Al-Masaq, Vol. 16, No.

1, March 2004

Diplomatic Correspondence between Byzantium and

the Mamluk Sultanate in the Fourteenth Century1

DIMITRI A. KOROBEINIKOV

ABSTRACT The present paper studies the titles of the Byzantine emperors used by the Mamluk
chancery. The surviving Mamluk chancery textbooks of the fourteenth century provide us with
new, rich data on the modes of address customarily employed by the Mamluk sultans in writing
to the Byzantine emperors. What determined the choice of a particular title? Were these titles
translated into Arabic from the Byzantine originals or were these formulas the inventions of the
Mamluk secretaries? Was the attitude demonstrated by the Mamluks towards the Byzantine
emperor an innovation in chancery practice, or was it a part of a traditional view, shared by
other great powers, the Ilkhans, of the role of the emperor as head of Christendom?
The investigation of the Mamluk formula of the address of the Byzantine emperor clearly
demonstrates that almost all the titles of the emperor were composed by the Mamluk secretaries.
The titles help us restore the traditional perception of the Byzantium in the Muslim countries
in the fourteenth century. Despite the decline of Byzantium, the emperor was still considered
as head of Christendom, the successor of Alexander the Great of Macedonia and the chief
protector of the Christian faith. Such perception was demonstrated not only by the Mamluk,
but also the Ilkhanid chancery. However, the Mamluks brought about an innovation: they
recognised the concept of the so-called Byzantine Commonwealth, an association of the
Orthodox states with the Byzantine emperor as its head. It seems that the Orthodox Church
that participated in the relations between Byzantium and the Muslim East, was a channel of
communication which brought the idea of the Commonwealth into Mamluk diplomatic
practice.

On 28 July 1402 amr Timur Gurgan (772807/13701404) both defeated and

captured sultan Bayezid I Yldrm (791804/13891402) at Ankara. The victorious
master of Samarqand then marched westward to Kutahya.2 Meanwhile the elder son of
the sultan Bayezid I, Celebi Suleyman, escaped from the battlefield. He managed to
reach Bursa before the arrival of the troops of Timur, and then sailed to Greece (i.e.
the Byzantine empire).3 According to the Byzantine historian Doukas, Suleyman,
having crossed the Straits, appeared in Constantinople, where he fell himself before
the feet of the emperor [John VII Palaiologos, the co-emperor of Manuel II] and begged
him, saying: I will be as your son, and you will be my father; and from now on a weed
shall not grow between us,4 nor will intrigues [take place]; only proclaim me the ruler
of Thrace and the other lands, [which] I have inherited from my ancestors .5
Correspondence: Dimitri A. Korobeinikov, Wolfson College, Oxford OX2 6UD. E-mail: dimitri.
korobeinikov@wolfson.ox.ac.uk

ISSN 0950-3110 print/ISSN 1473-348X online/04/010053-22 2004 Society for the Medieval Mediterranean
DOI: 10.1080/0950311042000202524
54 Dimitri A. Korobeinikov

That this was not an exaggeration on the part of the Byzantine historian, is shown by
the text of the treaty which Suleyman concluded with the emperor John VII Palaiologos
(c. 13701408) in JanuaryFebruary 1403. The text, which survived in an Italian
translation, reads: I, Suleyman Celebi, the sultan, the son of the grand sultan Bayezid
the emperor, together with the grand emperor John, emperor of the Greeks, my father,
emperor Palaiologos and the empire of Constantinople have sworn and contracted
true peace of [our own] free will (Mi che sum Musulman Zalabi, soldan, fio del gran
soldan Baysit imperador, dapuo che lo gran imperador Caloiani, imperador di Griesi,
mio pare, Paleologo imperador e lo imperio de Constantinopoli.. havemo zurado et
havemo fato verasia paxe cum bona voluntade ).6 It is important to note that the
original text of the treaty was composed in Ottoman Turkish,7 and not in Greek; it
means that both the Ottoman and Byzantine views on the sultan Suleyman as the son
of the emperor fully coincided.
Meanwhile, if one looks at the possessions of Celebi Suleyman (these were Ottoman
territories in the Balkans), one would notice that the Ottoman power, despite being
diminished and divided by amr Timur, still remained the major military force.
Suleyman himself was master of Thrace, Bulgaria, Thessaly, Macedonia and a part of
Epiros and Serbia. Byzantium had almost nothing to oppose him with: Constantinople
with its suburbs, the Morea and several islands in the Aegean. Suleyman granted
Thessalonica with its environs, Mesembria and other ports on the western Black Sea
coast, the islands Skopelos, Skyros and Skiathos in the Sporades, together with some
fortresses on the Anatolian shore of the Bosphorus to the emperor.8 Even so, the
Byzantine empire could not have had any hope of being as powerful as the Balkan part
of the Ottoman state.
No doubt, the catastrophe in 1402 weakened the Ottoman state, but obviously not
to such an extent that Suleyman had no option but to accept the title of son of the
emperor. On the contrary, he willingly agreed to have such a title (as he himself pointed
out in the text of the treaty). This action would have given him added legitimacy (since
in the early Ottoman state the principle of seniority was not decisive9) in the eyes of his
subjects before his younger brothers,
Isa, Mehmed and Musa.10 Moreover, while
having united all the parts of the realm of Bayezid I, the sultan Mehmed I (805824/
14031421) continued to name himself as son of the emperor Manuel II (1391
1425).11 The problem remains unsolved: what status did the Byzantine emperor have
in the eyes of the Muslims?
The fourteenth century is often described as a period of political disaster for the
Byzantine empire, which suffered two civil wars (in 13211328 and 13411354) and
dramatic loss of almost its whole territory.12 However, as Oikonomides notices, the
most striking point is that in the fourteenth century , for all its increasing weakness,
Byzantium acted as if it was still the great power of the past. Moreover and this is even
more interesting other powers seemed to ignore reality and to accord the Byzantine
ruler a special status: he was seen as the emperor par excellence, the head of a state that
used to be a basic fixed point of European politics over past centuries.13 Oikonomides
represents the Western (Christian) perception of Byzantium; however, the Muslim
attitude to the empire was more complex.
Diplomatic correspondence seems to be the best way to study the mutual perception
of Byzantium and her Muslim neighbours. Diplomatic letters often reproduce concepts
of state ideology, as well as the approach of a Muslim state to Byzantium and vice versa.
However, I will limit myself to one type of source, namely to the titles of the addressee
(Byzantine emperor) that were in use in the correspondence sent to Constantinople by
 Byzantine-Mamluk Diplomatic Correspondence 55

Muslim sovereigns. The titles (or, as they were called in the Oriental sources, alqab)
were usually written in the address (inscriptio: names and style of the addressee), at the
beginning of the letter.14
The traditional title of the Byzantine emperor, as it appears in the Greek sources, was

X  `
 ` `   
P
(faithful in Christ God the
emperor and autocrat of the Romans).15 I omit the modifications of the title: the more
comprehensive forms will be listed below.
The usual titles of the Byzantine emperors in the Muslim sources were qaysar
al-Rum, malik al-Rum and fasilus. Among them, qaysar al-Rum or simply qaysar (the
Caesar of Rum; al-Rum means Romans) seems to be the oldest, for it was coined
from Aramaic. This name was in use long before the prophet Muh ammad.16 How-
ever, the first Muslim letter to the emperor Heraclius (610641), which was allegedly
sent by Muh ammad,17 has no title qaysar al-Rum, as one might have expected. It
names the emperor as Hiraql
az m al-Rum, Heraclius, the great [one] of Rum.18
It might have been that the word caz m was part of the Arabic translation of the title
the grand emperor of the Romans,   
 `
P
19 (where the  
grand, great was translated as caz m), but there are two objections to this point of
view.
First, the shah of Iran, whose titles were different from those of the emperor, received
the same epithet caz m in another letter of the prophet.20 Second, as the caz m was used
for other Byzantine dignitaries, not necessarily for the emperor alone,21 this means that
c
az m is not the translation of the Byzantine Greek adjective   , but a general Arabic
expression. The letters of the prophet, which were written as a proclamation of new
faith, show some disparagement to the heads of the two great infidel powers, Byzantium
and Iran, at the moment when they were sent. However, the title qaysar is frequently
used in the h adths.22
The expressions malik al-Rum (the ruler of Rum) and sah ib al-Rum (the master of
Rum) are the same as the qaysar al-Rum, with the same neutral meaning. They do not
show any disrespect to the emperor. For the word malik in Arabic usually means a
sovereign, an independent ruler. Though during the Umayyad Period the term malik
temporarily received an abusive meaning, some time from the tenth century onwards
the title lost its disdainful sense (possibly under Persian influence) and became a usual
regnal epithet.23 For example, Yah ya b. Sa
d, who was a Christian Arab, mentions the
emperor Basil II (9761025) as malik al-Rum Basl.24 The word fasilus is an Arabic/
Persian transliteration of the title basileus,
 (emperor).25
There were some other designations, sometimes very offensive to the emperors (like
the dog of the Romans or the tyrant of the Romans). The point is that Muslim
authors usually avoided mentioning any honourable title of the Byzantine emperor, who
was the principal enemy of Islam at the time of the great Muslim conquests. This
attitude led for example to the composition of the false letter of the caliph Harun
al-Rashd (170193/786809) to the emperor Nikephoros (802811). The text reads:
From Harun al-Rashd, the amr of the faithful to Niqifur, the dog of the Romans (kalb
al-Rum). I received your letter, son of an infidel woman .26
That is why no one authentic formula of address, which might have been sent by the
caliph to the emperor, survived, as the Muslim authors did not like to show any respect
to the chief ruler of the infidels.27 Likewise, the letters of the local Muslim rulers,
addressed to the Byzantine emperor, often contain no genuine inscriptio.
For example, there is a surviving letter of Muh ammad b. T  ugj al-Ikhshd, amr of
Egypt, to Romanos I Lekapenos (920944), which was presumably composed in 938.
56 Dimitri A. Korobeinikov

