SHUKUROV (Rustam), « Turkic Elites in Constantinople and Trebizond in

1261-1453. Some Comparative Notes », Élites chrétiennes et formes du

pouvoir. (XIIIe-XVe siècle), p. 193-204

DOI : 10.15122/isbn.978-2-406-06458-9.p.0193

La diffusion ou la divulgation de ce document et de son contenu via Internet ou tout autre moyen
de communication ne sont pas autorisées hormis dans un cadre privé.

© 2017. Classiques Garnier, Paris.

Reproduction et traduction, même partielles, interdites.
Tous droits réservés pour tous les pays.
© Classiques Garnier

R ÉSUMÉ – L’article compare les élites turques à Constantinople et à Trébizonde pendant

la période tardo-byzantine. La société des Balkans byzantins était plus ouverte à l ’égard
des nobles turcs immigrants que celle du Pont byzantin. Au contraire, on ne trouve que
rarement des colons du Pont asiatique dans les hautes strates de la société, eux ou leurs
descendants rejoignirent principalement les classes moyennes de l ’administration et du
clergé.

A BSTRACT – The article compares Turkic Elites in Constantinople and Trebizond during
late Byzantine period. The Byzantine Balkan society was more open towards the noble
Turkic immigrants comparing to the Byzantine Pontos. On the contrary, the Pontic
Asian settlers were rarely found in the higher strata of society, they or their descendants
mostly joined the middle class bureaucracy and clergy.
 TURKIC ELITES
IN CONSTANTINOPLE
AND TREBIZOND IN 1261-1453
Some Comparative Notes

Late Byzantine sources clearly shows the physical presence of the Turks
in the Byzantine world who settled there as subjects of the Byzantine
emperors – the Laskarid, Palaiologan, and Grand Komnenian rulers.
These naturalized Turks may be defined as a specific category of the
Byzantine population, that is, Byzantine Turks. Byzantine Turks adopted
Christianity and, as a rule, married local Greeks, Slavs, etc. However,
the west Byzantine and Pontic paradigms of Turkic presence exhibit
some important differences in the regard of the place and role of the
aristocratic stratum of Byzantine Turks. In the present paper, I will try
to outline these differences. Chronologically I shall limit myself here to
the Late Byzantine period that is from 1204 to 1461.

METHOD

The basis of my study is an anthroponymic analysis. In the first stage

of the work, from among 30 000 names of persons, recorded for the late
Byzantine period, as the result of an etymological study of these names, I
have chosen about 400 names of Oriental, that is Arabic, Persian, Turkic
and Mongol origin. All these persons lived in Byzantine lands, that is in
the Empires of the Laskarids, the Palaiologoi or the Grand Komnenoi.
These names have been organized into an electronic database. About
350 bearers of Oriental names belong to the west Byzantine regions and
especially the Balkans (out of a total of 28 000). In the Balkans they

© 2017. Classiques Garnier. Reproduction et diffusion interdites.

194 RUSTAM SHUKUROV

were ­concentrated in Macedonia where there were several nucleus areas:

