unite, it's truly pathetic! That amount of ignorance and selfishness on behalf of ALL Balkan rulers is really something, it makes you wonder how someone that stupid was even able to rule at all!!??..

[jo the greek]

There was no universal education during that time but upper classes and leadership including ruling families and most definitely emperors were very much aware what was going on and thanks to their very capable diplomats and spies they KNEW what Ottomans were up to, where they are heading and what would be the result. Only dumb and ridiculously shortsighted and selfish rulers would do nothing, and that is exactly what happened. They preferred to have their families and lands ravaged and put to the sword because they couldn't unite, it's truly pathetic! That amount of ignorance and selfishness on behalf of ALL Balkan rulers is really something, it makes you wonder how someone that stupid was even able to rule at all!!??..

well Kantakouzenos wasnt that case he didnt liked to rule prefered to be a monk and tried compromise with rivals . Many times sadly he realised he couldnt stop Ottoman and tried to neutralize them by diplomacy through marriage and by building Navy . Who knows maybe the result of battle of Pelekanos was that affect to admit defeat against Ottomans

But balkans allied the Crusade of Varna was one of the events of that Alliance but it was when all were too late .