The emperor is addressed as Armanus
az m al-Rum wa man yalhi, which means to
Romanos, the great (one) of Rum and his retainers (lit. those who are near him).28
This means that despite friendly relations between Egypt and Byzantium at that time,
the amr of Egypt preferred to name the emperor according to the tradition which had
been established by the Prophet (caz m al-Rum for the emperor Heraclius). Most likely,
a pious Muslim copyist changed the title to reflect his own perceptions.
However, the situation with the Arabic sources, as far as this concerns the seventh
eighth/thirteenthfourteenth centuries, is very different from that in the early Islamic
period. We possess another type of source, unavailable for previous periods. This is the
chancery textbooks that played the same role as reference books nowadays. There, for
convenience, the formulas for correspondence were collected in separate chapters.
Most of the surviving chancery textbooks are of Mamluk origin, though one survived
that belongs to the Jalayirid state in Iran. One should note that the end of the
seventheighth/thirteenthfourteenth centuries were the apogee of the Mamluk state in
Egypt,29 which was a true political matre-penseure of the Middle East before the
Ottomans and the amr Timur Gurgan as it was the oldest Islamic kingdom after the
disappearance of the Seljuqid state in Rum at the beginning of the eighth/fourteenth
century.
Let me list the Mamluk chancery books of the eighthninth/fourteenthfifteenth
centuries.
First, the work of Shihab al-Dn b. Fad l Allah al-
Umar (d. 750/1349), the famous
Arab geographer and writer.30 Al-
Umar wrote his book al-Ta
rf bil-mustalah al-sharf 31
in 743744/13421343 or 744/1345, after just he had left his office in Damascus as
head of the chancery (dwan al-insha).32 There he collected the formulas of official
letters of the Mamluk chancery in Cairo. The compendium of al-
Umar was later
enlarged and developed by Ibn Naz ir al-Jaysh (d. 786/1384)33 who wrote his work, the
Kitab tathqf al-ta
rf bil-mustalah al-sharf, between 778/1376 and 781/1379.34
The titles of the Byzantine emperor in Tathqf al-ta
rf are different from those in
al-
Umar. However, this was not al-
Umars fault, as Ibn Naz ir al-Jaysh assures us.35
The Greek translations of the formulas in both al-
Umar and Ibn Naz ir al-Jaysh reveal
that the discrepancy between the two sources was caused by changes in the diplomatic
practice of the Mamluk chancery per se, and not by the mistakes of al-
Umar.
At the beginning of the ninth/fifteenth century both works, that by al-
Umar and Ibn
Naz ir al-Jaysh, were used by al-Qalqashand (d. 821/1418), who composed the famous
encyclopaedia, the Kitab subh al-a
sha f sina
at al-insha, with important additions.36
The only surviving non-Mamluk chancery textbook, which can be used for our study,
is the Dastur al-katib f ta
yn al-maratib by Muh ammad ibn Hindushah Nakhchiwan
(d. after 768/1366). The first redaction of the text was finished by 19 May 762/1360;
the final variant was composed 6 April 768/1366.37 Though the Dastur al-katib was
dedicated to the Jalayirid sultan Uways (757776/13561374), it belonged to the
preceding period, namely to the Ilkhanid dynasty in Iran, because the author carefully
reproduced the realia of the time of the last Ilkhans.38 Though the text of the formula
for correspondence with Byzantine emperors did not survive in Nakhchiwan, some
elements of the formula remain in the inscriptio of the Ilkhanid letters to the rulers of
Ss, i.e. to the kings of Cilician Armenia.
Of all the surviving documentary sources, the chancery textbooks are the most
reliable, because they were used by the secretaries, who needed trustworthy information
in their everyday practice.39 It should be noted that the textbooks preserved not only the
formulas of the letters sent by the Mamluks to the Byzantine emperor, but also accurate
 Byzantine-Mamluk Diplomatic Correspondence 57

copies of the authentic Mamluk documents. The first document related to our subject,
is the ByzantineMamluk treaty in 1281.
In this year the emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos (12591282) concluded a treaty
with the Mamluk sultan Qalawun (678689/12791290). It is important to note that
the diplomatic procedure was the exchange of mutual oaths of the sovereigns. Thus, the
version of the treaty that we now possess, consisted of the text of the oaths of the
emperor, which survived in the Arabic translation (the original Greek text was lost);
and the oaths of the sultan, originally composed in Arabic.40
The Greek text, reconstructed by Dolger who used other Byzantine documents,
contains the signature of Michael VIII (unfortunately, the text has no intitulatio):
Michael, faithful in Christ God emperor and autocrat of the Romans, Doukas,
Angelos, Komnenos, Palaiologos (M` 

X  
 
 `
 ` `

 
P
 
A K

`    ).41 It is interesting to
see how this title was reproduced in the original Arabic text of the sworn undertaking
by the sultan: His majesty the grand malik kyr42 Michael, Doukas (al-Dukas), Angelos
(al-Anjalus), Komnenos (al-Kumnnus), Palaiologos (al-Balaulughus), the autocrat
(d abit, lit. governor, master) of the realm of Rum and Constantinople the Great [city],
the grandest among the Christian maliks, may God maintain him.43 One can easily see
that the Arabic translation has an addition, which is absent in the reconstructed Greek
original: [the autocrat] of Constantinople the Greatest, the grandest among the
Christian maliks, may God maintain him. Thus, the title of Michael VIII in the
Mamluk part of the treaty (the part sworn by the sultan) was the original Mamluk
formula, which included the translation into Arabic of the Byzantine imperial title
(emperor and autocrat of the Romans, Doukas, Angelos, Komnenos, Palaiologos,
omitting the words true in Christ God) and the additional epithets of Mamluk origin
that intended to underline the highest position of the emperor in Constantinople
among other Christian rulers.
This brief description demonstrates that the titles of the Byzantine emperors used by
the sultans were of compound character. Moreover, the expression of traditional
disdain to the ruler of the infidels, so common during the early Muslim era, was
replaced by a new attitude, according to which the emperor should be considered as the
highest ranking Christian sovereign. We can learn a bit more about the composition of
such formulas for the inscriptio of the Mamluk letters to the Byzantine emperors, by
turning to the formula in the chancery textbook of al-
Umar.
According to al-
Umar, Malik al-Rum, sah ib (lord) of al-Qustantniyya had the
highest rank among independent Christian sovereigns, since he is mentioned first.44
Before him is listed only the sah ib of al-Bulghar wa al-Sarb (the tsar of Bulgaria) but
this is because the latter was a dependency of the khan of the Golden Horde.45
Nevertheless the formula of the tsar of Bulgaria is much shorter than that of the
Byzantine emperor. Al-
Umar places the ruler of Bulgaria before the emperor of
Constantinople because he considers the first as the ruler of a territory of dar al-Islam
(the land of Islam), however remote; his next chapter is dedicated to the muluk
al-kuffar, the rulers of the infidels.46 Al-
Umar starts this new chapter with the emperor
of Constantinople.
The text reads:

Malik al-Rum, s ah ib of al-Qustantniyya. He had been a great monarch

before the victory of the Franks.47 And [then] he took back the rest of his
kingdom from the crusaders (lit. the adorers of the Cross). And [both] a
58 Dimitri A. Korobeinikov

pauper and a rich [man] then became poor in his realm. Records contain a lot
of information about him and describe the halls [of his palace] and his ancient
monuments. And the first who covered his head by abasement (lit. lowness,
submissiveness) and who reduced his multitude to a small number, was
Harun al-Rashd when his father al-Mahd sent him to attack him [i.e. the
emperor of Byzantium].48 And he [Harun al-Rashd] humiliated him (lit.
removed the haughtiness from his nose) and proudly turned this headstrongs
[face] to his [al-Rashds] side. As to the wars of Maslama b.
Abd al-Malik49
and Yazd b. Mu
awiya,50 his [the emperors] protest was not regarded as
important [at the caliphs court] since these [wars] did not exceed the limit of
damage [which was due] to him. Recently the sultan Uzbek (Uzbak/Azbak,
)51 took away his crown and made his brood (i.e. descendants) sterile
and broke his gate [which is] beside the Bah r al-Mughlaq (lit. the Closed
Sea52). And he (i.e. the Byzantine emperor) had need of his flattery and
opened his treasury for him (lit. stringed for him the gems of his goods) and
spent his days in pain and suffering. And his feudal estate (qati
a, )
became decreed on him (i.e. Uzbek became the master of the lands of the
empire) and all his (i.e. emperors) goods were estimated for him (Uzbek) [for
taxation].53 As to the present [and the events] after this [Uzbeks invasion], we
do not know what has happened to them (lit. the news about them are
obscure for us) and all concerning them became unknown (lit. [the news
about them] made their retreat in this world).
The formula (rasm) of the correspondence with him is as follows: May
Allah double the magnificence of his honoured Majesty, the lord sublime
malik, the high-placed, the valiant, the lion (al-asad), the lion (al-ghad anfar),
the brave, the lion (al-d argham), the ancient, who is of noble origin (lit. - the
deep-rooted, al-sl), the illustrious, the chosen, the high-born, the Palaiologos
(or the basileus),54 the King of Aragon,55 the autocrat (d abit) of the Roman
realms, the master (lit. the collector) of the coastal countries, the heir of the
ancient Caesars, [who is] reviving the ways of the philosophers and wise men,
the one versed in his faiths affairs, equitable in his realms, [who is] strength-
ening Christianity (al-nasraniyya56), [is] supporting Christianity (lit. the faith
of Messiah, al-mash iyya), the only sovereign of Jesus faith (al-
sawiyya),
[who is] authorized to [distribute] thrones and crowns, the protector of seas
and gulfs, the last57 of the maliks of Greeks, the malik of maliks of Syrians,58
the supporter of the sons of baptism, the beloved in the popes palace, the one
in whom his friends can trust, the friend of the Muslims, the model for the
maliks and the sultans .59

It seems unlikely that this formula reproduces a Byzantine original. We know that the
titles with additional imperial epithets were very uncommon in the practice of Byzan-
tine diplomatics, especially during the Palaiologan period. The Byzantine imperial title
that seems to be the closest in its content to the formula in al-
Umar, belongs to the
emperor Isaac II Angelos (11851195, 12031204) who signed in 1188 as: Isaac, the
faithful in Christ God emperor, the ruler,60 crowned by God, the most powerful, the
sublime, always august and autocrat of the Romans, the Angelos.61 While comparing
the formula in al-
Umar with this rare version of the title of the Byzantine emperor in
1188, one notices that the title in al-
Umar contained some Byzantine remnants, but
these were few: the autocrat (d abit) of the Roman realms (the translation of the
 Byzantine-Mamluk Diplomatic Correspondence 59


 
P
); the lord sublime malik (a mixture of the terms  
(sublime) and
 (emperor)). Most of the epithets, however, are of the
Oriental origin. For example, the Byzantine emperors never named themselves (at least
officially) as emperors of the Greeks.62 The East, however, revered the cultural inherit-
ance and prestige of Ancient Greece, and this reverence is reflected in the titles of the
emperor (whose subjects were Greek-speaking and whose empire was heir of Ancient
Rome) in the epithets [who is] reviving ways of the philosophers and wise men and
the last of the maliks of the Greeks.
In order to demonstrate how authentic Byzantine attitudes (but not the Byzantine
titles!) were adopted by the Mamluk chancery, let me consider the epithet the only
sovereign of Jesus faith, [who is] authorized to [distribute] thrones and crowns.
At first sight, the epithet represents a purely Byzantine idea. One might refer to the
times when the emperors of the Macedonian dynasty sent crowns as gifts, like the
Holy Crown of Hungary and the Crown of Constantine IX Monomachos.63
However, one should note that this idea was never expressed in the titles of the
Byzantine emperors. The Byzantines used another statement: they underlined the fact
that the emperor was heir of the crown of Constantine I the Great (305337), the
founder of Constantinople. For example, the emperor Manuel I Komnenos (1143
1180) described himself as the directed by God heir of the crown of Constantine the
Great.64
We do not know the precise date when the title of the Byzantine emperor, cited in
al-
Umar, came into being. Obviously, the title was an extended version of that of
Michael VIII Palaiologos, as was shown in the Arabic version of the text of the treaty
of 1281. Therefore, 1281 is the terminus ante quem when the title in al-
Umar was
composed. The terminus post quem is the invasion of the khan Uzbek against Byzantium
in winterspring 1341.
Our next target is the formula that survived in al-Tathqf of Ibn Naz ir al-Jaysh. He
writes:

S ah ib al-Qustantniyya. He is al-Askar (Laskaris), malik al-Rum. And

the formula (rasm) of the correspondence with him, in the half-format size
[of the Baghdad paper, qat
al-nisf ]65, is [as follows]: May Allah the High
double the magnificence of his Majesty the sublime malik, the honoured, the
revered, the lion (al-asad), the high-placed (lit. important, al-khatr), the
heroic, the brave, the valiant, the lion (al-d argham), and so on, the one versed
among his community (millat), equitable to the people of his realm, the
honour of the Christian nation, the head of the communion of the Cross, the
beauty of the sons of baptism, the sabre (samsam) of the maliks of Greece
(al-Yunaniyya), the sword of the kingdom of Macedonia (al-Makad uniyya),
the malik of Bulgaria (al-Burghaliyya, )66 and Vlakhia (al-Amlah iyya,
67
), the ruler of the great cities of al-Rus and al-
Alan, the protector
of the faith of the Georgians (al-kurj) and Syrians (al-suryan), the heir of
[ancient] thrones and crowns, the sovereign of the ports and seas and gulfs,
Doukas (al-D  uqas/al-D
 uqus , var. al-T uqas/al-T uqus, ) Angelos
(al-Anjalus) Komnenos (al-Kumnnus) Palaiologos (al-Balalughas/al-
Balalughus, ), the friend of the maliks and the sultans. His (i.e.
emperors) official title is: the sovereign of the Roman realm (d abit mamlakat
al-Rum). So this is the correspondence which is considered as [now] being in
use [lit. in circulation] between the sovereigns.68
60 Dimitri A. Korobeinikov

It is difficult to establish the date when the formula in Ibn Naz ir al-Jaysh was created
as the text of al-Tathqf has no dates. However, the formula was used by the Mamluk
chancery and thus can be found at the beginning of some letters which the Mamluk
sultans sent to the emperors. These letters which were originally composed in Arabic,
were then translated into Greek. There are two surviving Greek translations of the
formula in Ibn Naz ir al-Jaysh.
The first is part of the Arabic letter (surviving only in the Greek translation) of the
sultan al-Nas ir Muh ammad (693694/12941295, 698708/12991309, 709741/
13091340) to the emperor Andronikos III Palaiologos (13281341).69 Thus, I can
establish the precise date when the new formula was composed: between the invasion
of the khan Uzbek (winterspring 742/1341) and the death of Andronikos III (15 June
1341). Though the work of al-
Umar was finished between 744/1343 and 746/1345,70
he obviously reproduced in al-Ta
rf a rather old formula, which was in use during the
time, when he was head of the chancery in Damascus (740742/13391341 or 743/
1342).
The second is the letter of the sultan al-Nas ir H
 asan (748752/13471351, 755762/
13541361) to the emperor John VI Kantakouzenos (13471354), dated 30 October
750/1349.71
The translations are slightly different from the original. Both are written in vernacular
Greek, in a strange mixture of Classical and Modern Greek forms.
The letter of al-Nas ir Muh ammad to Andronikos III reads:
I write in the name of God, God the Compassionate. May God give many
years to the emperor, the highest, the most powerful, the most glorious, the
most manly, the most strong, the lion, the most wise Andronikos, the learned
in his religion, the most just in his realm, the pillar of the faith of the
Christians, the father of the baptized, the honour of Christianity, the sword of
the kingdom of the Macedonians, the most brave one in the kingdom of the
Hellenes, the emperor of Bulgaria, Vlachia, Alania, the master of Rus,
Georgia and the Turks, the heir of the empire of the Romans, the sovereign
of two seas and the rivers, Doukas Angelos Komnenos Palaiologos, may you
always be in your kingdom, and always be secure in our love, and may you
fulfil with care the wishes of our servitude.72
The beginning of the letter (I write in the name of God, God the Compassionate)
is the so-called basmala, the formula In the name of God, the Compassionate, the
Merciful. The final part of the formula (may you always be in your kingdom, and
always be secure in our love, and may you fulfil with care the wishes of our servitude)
is the so-called du
a (prayer), which usually finishes the inscriptio. The translation
contains an addition: Andronikos III is regarded as master of the Turks. This is the
reflection to the special relations between Byzantium and the Turks, which were
established during the reign of this emperor and which were continued by John VI
Kantakouzenos.73
It was the union between the Aegean Turks and Andronikos III that led to the
incursion of Uzbek into Byzantium in 1341, after which a new formula (surviving in Ibn
Naz ir al-Jaysh) was adopted by the chancery in Cairo. The circumstances of 1341 are
noteworthy, as these nicely explain the peculiar addition of the name of the Turks to
the list of the nations subordinate to the Byzantine emperor.
In summer 1339 Andronikos III quarrelled with his former ally Umur-pasha, the
ruler of the emirate of Aydn-ogullar in the Aegean.74 In the next year, summer of 1340
 Byzantine-Mamluk Diplomatic Correspondence 61

Umur-pasha invaded the islands of Andros, Naxos, Paros, Tinos, Mikonos, as well as
the fortress Koc/Modon and the lands of the Serbians and Albanians.75 We also know
from the Byzantine sources that Umur penetrated the lands of the empire in Thrace,
Macedonia, mainland Greece and the Morea.76 Before October 1340 Umur appeared
with large fleet near Constantinople, but Andronikos III managed to prevent the assault
by inviting Umur to devastate any other territory. Umur attacked Kili (Kilia, Licos-
tomo, in the Danubian Delta), in the lands of Eflak (Wallachia), at the request of tekfur
of Istanbul, as the Destan of Umur-pasha says.77 Whatever benefit the Byzantines might
have gained from Umurs expedition against this strategically important land, neverthe-
less the Danubian Delta was under the formal rule of the khan of the Golden Horde.
In winterspring 1341 the Byzantine government received a letter from the daughter of
Andronikos II, wife of the khan Uzbek, relating the beginning of the punitive expedition
of the Golden Horde Mongols against Constantinople.78 According to al-
Umar,79 the
Mongols attacked Constantinople in the area of the walls of Manuel I Komnenos in
Blachernae.80 In order to end the conflict, the father of Demetrios Kydones was sent to
Saray. He concluded a peace treaty with the khan in the same year.81 It was at that time
that the sultan al-Nas ir Muh ammad sent the letter to Andronikos III with a new form
of address.
Andronikos III died in Constantinople on the night of 14/15 June 1341.82 Soon after,
the tsar John Alexander (13311371) of Bulgaria sent an embassy to the regent John
Kantakouzenos. The tsar threatened to wage war, demanding the extradition of his
rival, the refugee John Sisman. In turn, Kantakouzenos threatened to use against the
Bulgars the fleet of Umur-pasha.83 The memory of Umurs recent expedition was so
fresh that the tsar hastened to conclude a peace treaty with Kantakouzenos (in August
1341).84 Meanwhile the king Stefan Dusan (13311355) of Serbia invaded Macedonia.
His troops appeared near Thessalonika.85 However, the Byzantines managed to stop
him, and a new peace treaty, this time with Serbia, was signed 26 October 1341.86
One can easily see that the new alliance between Byzantium and the emirate of Aydn
that was established before October 1340, saved the empire from the attacks of her
Balkan rivals during the difficult period, after Andronikos III died, when the new
emperor John V Palaiologos (1341, 13541391) was only nine years old. Gregoras
describes the service of Umur-pasha in 1341, at the moment when the Bulgarian
embassy arrived in Constantinople: For he (i.e. Umur) had long become his great and
fervent admirer, when the fame of Kantakouzenos was spreading over all the land and
the sea with great applause and praise. He [even] proclaimed, that by his free choice he
would maintain a friendship with him (i.e. Kantakouzenos) and all his descendants for
his (Umurs) entire life.87 This is a clear reference to the servitude (lit
friendship, philia88) of the emir to the empire before 1341, when Andronikos III was
still alive. The translation in 1341 of the formula, in which the emperor was called the
emperor of the Turks, confirmed this fact.
The second Greek translation of the formula survives in the History of John Kantak-
ouzenos, who was emperor at the time (1349). He received the letter from the sultan
al-Nas ir H asan which began as follows:

In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful. May God the Highest
always make longer the days of the great emperor, the magnificent, the wise,
the lion, the manly, the impetuous in battle, in front of whom no one can
stand, the most learned in his religion, the most just in his place and country,
the foundation of the faith and dogmas of the Christians, the immovable pillar
62 Dimitri A. Korobeinikov

of all the baptized, the helper of the dogmas of Christ, the sword of the
Macedonians, Samson, the emperor of the Hellenes, the emperor of the
Bulgars, the Asanians,89 the Vlachs, the Rus, the Alans, the honour of the
faith of the Iberians and Syrians, the heir of the empire of his land, the master
of the seas and the great rivers and the islands, Angelos, Komnenos,
Palaiologos, Kantakouzenos.90

The translator made mistakes in Arabic: he translated the word sabre (samsam) as
the name of the Biblical hero Samson.
If one looks at the original Arabic text of the formula and its two Greek translations,
one recognises that it contains almost all the lands of the so-called Byzantine common-
wealth. Despite the differences, both the Arabic text and its Greek interpretations share
one and the same idea: the place of the Byzantine emperor as the head of the Orthodox
oikumena.91
One can juxtapose the formula with the titles of Byzantine emperors which were in
use in the chancery of Constantinople. For example, Manuel I Komnenos called
himself: Manuel, the faithful in Christ the God emperor, the porphyrogenetos, the
autocrat of the Romans, the most pious, always sebastos, the augustos, the Isaurian, the
Cilician, the Armenian, the Dalmatian, the Hungarian, the Bosnian, the Croatian, the
Lazian, the Georgian, the Bulgarian, the Serbian, the Zekhian, the Khazaric, the
Gothic, the directed by God heir of the crown of Constantine the Great.92 The
epithets Bulgarian, Georgian, Zekhian respectively correspond to the the malik
of Bulgaria, the protector of the faith of the Georgians and possibly to the ruler of
the great cities of al-
Alan in the al-Tathqf. However, the coincidence in the
epithets is accidental. Those in Manuel I Komnenos formula are the mixture of old
Byzantine titles of the Justinianic era together with the names of the countries which
Manuel claimed to have subdued. The epithets in Ibn Naz ir al-Jaysh were composed
according to another principle they refer to the Orthodox countries that recognised
the supremacy of the Byzantine emperor.
For example, the title of the ruler of the great cities of al-Rus and al-
Alan relates
to the close ties between Byzantium and Russia, as well as Alania, from the tenth
century onward.93 The Alans were Byzantine allies from the sixth century.94 They are
also mentioned in the De Ceremoniis by Constantine VII Porphyrogenetos (905959).95
An archdiocese of Alania was created in 901 or 902,96 but the first firm evidence is
dated to the end of the eleventh century, when Alania is mentioned in the Notitiae
Episcopatuum as a new metropolitan see (Notitia 11, dated 10821084).97 Alania
continued to exist in the lists of the Notitiae until the end of the fourteenth century.98
The data of the Notitiae are confirmed by the church documents, the last of which was
composed in 1401.99
As to the history of the contacts between Byzantium and Rus, I have nothing to add
to the brilliant studies of A. Vasiliev and Dimitri Obolensky.100 In theory, Moscow
recognised the suzerainty of the Byzantine empire. Six years after the formula in
al-Tathqf was composed, in September 1347, the emperor John Kantakouzenos wrote
to Symeon Gordyi, the grand duke of Moscow: Yes, the empire of the Romans, as well
as the most holy great church of God [i.e. the patriarchate of Constantinople] is as
you yourself have written the source of all piety and the teacher of law and
sanctification.101 As Dimitri Obolensky writes, this clearly implies the existence of an
earlier, not extant, letter written by the Russian sovereign to the Byzantine authorities,
in which he explicitly acknowledged the emperors legislative authority over Russia.102
 Byzantine-Mamluk Diplomatic Correspondence 63