Kalamaria, Berrhoia, Serres, Strymon etc. Numerically the holders of
Oriental names ­constituted about 1,5 per cent of the entire population
of the west Byzantine lands. In the Pontic Greek sources, there are
65 names of Oriental origin (out of total 1 600) the holders of which
­constitute 5,8 per cent of the entire population of the Pontos, that is
four times higher than in the west Byzantine lands1.
Subsequently, I was engaged in putting these persons into a
broader sociological and historical ­context of the time. For instance,
I was interested in their social status and economic role, their level of
education, their religious identity, their place in the social hierarchy,
their social function and the like. In brief the results of my analysis
can be summarized as follows2. The adoption of Christianity and
resettlement on Byzantine territory put Byzantine Turks under the
jurisdiction of Roman law and bestowed on them the same rights and
obligations as the native Byzantines had. Depending on the circums-
tances, as a result of their naturalization they could be given land,
other property, and rank in the state hierarchy. Most Byzantine Turks
were current or former military personnel. The second generation
of the Turkic barbarians, even if c­ ulturally (not in any way legally)
distinguished at times from the locals by the native Byzantines, in
most cases were fully integrated into the local ­culture and spoke the
Greek language3.
The above-mentioned aspects were c­ ommon to the Middle and
Late Byzantine periods, reflecting the basic models of naturalization of
1 For more details on my database, see: Rustam Shukurov, “The Byzantine Turks: An
Approach to the Study of Late Byzantine Demography”, L ­ ’Europa dopo la caduta di
Costantinopoli: 29 maggio 1453, Spoleto, Centro italiano di Studi ­sull’alto medioevo, 2008,
p. 73-89.
2 Ibid., p. 90–108.
3 For more details on the integration of foreigners in Byzantine society, see: Speros Vryonis,
“Byzantine and Turkish Societies and their Sources of Manpower”, Studies on Byzantium,
Seljuks, and Ottomans: Reprinted Studies, Βυζαντινά και Μεταβυζαντινά, 2, Malibu, Undena
Publications, 1981, no. 3, p. 125-140; Angeliki E. Laiou, “The Foreigner and the Stranger in
12th Century Byzantium: Means of Propitiation and Acculturation”, Fremde der Gesellschaft.
Historische und sozialwissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zur Differenzierung von Normalität und
Fremdheit, ed. Marie Theres Fögen, Frankfurt am Main, V. Klostermann, 1991, p. 71-97;
Elizabeth Zachariadou, Alexander Kazhdan, “Turks in Byzantine Service”, The Oxford
Dictionary of Byzantium, ed. Alexander Kazhdan, Alice-Mary Talbot et al., 3 vol., New
York–Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1991, p. 2129-2130.

© 2017. Classiques Garnier. Reproduction et diffusion interdites.

 TURKIC ELITES IN CONSTANTINOPLE AND TREBIZOND 195

the barbarians (whether West European Christian or Oriental Muslim

or pagan) in the Byzantine world. In these respects, West Byzantine
lands and the Pontos differed little from each other. However, if one
looks ­comparatively at the social structure of Turkic newcomers in the
Balkans and the Pontos, one can also notice significant differences. Let
us start with the west Byzantine models.

ARISTOCRATIC CLANS IN THE LASKARID

AND PALAIOLOGAN EMPIRES

As the anthroponymic database testifies, most of the Turkic immi-

grants entered either the privileged classes of aristocrats and pronoiars
or the less privileged class of paroikoi, as shown in Table 1.

Status Percentage
Aristocracy and pronoiars 34 percent
Clerics, monks and intellectuals 7 percent
Merchants 2 percent
Small-holders and paroikoi 51 percent
Others 6 percent

Fig. 1 – Asians in western Byzantine lands.

Quite symptomatic is the low percentage of middle class free lan-

downers in rural areas and among the urban population, and among
the merchants. Apparently, Turkic immigrants establishing themselves
in Palaiologan Byzantium, either entered the upper classes of society
or the lower strata. Of course, not all the pronoiars can be qualified as
the members of aristocracy. Many of them were military officers of the
middle and lower ranks. Some of the pronoiars were the members of
soldier c­ ompanies who held collective pronoiai. For instance, this was
the case of the pronoiar Barbarenoi soldiers from ca. 1327 until the end

© 2017. Classiques Garnier. Reproduction et diffusion interdites.

