http://hdl.handle.net/11089/13728 2026-04-08T21:56:06Z http://hdl.handle.net/11089/13780 Ingerencja Turków osmańskich w sprawy wewnętrzne Bizancjum za panowania Murada I i Bajezyda I Korczak, Rafał When in XIV to ages the Byzantine Empire had to level with the Ottomans, did not turn over to himself the matter that in the second half of this century it would become the vassal of his own eastern neighbour. An object of this article is the proof how far the Turks used their own superiority, to inform Byzantium his political not independence and to steer with the course of internal activities of the Constantinople mansion. Events about which the speech, happened on the monarch of John V Palaeologus (1354-1391) and the beginning of rule his son, Manuel II (1392-1425). The battle under Ankara broke this period of humiliations given to the Empire by two outstanding the Ottoman suvereigns: Murad I (1362-1389) and Bayezid (1389-1402). In 1372/1373 Byzantium became a vassal of Ottoman Turks. In 1373 in Adrianople and Constantinople exploded parallel mutinies. Andronicus Palaeologus and Saudji together went against to their own fathers. After strangling of the rebellion, mutineers were blinded from the order of Murad. Turks had a very precise cognition, when he is going for the dynastic conflict in Byzantium which used to the interference into internal matters of the Empire. The last Palaeologuses, perfidious in the face themselves, scrupulous in the face the Ottomans, administrated in Constantinople behind the consent Adrianopole, what placed them in the humiliating position. The authority is however so attractive honour that for her conquest were ready to tear family tieses, what sedulously used: first Murad I, promoting Andronicus IV against father to John V, and afterwards Bayezid, protecting John VII, being in opposition in the face his own grandfather of John V. 2005-01-01T00:00:00Z http://hdl.handle.net/11089/13779 Wybrane problemy upadku Tyrnowa Marinow, Kirił This article is devoted to a few aspects of Timovo’s fall, in the year 1393. These problems in the author’s opinion have not lived to witness a satisfactory solution until now. In the first part of the article the author rejected an opinion, according to which patriarch Euthymius was the commander of the Bulgarian capital’s defence. In the second part he answered the question, who, from the ottoman side, commanded the siege of Tamovo? The analysis of the sources leads to conclusion, that Bayezid I, the then ottoman ruler, was at the head of the Turkish army, by the walls of the town. In the third part author expresses criticism of J. Andreev’s theses, concerning the reasons for the offence and circumstances, in which Turkish expedition against Tamovo came into effect. He formulates the thesis according to which the purpose of this expedition was to subjugate John SiSman and to prevent him from joining the coalition, which had been created by Zigmond of Luxembourg. In the fourth part the author confronts different information from the sources and different views of the scholars, concerning the number of the ottoman army, which besieged the town. Next, he arrives at a conclusion, that, there were probably around 30-40 thousands warriors. In the fifth part he refers to a question of a possible participation of the Vidin’s tsar, John Sracimir, and the ruler of Velbuzd, Konstantin Dragas, in the ottoman expedition against Tirnovo. The sources don’t allow to determine this issue unambiguously, although it’s possible, that the armies of these rulers didn’t take participation in the siege. The last part of this article refers to the problem of a possible relief for Tfimovo, organized by John Sisman. Author draws a conclusion, that contemporaneously existing sources don’t allow to produce a thesis, in light of which the Bulgarian tsar really organized a military help for his capital, during the ottoman siege. 2005-01-01T00:00:00Z http://hdl.handle.net/11089/13778 Kariera polityczna Michała Psellosa na dworze bizantyńskim w XI wieku Domaradzki, Kamil The article presents political career of Xlth century’s intellectual, Michael Psellos. He owed his success on the Byzantine court not only to his knowledge and eloquence but also to his deviousness and ruthlessness. He held the highest court posts and offices which provided him a direct access to rulers and influence on their political decisions. Psellos had contacts with the most distinguished individuals of those times; he carried out domestic policy and, to a great extent, foreign policy of the Empire- he would put kings on thrones and faced unusually influential patriarch Michael Kerularios. Undoubtedly he was the most important political person in Emperor Isaac 1 Komnenos (1057-1059) times, who also became the ruler due to Psellos; but he also fell victim to his devious stratagem by renouncing the throne. Not all emperors, however, yielded to Psellos’s political dexterity. For instance, Roman IV Diogenes (1068-1071) considered hin as a mischievious courtier and did not trust him. Michael Psellos’s career broke about 1074/1075 during the rules of his dearest foster child, Michael Vll Doukas (1071-1078), who, following the ruthlessness of his master mentor, eliminated Psellos of political game. 2005-01-01T00:00:00Z http://hdl.handle.net/11089/13777 Sprawa śmierci cesarza bizantyńskiego Romana III Argyrosa (1028-1034) Kotala, Tomasz The objects of investigation of present article are the events from 1034 year, which brought to death of emperor Romanos III Argyros and change the appointment of the imperial throne in Byzantium. The essential reports in this matter are delivered by chronicles of Michael Psellos and John Skylitzes which indicate on poisoning, as main cause of emperor’s death. The other authors wrote directly about drowning the emperor in a palace pool, which had to bring to his decease at night from 11 to 12 April in 1034. Both remembered chronicles and the other mentioning about these events works pass the detailed symptoms of imperial disease peaceably. These symptoms were succesfully subordinated to the definite kinds of poisons, which confirmed the report about poisoning of Romanos III. The investigation does not confine on this, it also explains the contradictions in the source base relating to poisoning/ drowning. This turned out, that although we can to tell about the trial to murder the emperor during the time of bath only in the context of acceleration of his death, which and so would had happened inevitably as the result of the long-lasting passing the plant and metallic poisons. All these circumstances had their long-lasting cause in the conflict of Romanos 111 with his wife Zoe, who did not hesitate to bring to change on the imperial throne to bestow the imperial crown to young Michael the Paphlagonian, at whos side - as his wife - she wanted to stay on long as the empress of Byzantium. 2005-01-01T00:00:00Z