Yet there is some evidence that the formula could not have been composed in
Constantinople. Like al-
Umars, the formula in Ibn Naz ir al-Jaysh represents the
Byzantine idea of the superior place of the emperor over other Christian rulers, but
expresses it in non-Byzantine way. The formula contains several mistakes, which might
be helpful in establishing its sources.
It is noteworthy that the names of Vlachia and Bulgaria survived in the document in
a corrupted form. Vlachia has a very curious reading: al-Amlahiyya whilst Bulgaria is
named al-Burghaliyya instead of al-Bulghariyya , thus interchanging
[l] and [r].
It is possible that in al-Amlahiyya the [m] was placed instead of an
inaccurate [w], and the original form might have been [al-awalah iyya]
where the [w], was connected with the following [la].
Al-Qalqashand, the chief commentator of our formula, knows the word
[al-awalaq], which is very similar to our reconstruction al-Awalah iyya, at least in the
first and second syllables.103 He writes: The eighth climate: the land of al-Awalak (var.
al-Uwalaq, ) [The nation of] al-Burghal ( ) lives there And they are
a famous nation. Their capital is T  irnaw ( Trnovo) and the population of her
(i.e. of the land al-Awalak) are infidels (i.e. Christians) from the nation mentioned
above (i.e. from the Bulgars).104
The statement of al-Qalqashand is noteworthy. It is based on the Taqwm al-buldan
(The Survey of the Countries) by Abu l-Fida (d. 732/1331). Likewise, al-Qalqashand
reproduces the mistakes of his predecessor. According to Abu l-Fida, T  irnaw
(Trnovo) is the capital of the country of al-Awalak (the Vlachs), who are also called
al-Burghal (the Bulghars).105 The form al-Burghal ( ) in both Abu l-Fida and
al-Qalqashand is the same as in al-Burghaliyya ( ) in al-Tathqf, with the same
mistake (interchanging of [l] and [r]). Both al-Qalqashand and the anonymous com-
poser of the formula in al-Tathqf were dependent upon the geographical data in Abu
al-Fida. This also means that the forms al-Awalah iyya and al-Burghalyya describe one
and the same country Bulgaria. Such a mistake was not uncommon: a country or a
nation could have been mentioned under two different names. For example,
Ala
al-Dn
Ata Malik Juwayn (d. 682/1283) describes one and the same nation the
Hungarians under the names Keler and Bashghird, and these are both placed
together in the text, like synonyms.106 The reason for naming Bulgaria as Vlachia is
obvious: the Vlach population was numerous in Bulgaria throughout the Middle Ages,
and was still extant in the nineteenth century.107
When did the naming of Bulgaria as al-Burghal and al-Awalak appear in the Arabic
sources? The major source for Abu l-Fida was Ibn Sa
d, who wrote in the middle of
the seventh/thirteenth century.108 However, neither Ibn Sa
d, nor Yaqut (d. 629/1228),
who wrote at the beginning of the seventh/thirteenth century, mentioned Bulgaria as
Vlachia.109 Abu l-Fida was the first Arab geographer who named Bulgaria in such way;
then both names110 appeared in the formula in 1341.
Therefore I reject any Byzantine pattern for our formula. The very idea that the
emperor of Byzantium is master of Bulgaria is of Byzantine origin, but the shape is
entirely Arabic, based on the Survey of Abu l-Fida.
The same must be said about other titles, including the title the sword of the
kingdom of Macedonia which has no parallel to the traditional titles of the Byzantine
emperors. This statement might have designated one of the provinces of the empire,
which had been the native land of Alexander the Great, who was so popular in the
Orient. For example, Abu l-Fida, who was one of the main sources of our formula,
64 Dimitri A. Korobeinikov

devotes a special chapter to Macedonia, which he describes as one of the provinces of

the empire of Constantinople and the homeland of Alexander the Great.111 Al-
Qalqashand confirms this information. He writes a mythical genealogy of the rulers of
al-Rum, which begins from Yunan b. Yafith (Japheth) b. Nuh (Noah). The sequence
includes Flibus (Philip) of Macedonia (madnat Maqadhuniyya) and his son Alexander,
the emperors of Rome, and finally Andronikos II (12821328), whom al-Qalqashand
does not distinguish from Andronikos III.112 The list is incomplete and contains a gap
between Michael VII Doukas (10711078) and Michael VIII Palaiologos. Al-
Qalqashands information about the Palaiologoi was based on the archival documents
in the Mamluk chancery. Thus, the Byzantine emperors were descendants both of the
kings of Macedonia and the Roman emperors in the eyes of the Mamluk secretary.
The same concept was possibly shared by the Ilkhans in Iran. Despite the frequent
diplomatic correspondence between Constantinople and the Ilkhanid court in 1261
1305, the formula of the Ilkhans inscriptio to the emperors does not survive. However,
one can suggest from some remaining sources what type of inscriptio the Ilkhans used
in their relations with Byzantium.
In 1287 the Ilkhan Arghun (12841291) decided to send envoys to the west in order
to conclude the military alliance against the Mamluks. He dispatched a Nestorian monk
rabban S awma, whom the Ilkhan provided with letters, addressed to the king of Greeks
and [the king] of Perogaye (Franks), that is to say, of Bet Rhomaye (the Romans or the
Roman empire D.K.).113 In other words, the Ilkhan regarded both the Byzantine
emperor and the king of Franks as the successors of the eastern and western Roman
emperors respectively. Thus, the Mongols of Iran accepted the old Byzantine theory, so
popular in the Muslim countries,114 according to which the Byzantine emperor and the
king of Franks were the highest ranking leaders of Christendom.115
The Ilkhanid chancery also recognised Byzantine emperors as heirs of the ancient
kings of Macedonia. In the History of the Franks, Rashd al-Dn names the Byzantine
emperor as padishah and patrk-i Makaduniyya (the patrikios of Macedonia).116 Though
the History of the Franks was mainly based on the Chronicle of Martin of Troppau,
bishop of Gnesen,117 the statement about the patrk-i Makaduniyya cannot be found in
the Latin original. The opinion that the emperor was master of Macedonia, was a
purely oriental idea, according to which the Byzantine emperors inherited the kingdom
of Alexander the Great.
There is a Byzantine text which confirms this statement. In the Byzantine list of the
offices of the Palaiologan period, the so-called Pseudo-Kodinos, we read: Because
Constantine the Great was, and was [indeed] named, the emperor of the Romans, the
emperors that succeeded him until nowadays, are called the emperors of the Romans.
Because Alexander [the Great] was king of the Macedonians, and [then] Macedonia
came under the power of the emperors of the Romans, the eastern people honour the
emperor as the heir of the family of Alexander, whilst the westerners [honour the
emperor] as the heir of Constantine the Great.118 Let me consider this statement
together with the data in the Ilkhanid chancery textbook, the Dastur al-katib by
Nakhchiwan (d. after 768/1366). This source contains a formula of the correspon-
dence with the king of Cilician Armenia. The takfur of Ss (the king of Sis, the capital
of Cilician Armenia) was called padishah and fasilus-i a
z am (which is the Persian
translation of the grand emperor, 
 
 ); other epithets were the most
honourable Faylaqus, the pride of the dynasty of Iskandar, the protector for the
community of the Messiah.119 Iskandar means Alexander the Great, whilst Faylaqus
was the name of Alexanders father, Philip II, king of Macedon (359336 BC).120 It is
 Byzantine-Mamluk Diplomatic Correspondence 65

important to note that the kings of Cilician Armenia never named themselves in their
charters or the other surviving documents (including those of the Mamluk origin) as
heirs of Alexander the Great.121 Thus, the text of the Dastur al-katib leaves no doubt
that the Ilkhanid chancery utilised a part of the inscriptio to the Byzantine emperor, the
heir of Alexander the Great in the eyes the Muslims, while addressing to the Armenian
kings.
However, the kings of Cilician Armenia believed that their kingdom was part of the
Roman realm.122 This nicely explains why the titles of the Byzantine emperors were
applied to them by the Ilkhanid chancery. To understand this, one should remember
that the Mamluks, like the Ilkhans, when addressing the Eastern Christian kings,
believed that these were members of the Byzantine community of rulers, with the
emperor as the highest ranking sovereign. To express this idea, the Mamluks letters to
the kings of Georgia or Cilician Armenia reproduce the same titles and epithets as the
emperors, but in a reduced form, in order to underline the lower ranking of the
addressee.123 The Ilkhans obviously adhered to the same principle. While addressing
the Byzantine emperors as heirs of Alexander the Great (as was indeed mentioned by
Pseudo-Kodinos), they addressed the kings of Cilician Armenia by the same title.
Thus, both bitter enemies, the Ilkhans and the Mamluks, shared one and the same
idea: they believed that the Byzantine emperor was the head of Christendom, the chief
protector for the Christian faith and the heir of Alexander the Great. It is interesting to
note that the Byzantines, while promoting the notion that their emperor occupied the
highest rank nevertheless accorded him no title equivalent to the sword of the kingdom
of Macedonia.124
The formula of al-Tathqf existed less than a hundred years, until the 1430s. There
is a letter of sultan Barsbay (825842/14221438) to the emperor John VIII Palaiologos
(14251448), which was composed in Arabic and then translated into Greek between
1425 and 1438. The surviving Greek text (the Arabic original was lost) reveals that
during the reign of Barsbay the Mamluks returned to the older formula of al-
Umar in
their relations with Byzantium:
In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful. May God the Highest
always secure the magnificence, the sublimity and the charisma of the power
of your great Imperial Majesty, the most powerful lion, the basilisk and
dragon, the lion, the eminent and manly, the true emperor, Palaiologos, the
natural ruler and king of all kings, the support and establishment of the
religion of Christ, the autocrat of the Romans and all the coastal cities, the
heir of the empire of Caesar and the master of the rites of the Christians, the
equitable for the people under his power, the only emperor of emperors of the
believers in Christ, the master of thrones and crowns, the surveyor of the sea
and the rivers, the emperor of emperors John, [the master] of Syria and the
pillar of all the baptized, the beloved by the pope of Rome, the successor of
ancient amity and the true friend of the Muslims, the beloved emperor of all
the emperors, the sultan John Palaiologos.125
Moravcsik suggests that the formula shows the decline of Byzantium as it was seen
in Egypt.126 However, he did not know the formula in al-
Umar. On the contrary, in
the 1430s, when the Byzantine emperor ceased to be father of the Ottoman sultan (in
1422 the Ottomans besieged Constantinople and Byzantium again became tributary to
them), the Mamluks restored the old formula of the earlier days of the empire.
Thus, the analysis both of the formulas in al-
Umar and Ibn Naz ir al-Jaysh demon-
66 Dimitri A. Korobeinikov