196 RUSTAM SHUKUROV

of the 1340s in Kalamaria4, the Turks of Tzypme (north of Gallipoli)

in 1352–545, the pronoiar soldier Πέτρος Φαχρατίνης (Fakhr al-Dīn)6
and the like.
However, in any case, the number of Turks entering the Byzantine
nobility was surprisingly high in ­comparison with the eleventh and
twelfth centuries, the times of the Komnenoi and the Angeloi. In my
anthroponymical list nobles and aristocrats ­constitute at least 17 per
cent of the total number of Byzantine Turks, which by itself is excee-
dingly high: it means that every sixth person of Asian origin belonged
to nobility.
The Asian nobility may be divided into two main sub-groups:
aristocratic clans and nobility holding high offices in military and
civil administration. The first group c­ omprises families incorporated
into the high aristocracy of the Empire. Several of these families had
matrimonial links with the ruling house of the Palaiologoi, such as, for
instance, the aristocratic clan of the Melikai (Constantinople and the
region of Berrhoia)7 and two families of the Soultanoi (Constantinople
4 Nicolas Oikonomides, “À propos des armées des premiers Paléologues et des ­compagnies
de soldats”, Travaux et mémoires 8, 1981, p. 361; Jacques Lefort, Villages de Macédoine:
notices historiques et topographiques sur la Macédoine orientale au Moyen Âge. 1: La Chalcidique
occidentale, Paris, De Boccard, 1982, p. 92, 116, 139, 146.
5 John Kantakouzenos, Ioannis Cantacuzeni eximperatoris historiarum libri iv, ed. Ludwig
Schopen, 3 vol., Bonn, Impensis E. Weberi, 1828-1832, vol. 3, p. 242-244. For an analysis
of the case of Tzympe and the Turks settled in 1352 there, see: Nicolas Oikonomides,
“From Soldiers of Fortune to Gazi Warriors: The Tzympe Affair”, Studies in Ottoman
History in Honour of Professor V.L. Ménage, ed. Colin Heywood and Colin Imber, Istanbul,
Isis Press, 1994, p. 239-247.
6 Sophronios Eustratiades, Γρηγορίου του Κυπρίου Επιστολαί, Εκκλησιαστικός Φάρος 4, 1909,
Παράρτημα, p. 119, no. 159. Analysis of the case is provided in: Mark Bartusis, The Late
Byzantine Army: Arms and Society, 1204-1453, Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania
Press, 1992, p. 374-375, and Id., Land and Privilege in Byzantium: The Institution of Pronoia,
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2012, p. 343-346. See also: Mikhail V. Bibikov,
“Сведения о пронии в письмах Григория Кипрского и ‘­Истории’ Георгия Пахимера”
[Information on Pronoia in the Letters of George of Cyprus and in George Pachymeres
‘­History’], Зборник радова Византолошког института 17, 1976, p. 95; Les regestes des actes
du patriarcat de Constantinople, ed. Venance Grumel, Vitalien Laurent, and Jean Darrouzès,
2 vol., 8 pts, Paris, Institut français ­d’études byzantines, 1932-1989, 1/4:326, no. 1536.
Cf. Prosopographisches Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit, ed. Erich Trapp et al., 12 vol., Vienna,
Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1976-1996, no. 29669 (with
numerous factual mistakes in the entry).
7 Members of the family are as follows (Prosopographisches…, op. cit., nos 17762, 1597,
17791, 17788, 17790). In addition, the following Melikai might have belonged to the
same family (Prosopographisches…, op. cit., nos 17787, 17784).

© 2017. Classiques Garnier. Reproduction et diffusion interdites.

 TURKIC ELITES IN CONSTANTINOPLE AND TREBIZOND 197

and the region of Berrhoia)8. These aristocratic lineages went back to

different branches of the Seljuk sultanic house of Anatolia and, because
of their royal blood were apparently allowed to enter the tight circle of
the Byzantine blood aristocracy. In addition to their blood links with
the Palaiologoi, they intermarried with other aristocratic clans of the
empire such as the Doukai, Raoul, Angeloi and the like9.
The second proportion c­ onsisted of the Turkic nobles of more modest
standing. These were, for instance, the Anataulai in Kalamaria and
Thessalonike10, two families of the Masgidades in the regions of Serres (I11)
and Thessalonike (II12), the Iagoupoi in Constantinople and Thessalonike13,
the Apelmene in Smyrna, Thrace, Thessalonike, and Constantinople14,
two families of Gazades in the region of Thessalonike (I15) and in

8 Members of the Soultanoi I, including spouses belonging to different lineages, are as

follows (Prosopographisches…, op. cit., nos 26337, 151, 24906). To the Soltanos family II,
including spouses c­ oming from different noble lineages, there belonged the following
persons: Prosopographisches…, op. cit., nos 26333, 26339, 21386, 26338 (probably identical
to no. 26341), 26336, 26340, 26335, 19304.
9 For the Melikai and the Soultanoi, see also: Elizabeth Zachariadou, “Οι χριστιανοί
απόγονοι του Ιζζεδίν Καικαούς Β´ στη Βέροια”, Μακεδονικά 6, 1964-1965, p. 62-74
(on the Soultanoi); Vitalien Laurent, “Une famille turque au service de Byzance.
Les Mélikès”, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 49, 1956, p. 349-368 (on the Melikai); Petr
I. Zhavoronkov, “Тюрки в Византии (XIII– середина XIV в.). Часть первая: тюркская
аристократия” [The Turks in Byzantium (13th–mid-14th c.). Part One: the Turkic
Aristocracy], Византийский временник 65, 2006, p. 169-170 (on the Melikai), p. 171-
172, 174 (on the Soultanoi).
10 Rustam Shukurov, “Анатавлы: тюркская фамилия на византийской службе” [Anataulai: a
Turkic Family in Byzantine Service], Византийский временник 66 (91), 2007, p. 193-207.
11 For the Masgidades I, see: Prosopographisches…, op. cit., nos 93106 and 94097, 17216,
17219, 17221, 17222, 17224; Actes ­d’Iviron, ed. Jacques Lefort, Nicolas Oikonomides,
Denise Papachryssanthou, and Hélène Métrévéli, 4 vol., Paris, Lethielleux, 1985-1995,
vol. 3, no. 61.21, p. 112 and p. 110; Silvio G. Mercati, “­Sull’epitafio di Atanasio Masgidas
nel monastero del Prodromo presso Serres”, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 13, 1947,
p. 239-244.
12 Prosopographisches…, op. cit., nos 17217, 17218, 17220, 17223, 94096; Actes de Lavra, ed.
Paul Lemerle, André Guillou, Nicolas Svoronos, Denise Papachryssanthou, and Sima
Ćirković, 4 vol., Paris, Lethielleux, 1970-1982, vol. 3, p. 98; Konstantinos Mertzios,
Μνημεία μακεδονικής ιστορίας, Thessalonike, Εταιρεία Μακεδονικών Σπουδών, 1947,
p. 51 and fig. 3a.
13 Rustam Shukurov, “Иагупы: тюркская фамилия на византийской службе” [Iagoupai: a
Turkic Family in Byzantine Service], Византийские очерки [Essays on Byzantium], ed.
Gennadij Litavrin, St. Petersburg, Aleteia, 2006, p. 205-229.
14 Prosopographisches…, op. cit., nos 151-158, 91262.
15 Prosopographisches…, op. cit., nos 3444, 91580; Vladimir Mošin, “Акти из светогорских
архива”, Споменик Српске Краљевске Академjе, 91/1939, p. 208.

© 2017. Classiques Garnier. Reproduction et diffusion interdites.

198 RUSTAM SHUKUROV

Constantinople (II16), and the Syrgiannes family in Constantinople17.