strate that these represented the Byzantine idea of the emperor as the highest ranking
Christian ruler, but did do so in a very peculiar way. While Byzantine by nature, the
formulas do not correspond with the traditional Byzantine Imperial titles. At least I
found no Byzantine document that could have been utilised by the Mamluk chancery
while composing the formulas. How can one explain the discrepancy?
It is the letter of the sultan Barsbay that sheds some light on the problem. Like two
other Greek translations (of the letters of the sultan al-Nas ir Muh ammad to An-
dronikos III, and of al-Nas ir H asan to John VI Kantakouzenos), the letter of Barsbay
was written in vernacular Greek,127 which runs against the traditions of the Byzantine
Imperial chancery.128 Moreover, there are surviving medieval dictionaries which could
have been used in Cairo. One of them, the so called Hexaglot, is the most extensive
transcription text of Middle Greek. This dictionary was composed by the amr of Aden,
al-Malik al-Afd al al-
Abbas b.
Al (765779/13631377) and contains entries in the
Arabic, Persian, Turkic, Mongol, Greek and Armenian languages.129 It is important to
note that the Turkic section reproduces some Kipcak (Cuman) forms, which immedi-
ately points to an area Mamluk Egypt where both Oguz and Kipcak elements in
language were common.130 As to Greek in Hexaglot, it belongs to the AnatolianCypriot
group of Greek dialects.131 It seems unlikely that the Hexaglot was used while translating
the Arabic original of the letter of the sultan Barsbay in the 1430s, for many words in
the letter cannot be found in the Hexaglot. But the trend is evident: while in Byzantium
the classical Attic form of the language remained vital throughout the life of the empire,
the written Greek language outside Byzantium (in the territories where the classical
education no longer survived) changed, and the documents were composed in a strange
mixture of Classical and Modern Greek. According to the usual diplomatic practice,
the letters would have been sent in two exemplars: one had to be composed in the
language of the sender, whilst another was a translation into the language of the
addressee. The Mamluks followed this rule: along with other translators, a Greek
dragoman is recorded in the chancery in Cairo.132
Moreover, the letter of the sultan Barsbay in 14251438 reveals that its translator
was not a Byzantine Greek, though doubtless he was Christian. He compares the
emperor with a basilisk (a serpent), and a dragon. This is a reference to Psalm 90.13:
Thou shalt tread on the asp and basilisk: and thou shalt trample on the lion and
dragon (
 
 `



  `    
 `  
).
The statement reveals that the translator was Christian, for he knew the Psalms. He
also dates the letter in the Christian manner (29 May).133 But I hardly think that he was
a Byzantine Greek, for the context runs against Byzantine political theory, where king
David, the composer of the Psalm, was one of the principal images of the emperor.134
Also, our translator gives the emperor the title sultan. No doubt, it is a mistake in
translation, but a notable one. It was almost impossible for a Muslim author to name
a Christian ruler as a sultan. But this was possible for a Christian author, who was
trying to undermine the title of the Christian sovereign. Sometimes this shows that the
document is false. For example we are faced with two letters of the amr Timur Gurgan
to Charles VI (13801422) of France. Both letters were composed on 1 August 1402.
One letter, which is authentic, addresses r du faransa ( roi de France),135
thus repeating the title of the addressee, whilst the second one, which is false, names
the king of France as sultan.136 All the data indicate that not only the formulas, but
also their Greek translations were composed in the Mamluk state.
In my opinion, the formulas and their translations show only one possible centre for
the contacts between Byzantium and Islam in the seventhninth/thirteenthfifteenth
 Byzantine-Mamluk Diplomatic Correspondence 67

centuries. It is the Orthodox Church. The formula in al-Tathqf came into being
because of the change in the Byzantine diplomatic practice. After the fall of Asia Minor
in the 1300s, the Byzantine diplomacy put special emphasis on the role of the emperor
as head of Christendom, rather than a head of a mighty state. It is no accident that the
role of the ecumenical patriarchate in Byzantine diplomatic relations strengthened from
the beginning of the fourteenth century onwards.137 The church hierarchy was the
traditional mediator between the emperor in Constantinople and the Muslim rulers,
but their importance greatly increased during the last two centuries of the empire. For
example, in 1263 the sultan Baybars (658676/12601277), while quarrelling with
Michael VIII Palaiologos (who detained the Mamluk embassy to the Golden Horde in
Constantinople), sought the advice of the Melkite prelates (most likely, of the Greek
patriarch of Alexandria) and then sent a priest and a bishop as ambassadors to
Constantinople.138 In 1411, when the emperor Manuel II Palaiologos sent a letter to
the sultan al-Nas ir Faraj (802808/13991405, 808815/14051412), it was the
Melkite patriarch of Alexandria who translated the emperors letter into Arabic in the
presence of the sultans dragoman (al-tarjuman) Sayf al-Dn Sudun.139 Most likely, it
was the chancery of the patriarchs of Alexandria that translated the letters of the sultans
to the emperors.
The idea that the Orthodox patriarchate of Alexandria participated in diplomatic
relations between Constantinople and Cairo nicely explains the discrepancies between
the formulas and their Greek translations, as well as the content of the Arabic originals
per se. The formula in al-
Umar includes a Melkite component malik muluk al-suryan140
(which was later reproduced in Ibn Naz ir al-Jaysh). The formula in al-Tathqf is even
more interesting. The countries mentioned (Greece, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Rus, Ala-
nia, Georgia and the Melkite church in Syria) were probably the places where the name
of the emperor was commemorated at the end of the Orthodox liturgy. The absence of
Serbia, one of the chief Orthodox realms, requires explanation. However, both al-

Umar and Ibn Naz ir al-Jaysh (and their sources) believed that the tsar of Bulgaria was
also master of Serbia;141 this mistake might have prevented them from including Serbia
in the list. If so, the text in al-Tathqf reveals the ecclesiastical principle (based on the
liturgical texts) of the composition of the formula, together with typical oriental views
on the emperor as heir of Alexander the Great, protector of the Christian faith and the
head of Christendom.
The decline of Byzantium seems to be a very complex process. Oddly enough, the
weakening of the empire increased her diplomatic significance. The Ilkhanid chancery
accepted the Byzantine idea of the two leaders of Christendom (one was king of Franks,
whilst another was Byzantine emperor). The Mamluks created a very complex system
of hierarchy, so partly accepting the Byzantine idea of the Christian oikumena. Thus,
the traditional attitude to Byzantium as an empire of the infidels, so common at the
beginning of the Muslim era, was replaced by a much more complex vision. This was
achieved by skilful diplomatic efforts by Byzantium, as the dying empire more and more
relied on church diplomacy. It has been stated that Byzantium never had constant
residents abroad, such as the baiuli of the Republic of Venice.142 However, if the Greek
(Melkite) patriarch of Alexandria, whose permanent residence was in Egypt, served as
a Byzantine interpreter and thus a member of the embassy in 1411,143 this shows that
the patriarchate could have been used as a kind of permanent diplomatic mission
abroad.
I return to the beginning of the article: did the Ottomans, who, unlike the Mamluks
and the Ilkhans, were the empires neighbours, share the same view at the prestige of
Byzantium, the oldest state in the Mediterranean? That is another story.
68 Dimitri A. Korobeinikov

NOTES
1. This paper would have been impossible without help of many people. I am indebted to Dr M.
Whittow, Dr R. Repp and Dr M. Martin, who read the manuscript and made various comments.
I also wish to express my thanks to the participants of three seminars (in Leeds, Oxford and
Birmingham) where the paper was discussed. My special thanks to Miss Maria Kouroumali who
checked my translations from Modern Greek. Any mistakes are of course mine.
2. M.M. Alexandrescu-Dersca, La campagne de Timur en Anatolie (1402) (London, 1977), pp. 80-
85. Timur plundered western Anatolia and then besieged and took Smyrna, 2 December 14025
January 1403. K.A. Zhukov, Egeiskiie emiraty v XIV-XV vv (Moscow, 1988), p. 59.
3. Relation de Gerardo Sagredo, in Alexandrescu-Dersca, 129130.
4. Perhaps, Ducas refers to the Turkish expression ot yoldurmak (lit. to weed), which means to
give trouble to. Therefore, the expression a weed should not grow between us means there
will be nothing to cause trouble between us at all (as there is nothing to weed).
5. Ducas, Istoria Turco-Byzantina (13411462), ed. V. Grecu (Bucharest, 1958), p. 113, ll.1820;
D.M. Nicol, The Last Centuries of Byzantium, 12611453 (Cambridge, 1993), p. 319.
6. G.T. Dennis, The ByzantineTurkish treaty of 1403, Orientalia Christiana Periodica, 33 (1967):
7778 (2), 81. On the historical background, see J.W. Barker, Manuel II Palaeologus (13911425):
A Study in Late Byzantine Statesmanship (New Brunswick, NJ, 1969), pp. 222225.
7. Dennis, 77 (1): copia pactorum pacis facte cum domino Musulman Zalabi, scripte in ydiomate
turcho (the copy of the peace treaty written in Turkish characters, which was made with the
lord Suleyman Celebi).
8. Dennis, 78 (3), cf. Ducas, 111, l.21133, l.4. See also: A. Bakalopulos, Les limites de lEmpire
Byzantine depuis la fin du XIVe siecle jusqua sa chute (1453), Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 55
(1962): 5665.
9. H. Inalcik, Meh emmed I, in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, volumes IXI (Leiden: E.J. Brill,
19602002; second edition), VI: 974.
10. Laonicos Chalcocondylas, Historiarum demonstrationes, ed. E. Darco, volumes III (Budapest,
19221924), I: 159, l.1165, l.6; Ducas, 113, ll. 18-26; Die altosmanische Chronik des

Asik pasazade, ed. F. Giese (Osnabruck, 1972), pp. 7274; Sukrullah Zaki, Der Abschnitt uber
die Osmanen in Sukrullahs persischer Universalgeschichte, in Mitteilungen zur Osmanischen
Geschichte, ed. T. Seif, volumes IIII (Hannover, 1925), II: 102105; Urudsch, Die Fruhosmanis-
chen Jahrbucher des Urudsch, ed. F. Babinger (Hannover, 1925), pp. 3739; Die altosmanischen
anonymen Chroniken. Tevarh-i al-i Osman in Text und Ubersetzung, ed. F. Giese volumes III
(Breslau, Leipzig, 19221925), Part I: Text, pp. 4749; Part II: Ubersetzung, pp. 6467; Zhukov,
6263. On Musa, who was active after 1406, see: Chalcocondylas, I: 160, l.6172, l.19; Ducas,
123, ll.112; Mehmed Nesri, Kitab-i Cihan-numa (Nesr Tarihi), ed. F.R. Unat, M.A. Koymen,
volumes III (Ankara, 1987), II: 472477; Inalcik, Meh emmed I, 974975. On the other sons
of Bayezid I, Mustafa and Yusuf, whom Chalcocondylas calls
Isa the Younger [I 