These families were undoubtedly noble ones because they kept their
family names through generations. Furthermore, all the members of
these families held positions in the middle and upper segments of
the Imperial bureaucratic hierarchy. Nevertheless, these families had
no links with the noblest aristocratic clans of the Empire such as the
Palaiologoi, Doukai, Asenides and the like.
It is interesting to note that these aristocratic and noble families were
of Anatolian Turkic descent, the only exception being the Syrgiannes
family, which derived from the Cumans of the Golden Horde. The pre-
valence of Anatolian nobility was closely linked to the ­cultural quality
­coming from the East and the North. The Anatolian substratum was
much more urbanized and refined in c­ omparison with that originating
from the Cuman and Mongol wastelands. It was easier for them to settle
in Byzantium and adjust to the norms expected by the Greeks.
Apart from the above-discussed families there were individuals of
Asian descent belonging to Byzantine military and civil nobility who
probably did not establish noble lineages on the Byzantine soil: Μιχαήλ
Ἀβραμπάκης18, Κλεόπας19, Κουτζίμπαξις20, Μαχράμης21, Παχατοὺρ22,
῾Ριμψᾶς23, and many others.

ASIAN NOBILITY IN THE BYZANTINE PONTOS

As has been noted the Asian immigrants were much more numerous
in the Pontos, ­constituting about 5.8 percent of the entire population.
However, their distribution in the social structure of Byzantine Pontic
society was quite different.

16 Prosopographisches…, nos 3446-3448 and 3450.

17 Ibid., nos 27233, 27167, 27168.
18 Prosopographisches…, op. cit., no. 60.
19 Ibid., no. 11787.
20 Ibid., no. 13622.
21 Ibid., no. 17544.
22 Ibid., no. 22168.
23 Ibid., no. 24292.

© 2017. Classiques Garnier. Reproduction et diffusion interdites.

 TURKIC ELITES IN CONSTANTINOPLE AND TREBIZOND 199

Social status Percentage

High officials and nobility 8 percent
Large landowners 3 percent
Clerics and monks 9 percent
Middle class landowners 50 percent
Paroikoi 11 percent
Others 19 percent

Fig. 2 – Asians in the Byzantine Pontos.

As is apparent from the above table, the most numerous category of

Asian immigrants in the Pontos was represented by middle class lan-
downers, that is free peasants. Nobles and paroikoi are few in c­ omparison
with the Byzantine West: in the Palaiologan Empire there was five times
as many paroikoi and six time as many nobles of Asian blood.
The recorded general picture of social affiliation of the Asians in the
Pontos is c­ onfirmed by another curious feature c­ oncerning middle class
Asian immigrants which was quite untypical for the west Byzantine
lands: the Pontos provides examples of “peasant dynasties” of Asian
immigrants and their descendants who were prominent persons in rural
administration and kept their family names through generations. For
instance in rural Matzouka there was the wealthy peasant family of the
Soutoi. The name Soutos belonged to six persons since ca. 1260 until
the turn of the fifteenth century. In ca. 1260, a certain Σούτος, whose
baptismal name is not known, sold a plot situated in Matzouka, probably
in the area of the monastery of St. Theodore in Genakanton24. In ca.
1260-1270, approximately in the same area, a certain Κώνστας Σούτος
was referred to as a witness in a deal donating lands to the monastery

24 Fiodor I. Uspenskij, Vladimir N. Beneševič (ed.), Вазелонские акты. Материалы для

истории крестьянского и монастырского землевладения в Византии XIII–XV вв. [The
Acts of Vazelon. Materials for the History of Peasant and Monastic Landownership
in Byzantium of the 13th–14th c.], Leningrad, Gos. Publichnaia biblioteka, 1927,
no. 37.1-2; Prosopographisches…, op. cit., no. 26380. For Genakanton, see: Anthony
A. M. Bryer, David Winfield, The Byzantine Monuments and Topography of the Pontos,
2 vol., Washington, DC, Dumbarton Oaks Trustees for Harvard University, 1985,
vol. 1, p. 261-262, 295.

© 2017. Classiques Garnier. Reproduction et diffusion interdites.

200 RUSTAM SHUKUROV

of Vazelon located in Palaiomatzouka, in south Matzouka25. These two

were possibly relatives belonging to two different generations; if Soutos
from Genakanton, judging by his function as “elder”, was elderly in ca.
1260, he could have been the father or uncle of Konstas Soutos. These
Σούτοι could have had kinship links with the four fourteenth-century
Σούτοι, Θεόδωρος, Μιχαήλ, Γεώργιος, and Παῦλος, who were residents
of the bandon of Matzouka and prominent in local administration.
Θεόδωρος Σούτος (1382)26 was a “venerable elder” (ἀξιοτίμων γερότον)
who probably ­constituted an arbitrator in local peasant societies27.
Μιχαήλ Σούτος (1384-1388)28 is referred to as ἀρχων, probably an official
of the local administration. Since the role of local archons in Pontic
rural societies remains unstudied it is difficult to determine the exact
functions of Μιχαήλ Σούτος. Finally, Γεώργιος Σούτος (second half of
fourteenth century)29 and Παῦλος Σοῦτος (second half of fourteenth
century to 1415)30 are referred to as judges of the bandon (κριτής τῆς
ὑποθέσεως)31. They were ­contemporaries and knew each other: they
signed a document together as witnesses. Their degree of kinship is
impossible to know; however, it is plausible that they belonged to the
same family as all of them were persons of prominence. The Soutoi
belonged to the rural upper class but were not in the circles of Pontic
noble archons or the patrimonial aristocracy that were so influential in
the ­empire’s politics32. In the Pontos, unlike the Byzantine West, even
peasants may have preserved their surnames for generations.

25 Вазелонские…, op. cit., no. 54.12; Prosopographisches…, op. cit., no. 26382.

26 Вазелонские…, op. cit., no. 125.12-13; Prosopographisches…, op. cit., no. 26381.
27 Anthony A. M. Bryer, “Rural Society in Matzouka,” Continuity and Change in Late
Byzantine and Early Ottoman Society, Birmingham and Washington, DC, The University
of Birmingham, Centre for Byzantine Studies, 1986, p. 77; Anthony A. M. Bryer, “Greeks
and Türkmens: The Pontic Exception”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 29, 1975, p. 121; Sergueï
P. Karpov, История Трапезундской империи [The History of the Empire of Trebizond ], St.
Petersburg, Aleteia, 2007, p. 165.
28 Вазелонские…, op. cit., nos 127.13 (called archon), 129.10, 132.20; Prosopographisches…,
op. cit., no. 26383.
29 Вазелонские…, op. cit., no. 131.9; Prosopographisches…, op. cit. no. 26385.
30 Вазелонские…, op. cit., nos 109.1-2, 126.11, 131.9-10; Prosopographisches…, op. cit., no.
26384.
31 The judicial system of the Empire of Trebizond still awaits its proper exploration:
S. Karpov, История…, op. cit., p. 165; A. Bryer, “Rural Society…”, art. cit., p. 75-78.
32 For the noble archon class in the Empire of Trebizond, see: Anthony A. M. Bryer,
“The Estates of the Empire of Trebizond: Evidence for their Resources, Products,

© 2017. Classiques Garnier. Reproduction et diffusion interdites.

 TURKIC ELITES IN CONSTANTINOPLE AND TREBIZOND 201

As for the Asian nobility in the empire of Trebizond, we know only

seven names that can be identified as belonging to nobles: protobestia-
rios and megas logothetes Γεώργιος Ἀμιρούτζης33, Ἀζατίνης (Aziathim)34,
Ἀλταμούριος35, Ἀσθλαμπέκης36, Κασσιμπούρης37, Τουραλῆς, and
Πακτιάρης38. Of these seven names only the famous Amiroutzai
­constituted with certitude a noble family, which ­continued to exist
after the fall of Trebizond to the Turks in 146139. None of these persons
are known as having been blood relations of the Grand Komnenoi or
other aristocratic clans of the Empire of Trebizond.
By the way of c­ omparison it must be emphasized that Italians in the
Empire of Trebizond were much more successful than Asians. Although
Italian immigrants were less numerous, many of them were persons of
prominence and held high positions in the state hierarchy40.