  ] (the latter sought refuge in Constantinople, where he became Christian under the
name Dimitri), see: Zhukov, 152, n. 93.
11. Ducas, 129, ll.2022; 131, ll.714; 133, ll.1318; G.G. Litavrin and I.P. Medvedev, Diplomatiia
pozdnei Vizantii (XIIIXV vv), in Kultura Vizantii, ed. G.G. Litavrin, volume 3: XIII pervaia
polovina XV v (Moscow, 1991), pp. 357358.
12. S. Runciman, The Fall of Constantinople 1453 (Cambridge, 1965), p. 4; Nicol, 151317.
13. N. Oikonomides, Byzantine diplomacy, A.D. 12041453: means and ends, in Byzantine
Diplomacy, eds. J. Shepard and S. Franklin (Aldershot, 1992), p. 74.
14. J. Reychman and A. Zajaczkowski, Handbook of Ottoman-Turkish Diplomatics (The Hague Paris,
1968), pp. 144145; on the internal structure of the diplomatic letter as such, see P. Chaplais,
English Diplomatic Practice in the Middle Ages (London New York, 2003), pp. 102124.
15. F. Dolger and J. Karayannopulos, Byzantinische Urkundenlehre. Erster Abschnitt: die Kaiserurkunden
(Munchen, 1968), p. 56. On the development of the title from early Byzantine period, see G.
Rosch, ONOMA BAIEIA. Studien zum offiziellen Gebrauch der Kaisertitel in spatantiker und
fruhbyzantinischer Zeit (Wien, 1978), passim, esp. pp. 3739, 6167, 109116; F. Dolger, Die
Entwicklung der Byzantinischen Kaisertitulatur und die Datierung von Kaiserdarstellungen in der
Byzantinischen Keinkunst, in idem, Byzantinische Diplomatik. 20 Aufsatze zum Urkundenwesen der
Byzantiner (Ettal, 1956), pp. 130151.
16. A. Fischer, A.J. Wensinck, A. Schaade, R. Paret and I. Shahid, K  ays ar, in The Encyclopaedia
 Byzantine-Mamluk Diplomatic Correspondence 69

of Islam, IV: 839840. The title qaysar/qisar ( ) is applied by Ferdows to Iskandar (Alexander
the Great of Macedonia (336323 BC)) and his father Faylaqus ( ) (Philip II (359336
BC)). Abul-Qasem Ferdows, The Shahnameh (The Book of the Kings), ed. Dj. Khaleghi-Motlagh,
volumes IV (New York, 19881997), V: 531, b. 25; 576577 (Index). Ferdowsis poem
Shahnama is famous for the usage of the pre-Islamic Persian tradition, cf. Dj. Khaleghi-Motlagh,
Abul-Qasem Ferdows, in Encyclopaedia Iranica, volumes IXI (New York, 19852003), IX:
514523.
17. A.Z. S afwat, Jamharat rasail al-
arab (Cairo, 1937), I: 3234.
18. S afwat, i: 33. I discern between the heading of the letter, placed above the text of the prophets
message (which might have been added by the copyists) and the inscriptio, which is inside the
letters text. The heading of the prophets letter reads: to Hiraql qaysar al-Rum. S afwat, I:
32.
19. M. Canard, Lettre de Muh ammad ibn T  ugj al-Ikhshd emir dEgypte a lempereur Romain
Lecapene, in idem, Byzance et les musulmans du Proche Orient (London, 1973), N VII: 195, n.2.
On the title 
 
 , which was in use from the seventh to eighth centuries, see F.
Dolger, Das Byzantinische Mitkaisertum in den Urkunden, in idem, Byzantinische Diplomatik,
112.
20. S afwat, I: 35: Kisra
az im Fars, Khusraw ( Khusrau II Parvez [590628]), the great (one)
of Persia (Fars).
21. Canard, Lettre de Muh ammad ibn T  ugj al-Ikhshd, ibid.
22. A.J. Wensinck, Concordance et indices de la tradition musulmane, volumes IVIII (Leiden, 1936
1988), VIII: Indices, by W. Raven and J.J. Witkam, p. 230; see also Fischer, Wensinck, Schaade,
Paret and Shahid K  ays ar, 839840.
23. A. Ayalon, Malik, in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, volumes IX (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 19602002;
second edition), VI: 261.
24. Histoire de Yah ya ibn Sad dAntioche, ed. I. Kratchkovsky trans. F. Micheau and G. Troupeau
[Patrologia Orientalis 47, Fasc. 4, N 212] (Turnhout, 1997), p. 22 (390), n. 30; p. 176 (544)
(index).
25. This designation was more frequently used in Persian literature, one can find it in the formulas
of official letters, composed by Muh ammad b. Hindushah Nakhchiwan (see below). Al-
Qalqashand does not mention the term fasilus at all. Abu l-
Abbas Ah mad b.
Al l-Qalqashand,
Kitab subh al-a
sha f sina
at al-insha, volumes IXIV (Cairo, 19131919); M.Q. al-Baqli, A
General Index to S ubh al-a
sha (Cairo, 1972).
26. S afwat, III: 325.
27. O.G. Bolshakov, Vizantiia i Khalifat v VIIX vv, in Vizantiia mezhdu Zapadom i Vostokom, ed.
G.G. Litavrin (St Petersburg, 1999), pp. 369370; A. Kaplony, Konstantinopel und Damaskus.
Gesandtschaften und Vertrage zwischen Kaisern und Kalifen 639750 (Berlin, 1996), p. 377. While
having no original letters of the caliphs to the emperors, we still possess several authentic letters
that the emperors addressed to the caliphs in the tenth century. Cf. A. Beihammer, Reiner
Christlicher Konig ITO EN XPITOI TI EOI BAIEI, Byzantinische Zeitschrift,
95 (2002): 134.
28. Canard, Lettre de Muh ammad ibn T  ugj al-Ikhshd, p. 196; al-Qalqashand, VII: 10.
29. Cf. P.M. Holt, The Age of the Crusaders. The Near East from the Eleventh Century to 1517 (London
New York, 1986), pp. 90166, 178206.
30. On his life, see K. Brockelmann, Geschichte der Arabischen Literatur, volumes III (Leiden, 1949),
II: 141 (177178); Supplementband (Leiden, 1938), II: 175176; K.S. Salibi, Ibn Fad l Allah
al-
Umar, in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, volumes IXI (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 19602002; second
edition), III: 758759.
31. On al-
Umars works, see F. Sezgin, Geschichte des Arabischen Schrifttums, volumes IXII (Leiden,
19672000), II: 97; VIII: 18; IX: 2122.
32. Al-Qad b. Fad l al-
Umar Shihab al-Dn Ah mad b. Yah ya, al-Ta
rif bi l-mustalah al-sharif, ed.
Muh ammad H  usayn (Beyrut, 1988) (hereinafter al-
Umar (ed. H  usayn)); Ibn Fad l al-
Umar,
al-Ta
rf bi l-mustalah al-sharf, ed. by Samr al-Drub (al-Karak, 1992) (hereinafter al-
Umar
(ed. al-Drub)); Brockelmann, II: 141; Suppl. Bd. II, pp. 175176; cf. W. Tiesenhausen, Recueil
de materiaux relatifs a lhistoire de lHorde dOr (Sankt-Petersburg, 1884), I: 207208; Samr
al-Droubi, A Critical edition of and a study on Ibn Fad l Allahs Manual of Secretaryship al-Ta
rf bi
l-Mus talah al-Sharf (al-Karak, 1992), pp. 3436, 4445.
33. Taq l-Dn
Abd al-Rah man b. Muh ibb al-Dn Muh ammad al-Taym l-H  alab, appele Ibn Naz ir
70 Dimitri A. Korobeinikov

al-Jaysh, Kitab Tathqf al-Ta
rf bil-mustalah al-sharf, edition critique par R. Vesely [Textes arabes
et etudes islamiques, xxvii] (Cairo, 1987), pp. viiix. W. Tiesenhausen erroneously restored the
name of Ibn Naz ir al-Jaysh as Taq l-Dn
Abd al-Rah man al-Qad aw l-Muh ibb, who was
described as shaykh and the intendant of the victorious army in one of the manuscripts of
al-Tathqf. Tiesenhausen, I: 331. Brockelmann repeats the erroneous information of Tiesen-
hausen. Brockelmann, Supplementband (Leiden, 1938), II: 176; cf. S. Zakirov, Diplomaticheskiye
otnosheniya Zolotoi Ordy s Egiptom (XIIIXIV vv.) (Moscow, 1966), p. 117.
34. Ibn Naz ir al-Jaysh, xivxv (introduction).
35. Ibn Naz ir al-Jaysh, 28; cf. al-Qalqashand, VIII: 4546.
36. On Qalqashand, see H. Lammens, Correspondances diplomatiques entre les sultans mamlouks
de lEgypte et les puissances chretiennes, Revue de lOrient Chretien, 9 (1904): 151155.
37. Muh ammad b. Hindushah Nakhchiwan, Dastur al-katib f ta
yn al-maratib, ed. A.A.
Ali-zade,
volumes III (Moscow, 19641976), I: pt. 1: 16 (introduction).
38. Nakhchiwan, I: pt. 1: 9-13.
39. Cf. P.M. Holt, Qalawuns treaty with Acre in 1283, The English Historical Review, 91 (1976):
802803.
40. M. Canard, Un traite entre Byzance et lEgypte au XIIIe siecle et les relations diplomatiques de
Michel VIII Paleologue avec les sultans mamluks Baibars et Qalaun, in idem., Byzance et les
musulmans du Proche Orient, N IV, pp. 198199. The reconstruction of the Greek version of the
treaty was published with a rich commentary by F. Dolger, Der Vertrag des Sultans Qalaun von
Agypten mit dem Kaiser Michael VIII. Palaiologos (1281), in idem., Byzantinische Diplomatik,
pp. 225244. The Arabic version survived in al-Qalqashand, XIV: 7278 and in the chronicle of
Ibn al-Furat, Tarkh al-duwal wal-muluk(published as an Appendix in Ibn
Abd al-Z  ahir, Tashrf
al-ayyam wal-
usur f sirat al-Malik al-Mansur, ed. M. Kaml [Cairo, 1961], pp. 204209). The full
text of the treaty was recently translated by P.M. Holt, Early Mamluk Diplomacy (12601290).
Treaties of Baybars and Qalawun with Christian Rulers (Leiden New York Koln, 1995),
pp. 118128.
41. Dolger, Der Vertrag, 234.
42. The Greek word kyr, reproduced in the Arabic characters, means lord.
43. Ibn
Abd al-Z  ahir, 207; al-Qalqashand, XIV: 7576, Holt, Early Mamluk Diplomacy, 125:
: var)