Agriculture, Ownership and Location”, Αρχείον Πόντου, 35/1979, p. 414-416; S. Karpov,

История…, op. cit., p. 161. For the role of patrimonial aristocracy in Trebizond, see: Maria
S. Men’shikova, “Понтийская знать” [The Pontic Nobility], Византия и Запад (950-летие
схизмы христианской церкви, 800-летие захвата Константинополя крестоносцами).
Тезисы докладов XVII Всероссийской научной сессии византинистов [Byzantium and
the Occident. The 950th Anniversary of the Schism in Christian Church, the 800th Anniversary
of the Seizure of Constantinople by the Latins. Proceedings of the 17th All-Russian Byzantine
Symposium], Мoscow, IVI RAN, 2004, p. 124-126; S. Karpov, История…, op. cit., p. 165,
184-185; Anthony A. M. Bryer, “The Faithless Kabazitai and Scholarioi”, Maistor: Classical,
Byzantine, Renaissance Studies for R. Browning, dir. Ann Moffatt, Canberra, Australian
Association for Byzantine Studies, 1984, p. 309-327.
33 Prosopographisches…, op. cit., nos 782-788 (before 1437, fifteenth c.).
34 Senato, Misti, Venice, Archivio di Stato di Venezia, 15-60 (1332-1440), XLVII, fol. 127r
(24 June 1407).
35 Marios Philippides, Emperors, Patriarchs, and Sultans of Constantinople, 1373-1513: An
Anonymous Greek Chronicle of the Sixteenth Century, Brookline, MA, Hellenic College Press,
1990, p. 70.7 (1461); Prosopographisches…, op. cit., no. 704.
36 Prosopographisches…, op. cit., no. 1543.
37 Prosopographisches…, op. cit., no. 11369.
38 John Lazaropoulos, “Synopsis miraculorum sancti Eugenii”, The Hagiographic Dossier of
St. Eugenios of Trebizond: A Critical Edition with Introduction, Translation, Commentary and
Indexes, ed. Jan O. Rosenqvist, Uppsala, Almqvist & Wiksell, 1996, lines 1162f. (τοῦ
Πακτιάρη) and 1178.
39 For the Amiroutzes family, see: S. Karpov, История …, op. cit., p. 155, 299-301, 429-
439, 463-472.
40 For more details, see: Rustam Shukurov, “Foreigners in the Empire of Trebizond (the
Case of Orientals and Latins)”, At the Crossroads of Empires: 14th-15th Century Eastern
Anatolia. Proceedings of the International Symposium Held in Istanbul, 4th-6th May 2007, ed.
Deniz Beyazit with Simon Rettig, Paris, De Boccard, 2012, p. 71-84; Id. “Латиняне
в сельской Мацуке (13-15 вв.)” [The Latins in Rural Matzouka], Mare et litora: Essays

© 2017. Classiques Garnier. Reproduction et diffusion interdites.