A similar title of Michael VIII and his co-emperor Andronikos II can be found a few lines below
(Ibn
Abd al-Z  ahir, 207; al-Qalqashand, XIV: 76, Holt, Early Mamluk Diplomacy, 126):

: var)

( from : var)
44. al-
Umar (ed. H  usayn), 76-77; al-
Umar (ed. al-Drub), 6869.
45. al-
Umar (ed. H  usayn), 75; al-
Umar (ed. al-Drub), 6768: And his (i.e. sah ib of al-Bulghar
wa l-Sarbs) land is within the borders of the kingdom of the sah ib al-Saray (i.e. the khan of the
Golden Horde), and sometimes he appears to be obedient and submissive to the sah ib al-Saray.
46. al-
Umar (ed. H  usayn), 76; al-
Umar (ed. al-Drub), 68.
47. Al-
Umar means the capture of Constantinople by the Crusaders in 1204.
48. The caliph al-Mahd (158169/775785) sent Harun al-Rashd (170193/786809) against
Constantinople in 165/782. Later, in 190/806 Harun al-Rashd took Herakleia Pontike. M.
Canard, Les expeditions des arabes contre Constantinople dans lhistoire et dans la legende, in
ibid., Byzance et les musulmans du Proche Orient (London, 1973), N 1, pp. 102104; al-Droubi, A
Critical Edition, 144.
49. The Arabic attack against Constantinople was undertaken by Maslama ibn
Abd al-Malik in
99/717718. Canard, Les expeditions des arabes, 8094.
50. Al-
Umar refers to the campaign of the future caliph Yazd I (6064/680683) against Con-
stantinople in 4849/668669. Canard, Les expeditions des arabes, 6770.
51. Uzbek was the khan of the Golden Horde in 712742/13121341.
52. I suggest that Bah r al-Mughlaq means the Golden Horn, which was closed by the chain.
 Byzantine-Mamluk Diplomatic Correspondence 71

53. On Uzbeks invasion to Byzantium in 1341, see below.

54. [al-balalaus], of which is most likely the deformed family name Palaiologos. It is not
completely excluded, however, that before us there is the title basileus. H. Lammens translates
al-balalaus as Paleologue, as does al-Droubi: Lammens, 172; al-Droubi, A Critical Edition,
145.
55. [al-radaraghun], which is a transliteration in the Arabic letters of the French Roi
dAragon. Probably, this is an interpolation from another formula. Cf. al-Droubi, A Critical
Edition, 145.
56. On this term, see F. De Blois, Nas ran (N ) and h anf (

 ): studies on the religious
vocabulary of Christianity and Islam, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 65
(2002): 130.
57. The word here means the last in historical sequence, and not in hierarchy.
58. malik muluk al-suryan ( ).
59. al-
Umar (ed. H  usayn), 7677; al-
Umar (ed. al-Drub), 6869.
60. The term 

 was often translated as rex, king in Latin, cf. Dolger, Karayannopulos,
Byzantinische Urkundenlehre, 159, n. 47.
61. Dolger, Karayannopulos, Byzantinische Urkundenlehre, 159, n. 48: I 

X()   
()  `
( ` ) ` 

,  ,  ` 
` 
  ` 
 

P
, 
A .
62. S. Runciman writes that in the later Byzantine era, the emperor Manuel II Palaiologos (1391
1425) was often addressed as emperor of the Hellenes. However, Manuel IIs official signature does
not show him styled in such a way: like his ancestors, he continued to name himself as: M
 ` ,


X()    ()  `
[ ` ` 
 
P
,  ]  (Manuel,
faithful in Christ God emperor and autocrat of the Romans, the Palaiologos). Runciman, 15;
Dolger, Karayannopulos, Byzantinische Urkundenlehre, 55, n. 55; Barker, 542.
63. The lower part of the Holy Crown was sent by the Emperor Michael VII Dukas to King Geza
I of Hungary (10741077). The incomplete Byzantine diadem known as the Crown of
Constantine IX Monomachus, might have been an imperial gift to King Andrew I of Hungary
(10461060) or to his wife. D. Obolensky, The Byzantine Commonwealth. Eastern Europe,
5001453 (London, 1971), pp. 159160.
64. Dolger, Karayannopulos, Byzantinische Urkundenlehre, 157, n. 42: 

   [
 
        ] K


 .
65. Cf the translation of al-Qalqashand in: Tiesenhausen, I: 397398, 407.
66. , al-Yurghaliyya in al-Qalqashand, with mistake in writing [y] instead of [b]. Both
forms, that in al-Jaysh and in al-Qalqashand, misplace [r] and [l]. Cf. Lammens, 173174.
67. The form al-Amlah iyya was probably derived from
A
 B, Anovlakhia (Upper Vlachia) (Cf.
Lammens, 174, n.2) or from Vlachia (al-Ablah yya, ) as suggested by M. Canard, Une
lettre du Sultan Nasir Hasan a Jean Cantacuzene (750/1349), in ibid., Byzance et les musulmans
du Proche Orient (London, 1973), VR, N X, p. 46, n. 4. Cf. another possible form al-Aflah iyya,
advanced by R. Vesely, the editor of the text of al-Tathqf: Ibn Naz ir al-Jaysh, 28, n.
1. This form is recorded by the Ottoman chronicles as , [eflak]. F. Taeschner, Gihannuma,
die altosmanische Chronik des Mevlana Mehemmed Neschr (Leipzig, 1951), I: 247 (index).
68. Ibn Naz ir al-Jaysh, 28; al-Qalqashand, VIII: 4546.
69. W. Regel, Analecta Byzantino-Rossica (Petropolis, 1891), p. 58.
70. al-Droubi, A Critical edition, 45.
71. Canard, Une lettre du Sultan Nasir Hasan a Jean Cantacuzene, 30.
72. Regel, 58:  



   ,    
 
 ,  

   ` `

 
`
  
, `
 
, `


 
, `


 
, `

  
, `

 
, `

 

A


, `

 
   
   , `
 

 `




 , `
 
    

 
, `
   



, `

`
  
 , `
 

  
M

, `


  

 

E

, `

   B  `  B `  A
 , `


  

P ` I
 `  
T 
, `

 
`
  

P
, `


  
  
   
` 

 
,  

A
K

`
`
 
,



` 
 

 `


 , `
` 
 
  
 `

 
 
,
`
` 

 `
 `    
.
73. T. Florinskii, Juzhnye Slaviane i Vizantiia vo vtoroi chetverti XIV veka (London, 1973), pp. 4450,
6184.
72 Dimitri A. Korobeinikov

74. M. Treu, Matthaios Metropolit von Ephesos (Potsdam, 1901), p. 53, l.3154, l.15; U.V. Bosch,
Andronikos III. Palaiologos (Amsterdam, 1965), pp. 163164; Zhukov, 3839.
75. I. Melikoff-Sayar, ed., Le Destan dUmur Pacha (Dusturname- Enveri) (Paris, 1954), p. 87, ll.
11351140.
76. Ioannis Cantacuzeni eximperatoris Historiarum libri VI graece et latine, ed. L. Schopen, volumes
IIII (CSHB, 18281832), I: 537, ll. 713 (hereafter Kantakouzenos); E.A. Zachariadou, Trade
and Crusade (Venice, 1983), pp. 4142.
77. Le Destan dUmur Pacha, 89-93, ll. 12101305; cf. P. Lemerle, LEmirat dAydin, Byzance et
lOccident. Recherches sur La geste dUmur Pacha (Paris, 1957), pp. 129143; V. Laurent,
Lassaut avorte de la Horde dOr contre lEmpire Byzantin, Revue des etudes byzantines, 18
(1960): 156157.
78. Letter of Gregory Acindynos to David Disypatos, spring 1341: Laurent, pp. 145162; R.-J.
Loenertz, Notes dhistoire et de chronologie Byzantines, Revue des etudes byzantines, 17 (1959),
pp. 162166.
79. See above: al-
Umar (ed. H  usayn), 7677; al-
Umar (ed. al-Drub), 6869. The location can be
established without difficulty: the Mongols had no fleet and could have attacked Constantinople
only from the mainland. The wall in Blachernae is the only part of the Constantinople land-walls
which stretches from the shore of the Golden Horde (Bah r al-Mughlaq).
80. The defence of Constantinople depended largely on the triple land walls, but in the Blachernae
district there was only a single wall. Cf. Runciman, 8889.
81. Demetrius Cydones, Correspondence, ed. R.-J. Loenertz, volumes III (Citta del Vaticano, 1956),
I: 9, ll. 1223; E. Trapp, R. Walter, H.-V.Beyer, eds, Prosopographisches Lexicon der Palaiologenzeit
(Wien, 19762000), N 13874.
82. Nicol, 185.
83. Kantakouzenos, II: 52, l.458, l.12.
84. Kantakouzenos, II: 69, ll. 322; Nicephoros Gregoras, Byzantina Historia, ed. L. Schopen,
volumes IIII (CSHB, 18291855), II: 596, l.13598, l.8 (hereinafter Gregoras).
85. Kantakouzenos, II: 79, ll. 913.
86. Kantakouzenos, II: 82, ll.1722; Florinskii, 6061.
87. Gregoras, II: 597, ll. 1923: O   


  ,     K
 
    `  
`
`


 
`    
  `   ,
`

 
  
   , ` 
 



 `
 
` 
   ` `  

 .
88. J.-C. Cheynet, Pouvoir et contestations a Byzance (9631210) [Byzantina Sorbonensia, 9] (Sor-
bonne, 1990), p. 289: Alors que les douloi de lempereur etaient des princes vaincus qui lui
devaient obeissance sans en rien recevoir en contrepartie, les philoi disposaient dune marge de
liberte plus grande, meme sils reconnaissaient la superiorite de lempereur qui les recompensait
de cette amitie.
89. The royal dynasty of Asan in Bulgaria.
90. Kantakouzenos, III: 94, ll.117: E
 ` 

      
 
 `
 
 .
M   `    
 `   
     ,  

 ,  
 ,    
 ,   

 ,  

    ,
 `



 



 ,    
 `   
 ,    
 `
 

` `
 

 ,      `      
X
 
,   
  

  
 





,  
   
 
  X ,      

M

,    `
,  
   

E

,  
   
B  
,  

A

,  
B 
,  

P 
` 

A
 
,       
I
 
` 

 
,   
   
   
 ,   

 

 
, ` 



 
`  

 
, A  K

      K
 
 .
91. Obolensky, passim.
92. Dolger, Karayannopulos, Byzantinische Urkundenlehre, 157, n. 42: M
 ` 

X  
 

`
 `[   

 ,
P

 ] 

 , 

 ,

  , [
  ,  , 

 ,]  , 
 ,

 , 
 [ ,
 ,

 ,
  , 
 , ] ,  ,  , 


  [
          ] K


 .
93. On the later christianisation of Rus and ByzantineRus relations, cf. Obolensky, 180201,
223232.
94. Obolensky, 27, 33, 48; Procopius, De bellis, II, 29, ed. J. Haury (Leipzig, 1962), I: 291292;
English transl.: Procopius, ed. H.B. Dewing, volumes IVII (London, 1914), I: 532, ll. 1516; 533.
95. Constantinus Porphyrogenitus, De cerimoniis aulae byzantinae, II, p. 688, ll.27; Obolensky, 178;
M. Whittow, The Making of Orthodox Byzantium (London, 1996), pp. 240241; O. Pritsak,
Alans, The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, 3 volumes (Oxford, 1991), I: 5152.
 Byzantine-Mamluk Diplomatic Correspondence 73

96. J. Darrouzes, Notitiae Episcopatuum Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae (Paris, 1981), p. 78, n. 1.

97. Darrouzes, Notitiae, 343, l. 63, Not. 11.
98. Darrouzes, Notitiae, 349, l. 61, Not. 12 (end of the twelfth century); 367, l.771, 370, l.821, Not.
13 (12th century); 381, l.61, Not. 15 (twelfththirteenth centuries, between 1189 and 1268, until
the reign of Michael VIII Palaiologos); 388, l.61, Not. 16 (the middle of the fourteenth century);
398, l.72, Not. 17 (the reign of Andronikos II Palaiologos (12821328), but was re-written in
13421347); 407, l.72, Not. 18 (up to 1369); 413, l.79, Not. 19 (the reign of Andronikos III
Palaiologos (13281341)); 418, l.51, Not. 20 (Ekthesis Nea, 1381).
99. A metropolitan of Alania is mentioned in two documents of 1317/1318: H. Hunger and O.
Kresten, eds, Registrum Patriarchatus Constantinopolitani. Documenta annorum 13151331 (Wien,
1981), N 52, p. 344, l.21; N 53, p. 348, l.32; J. Darrouzes, Les Regestes des actes du Patriarcat de
Constantinople, Vol. I. Fasc. 5: Les Regestes de 1310 a 1376 (Paris, 1977), p. 59, N 2082; p. 60, N
2083. Laurentios, the metropolitan of all Alania and Soteropolis, signed the synodikos tomos in
February, 1347: H. Hunger and O. Kresten, eds, Registrum Patriarchatus Constantinopolitani.
Documenta annorum 1337-1350 (Wien, 1995), N 147, p. 364, l.214; p. 382, ll.432433; Dar-
rouzes, Les Regestes, I, 5: N 2270, p. 217. In August 1347, the see of Alania was united with that
of Soteropolis, which was really made post factum: Hunger and Kresten, Registrum (13371350),
N 163, pp. 458462; Darrouzes, Les Regestes, I, 5: N 2287, pp. 231232. In 1391 Theodore
Panaretos, the grand ekonomos of Trebizond, received the right to inspect the metropolis of
Alania: J. Darrouzes, Les Regestes des actes du Patriarcat de Constantinople, Vol. I. Fasc. 6: Les
Regestes de 1377 a 1410 (Paris, 1979), N 2890, pp. 178179. From that time, the metropolitan of
Alania was under the protection of the Church of Trebizond and was mentioned for the last time
in November 1401. Darrouzes, Les Regestes, I, 6: N 3121, p. 367368; N 3198, pp. 423424; N
3236, pp. 457458.
100. A.A. Vasiliev, Was old Russia a vassal state of Byzantium?, Speculum, 7 (1932): 350360;
Obolensky, 164201, 223232, 260271. On the relations between the two countries before
Christianisation, see: Whittow, 241262.
101. Obolensky, 265266. The Greek original: Hunger and Kresten, Registrum (13371350), N 168,
p. 478, ll.18.
102. Obolensky, 266.
103. al-Qalqashand, IV: 464465.
104. al-Qalqashand, IV: 464465.
105. J.T. Reinaud, Geographie dAboulfeda. Allgemeine Einleitung und franzosische Ubersetzung des
Taqwim al-buldan von Abul-Fida (gest. 732 H/1331 n. Chr.). Nachdruck der Ausgabe Paris,
Imprimerie Nationale 1848 und 1883. Band II, 1 und 2 (Ubersetzung von S. Guyard), ed. F. Sezgin
(Frankfurt am Main, 1985), II(1): 318.
106.
Ala d-Din
Ata-Malik Juvaini, Genghis Khan. The History of the World Conqueror, trans. from the
text of Mirza Muhammad Qazvini by J.A. Boyle, with a new introduction and bibliography by D.
O. Morgan (Manchester, 1997), pp. 270271.
107. V. Marinov, Rasseleniye pastukhov-kochevnikov vlakhov na Balkanskom poluostrove i za ego
pridelami, in Slaviano-voloshskiye sviazi (sbornik statei) (Kishenev, 1978), pp. 172173. Marinov
lists the Vlakh villages: Popoviane, Cuypetlovo, Novopriani. Cf. C. Vekony, Dacians, Romans,
Romanians (Budapest, 1989), pp. 211215. Cf. G.G. Litavrin, Vlakhi vizantiiskikh istochnikov,
in Idem, Vizantiya i slaviane (St. Petersburg, 2001), pp. 130166.
108. Cl. Cahen, Ibn Sa
d sur lAsie Mineure Seldjuqide, in ibid., Turcobyzantina et Oriens Chris-
tianus (London, 1974), VR, N XI, p. 41.
109. Abu l-H  asan b. Musa b. Sa
d al-Maghrib, Kitab al-jughraf ya (Beirut, 1970), p. 194; Yaqut,
Mu
jam al-buldan, volumes IVIII (Beirut, 1990), I, p. 458459, n. 1673.
110. With the same mistake: al-Burghal(iyya) instead of al-Bulghar(iyya).
111. Geographie dAboulfeda, II, 1: 316.
112. al-Qalqashand, V: 376402.
113. Histoire de Mar-Jabalaha, de trois autres patriarches, dun pretre et de deux laques nestoriens, ed. P.
Bedjan (Paris, 1895), p. 48; Istoriia mar Yabalahi III i rabban Saumy, trans. N.V. Pigulevskaya
(Moscow, 1958), p. 79; The Monks of K  ublai Khan, Emperor of China or the History of the Life and
Travels of Rabban S awma, Envoy and Plenipotentary of the Mongol Khans to the Kings of Europe, and
Mark os who as Mar Yahbhallaha became Patriarch of the Nestorian Church in Asia, trans. E.A. Wallis
Budge (London, 1928), p. 166; Storia di Mar Yahballaha e di Rabban Sauma. Un orientale in
Occidente ai tempi di Marco Polo, trans. P.G. Borbone (Turin, 2000), p. 75.
114. Cf. al-Qalqashands heading: The correspondence with the kings of the infidels on northern side
[of the world, stretched] from Rum and France, to the variety of their nations , and their faith
is the faith of the Melkites. Al-Qalqashand, VIII: 42.
74 Dimitri A. Korobeinikov

115. Cf. Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio (Washington, DC, 1967), p. 13,
ll.106122.
116. Rashd al-Dn Fad l Allah Abul-Khayr, Histoire universelle I. Histoire des Francs, trans. K. Jahn
(Leiden, 1951), p. 8 (Persian text), pp. 2122 (translation).
117. D. Morgan, The Mongols (Oxford, 2000), p. 190.
118. Pseudo-Kodinos, traite des offices, ed. J. Verpeaux (Paris, 1976), pp. 206, l.28207, l.8.
119. Nakhchiwan, I, pt. 2: 391.
120. Cf. Ferdows, V: 576577 (Index).
121. Ibn
Abd al-Z  ahir, 92102; Holt, Early Mamluk Diplomacy, 92105; V. Langlois, Le tresor des
chartes dArmenie ou chartulaire de la chancellerie royale des Roupeniens (Venise, 1863), pp. 1214,
143235 (documents of the Armenian kings in 12451392); C. Mutafian, Le royaume Armenien
de Cilicie, XIIeXIVe siecle (Paris, 1993), pp. 116126; H.C. Evans, Imperial aspirations: Arme-
nian Cilicia and Byzantium in the thirteenth century, in Eastern Approaches to Byzantium, ed. A.
Eastmond (Aldershot, 2001), pp. 243256.
122. Cf the title of the king Leo I (11981219) in 1210: Leo filius Domini Stephani bone memorie Dei
et Romani Imperii gratia Rex Armenie una cum assensu. K.J. Basmajian, Une nouvelle signature de
Leon I, roi de la Petite Armenie, Revue des Etudes Armeniennes (REA), 4 (1924): 28.
123. Al-
Umar (ed. H  usayn), 7684; al-
Umar (ed. al-Drub), 6875; Ibn Naz ir al-Jaysh, 28, 29, 32.
124. Rosch, 5461.
125. Gy. Moravcsik, Grecheskaya gramota mamlukskogo sultana vizantiiskomu imperatoru, Vizanti-
iskii Vremennik, 18 (1961): 107, ll. 1428: E
 ` 

      
 
 `
 
 .
N` 

  `    
 
 ` 
`   `    
 

      `

  
 
, `


`  
, `



` 


, `
 
, `
 `

 , `
 
, `


 
`

 `
` 




 


 
, `   `         X  `

   

P
` 

 
 
 

` 
 


   K `  
       

 
` 
    

  
 , `



   

 
 
 


 `
I 
, 
  
 

 `     `
`
    `  
 
, 

  `

I




 

 
`     `  


 



`



     
P  `  
   ` 

`

 

M  

` 



  

 

 
`
 

I


`

 
.
126. Moravcsik, 112.
127. Cf. the forms 


` 
 

 `


 , `
` 
 
  
 `


 

, `
` 
 `
 `    
in the letter in 1341; 


  `  
 
` `  
` `
 
`

 
 , ` 
` ` 
 

 ` 

` 

, `   






`   
`

 


  in the letter in 1349;
` 
  `    
 
 ` 

`   `    
   
     in the letter in 14251438.
128. Cf. Moravcsik, 113.
129. P.B. Golden, ed., The Kings Dictionary.The Rasulid Hexaglot: Fourteenth Century Vocabularies in
Arabic, Persian, Turkic, Greek, Armenian and Mongol (LeidenBostonKoln, 2000).
130. Idem, 1819.
131. Idem, 1920.
132. Moravcsik, 111.
133. Moravcsik, 108, l.77:
  
` M   


134. Cf. R. Cormacks analysis of the crown of Constantine Monomachus: R. Cormack, But is this
art?, in Shepard and Franklin, 231.
135.
Abd al-H  usayn Nawa, Asnad wa mukatabat-i tarikh-yi Iran, az Tmur ta shah Isma
l (Tehran,
1962), p. 128.
136. I. Umniakov, Tamerlan i Zapad, in Tamerlan: epokha, lichnost, deyaniya (Moscow, 1992),
pp. 516518.
137. Litavrin and Medvedev, 351352; Oikonomides, 8081.
138. Tiesenhausen, I: 5253 (Arabic text); 62 (Russian translation).
139. Al-Qalqashand, VIII: 121; Lammens, 359362, 388389.
140. On the suryan, see: J. Nasrallah, Syriens et Suriens, in Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 197
(1974): 490496. I hope to write an article concerning this term.
141. al-
Umar (ed. H  usayn), 75; al-
Umar (ed. al-Drub), 6768; Ibn Naz ir al-Jaysh, 30.
142. Litavrin, Medvedev, Diplomatiia pozdnei Vizantii, 350.
143. On the role of the interpreters in late Byzantium, see: Oikonomides, 7980.