202 RUSTAM SHUKUROV

TWO PARADIGMS

West Byzantine society was open to noble Turks (members of the

ruling houses, court nobility, Turkish ­commanders who had defected)
to a greater extent than the Pontos. This is perhaps due to the fact that
the Palaiologoi used Turkic mercenaries immeasurably more than did
the Grand Komnenoi. The ­continuous influx of Turks into the Byzantine
military machine as a result of the reliance of west Byzantine autho-
rities on Turkic manpower led to the formation of a layer of nobility
and senior military ­commanders of Turkic origin41. As a result, several
Turkic families appeared at the highest level of the social hierarchy
(the Soultanoi, the Malikai), and even more Turks joined the middle
layer of the aristocracy (the Gazedes, the Iagoupai, the Masgidades, the
Anataulai etc.).
In the Empire of Trebizond, there were no truly noble families
among Turkic immigrants c­ ompared to the influence of the power-
ful Greek and Laz clans of the Scholarioi, Doranitai, Kabatzitai,
Tzanichitai, etc. Trebizond seems to have been less dependent on
the services of Turkish mercenaries, relying mostly on autochtho-
nous manpower. It was only the palace guard units in Trebizond
(ἀμυρτζανταράνται and χουρτιριώται) that had a genetic link with
Turkic mercenaries. The ­commanders of these units, however, were
Greek or Laz42.
Trapezuntine society was much more corporate and clannish than the
west Byzantine one. Aristocratic clans in the Pontos maintained their
unity for many generations and acted as a ­consolidated force in political
struggles. These clans sometimes actually entered into an alliance against
the imperial power, just as they sometimes fought each other for more
influence. It was a sort of a feudal clan system. The Grand Komnenoi
Presented to Sergei Karpov for his 60th Birthday, ed. Rustam Shukurov, Moscow, Indrik,
2009, p. 627-642.
41 Nicolas Oikonomides, “À propos des armées…”, art. cit., p. 101-135.
42 Rustam Shukurov, Великие Комнины и Восток (1204-1461) [The Grand Komnenoi and
the Orient. 1204–1461], St. Petersburg, Aleteia, 2001, p. 58–59; Id. “The Byzantine
Turks of the Pontos”, Mésogeios. Revue trimestrielle d­ ’études méditerranéennes, 6/1999,
p. 33-34.

© 2017. Classiques Garnier. Reproduction et diffusion interdites.

 TURKIC ELITES IN CONSTANTINOPLE AND TREBIZOND 203

followed a similar model, acting as an aristocratic family among other

aristocratic clans, with the difference being a matter of their imperial
charisma. Due to more pronounced clan structures in the Pontic elite,
vertical mobility in the highest stratum of society was limited in the
Pontos, whereas in west Byzantine lands a civil society model prevailed,
which may explain the relative ease with which Turkic immigrants
penetrated the Palaiologan aristocracy.
The discrepancy in the numbers of middle- and lower-class Asians
can be explained by the fact that generally west Byzantine society was
somewhat more closed to Turkic c­ ommoners and slaves c­ ompared to
the Byzantine Pontos. Turks who settled in the west Byzantine lands
occupied lower positions than the native population. They were often
paroikoi, with ways to accomplish acculturation and entry into the
category of “intellectuals” (clergy, monks, scribes) less accessible to
them and their descendants. It seems that Hellenization standards
for the Turkic newcomers were higher and stricter in the Lascarid
and Palaiologan Empires than in the Grand Komnenian Pontos.
West Byzantine society, probably, expected deeper ­cultural assimi-
lation with the dominant population from the Turkic newcomers. It
was c­ onsequently more difficult for a Turkic immigrant c­ ommoner
to achieve social success and join the middle-class rural and urban
population.
By ­contrast, as we have seen, the Pontic Asian settlers were rarely
found in the lower strata of society. They or at least their descendants
were able to enter the middle-class bureaucracy and clergy. In this
sense, the Grand Komnenoi in the Pontos were probably more tole-
rant of the c­ ultural and mental Otherness of the Turkic newcomers.
Another feature of the middle-class Asian immigrant experience in
Pontic Matzouka – one that was atypical in the west Byzantine lands
– was that a number of Asian immigrant “peasant dynasties” and
their descendants kept their Oriental bynames through generations.
Asian immigrants in the Pontos were generally more numerous and
more successful socially, while lower- and middle-class immigrants
in the west Byzantine areas probably had to struggle to disguise
their Asian ancestry.
To sum up, paradoxically, west Byzantine society, being generally
more closed to foreigners, demonstrates exceptional openness in the

© 2017. Classiques Garnier. Reproduction et diffusion interdites.

204 RUSTAM SHUKUROV

part of noble Turkic newcomers, while, in Pontic society, which was

generally more tolerant, the small circle of patrimonial aristocracy was
almost inaccessible to foreigners.

Rustam Shukurov
Moscow State University, Russia

© 2017. Classiques Garnier. Reproduction et diffusion interdites.