Table of Contents

LAONICUS CHALCOCONDYLA THE ATHENIAN: TEN BOOKS OF HISTORIES

LAONICUS CHALCOCONDYLA THE ATHENIAN: TEN BOOKS OF HISTORIES

TO THE READER

Much has been added to this new edition of Laonicus Chalcocondyla, candid Reader: for it is not hidden from you that those who prepared the former edition used either uncorrected manuscripts or, through the negligence of the workmen, [committed errors].

• Concerning Laonicus, these things are read in the *Bibliotheca Graeca* of Fabricius: Laonicus, or, as Simler and others say, Nicolaus (for the name is the same, just as Theophilus and Philotheus, Demonicus and Nicodemus), Chalcocondyles, Χαλκοκονδύλης (with the name shortened, called Chalcocondyles by most), an Athenian, was eminent about A.D. 1470. For Vossius writes, by I know not what authority, that he lived until the year 1490 or beyond. There exists a History written by him, concerning the origin and affairs of the Turks and the destruction of the Greek empire, in ten books, from A.D. 1298, which is the beginning of Ottoman I, to 1462, or the empire as it became mature under Mohammed II. A brief appendix up to the year 1565 acknowledges a more recent author, and in some editions this is lacking. Whence also David Chytraeus, who exhibits the arguments of Chalcocondyla’s ten books in his *Chronology*, did not take it into account. Laonicus is himself a writer who is by no means to be despised, whence in the *Miscellaneis Historico-litterariis* of Vignolius and Marvilius, vol. III, p. 56, you may read this judgment of him: "Since Chalcocondyla, who treated the history of the Turks, has been joined to the Byzantine authors, one can assure that he does not dishonor them by finding himself in their company. He has the gift of awakening our attention, by giving us curiosity, and not letting us sleep over his book."

Editions of Laonicus Chalcocondyla. Latin, from the version of Conrad Clauser of Zurich, Basel, 1556, folio, at Oporinus’s. And collated with the version (not published) of Philippus Gundelius, and corrected by Clauser himself and another learned man, ibid., 1562, folio, at the end of the Greek-Latin Nicephorus Gregoras; and Frankfurt, 1569, folio, at the end of those published in Latin: Zonaras, Nicetas, and Nicephorus Gregoras. Mention is made by Vossius also of the version which Dionysius Coroneus, the royal professor at Paris, attempted, but it never saw the light of day. Greek and Latin, with the same Clauser’s version, joined with the three Byzantine historical writers, Nicephorus Gregoras and George Acropolites, Geneva, 1615, folio; and again separately, from the Royal Press.

^A many errors have crept into it. Hence arise many lacunae, which we have supplemented from the Royal codices; hence, too, many things have been edited in a corrupt manner, which, following the credibility of better manuscripts, we have corrected insofar as possible. We also exhibit in the margins various readings excerpted from two handwritten codices, by which those things that were occasionally inscribed in the earlier edition are confirmed. And yet, one must surely praise the work of those who first brought the Greek texts to light from ancient palatine manuscripts, which the translator had not edited. Joannes Balthasar Baumbachius, professor of the Greek and Hebrew languages at Heidelberg, had applied his study and labor so that Laonicus might be edited correctly. But it seems to be the fate of books that those who first publish a Greek or Latin author almost always encounter corrupt codices. And those who later obtain better manuscripts are indeed more fortunate, though by no means more inclined to aid the cause of letters.

Concerning the name of the author, there is no agreement: for some call him Chalcondyles, others Chalcocondyles. The Royal copies have XalxoxavðÛÌņu, both in the book’s title and on page CLXXXI; so that by which name he ought to be deemed cannot be defined with certainty because of the variety of the codices. However, it is not a matter of great labor to determine by which name we should designate him.

Moreover, certain new Greco-barbarous terms occur in Laonicus and Ducas, whom the most learned man Ismael Bullialdus rescued from darkness. We have explained these by employing a Glossary, not by emending the locations of authors here and there, but generally by bringing them forward from books hitherto unpublished; for it has always been our concern to draw from our own store that which might serve the author whom we have undertaken to illustrate. And it is certain that if a Byzantine Lexicon should ever appear, in which the more difficult and Greco-barbarous words that occur in all writers of Byzantine History are explained, we will be able to enrich that collection with this new addition. However, I leave the decision on that matter to those through whose labor such a Lexicon will come to light. It is true, indeed, that from the time I began to preside over the edition of Byzantine History, I had considered editing a Byzantine Lexicon; but I do not wish to snatch from most learned men this opportunity to perform a service to the republic of letters. This Glossary of ours will soon be followed by another for the Annals of Constantine Manasses, in the compilation of which I have used the same diligence as in composing the others. In the meantime, use this if it is worth the effort, and farewell.

Paris, 1650, folio, in which edition, besides various readings from two Royal codices, from which the Greek has been corrected throughout, and the glossary of Carolus Annibal Fabrotus (Jurisconsult) on Chalcocondyles and Ducas, there are added the Annals of the Ottoman Sultans, from the year of Christ 1289 to 1550, which Joannes Gaudier, called Spiegel, had turned from the Turkish language into German and edited; but he translated them into Latin, and Frankfurt, 1596, folio; J. Leunclavius the Noble, an Angrivarian, published them, who also added a supplement from the year 1550 to 1588, and a genealogy of the Osmanlis and a pandect of Turkish History, or an explanation and description of various things and names to illustrate the Annals. Gretserus testifies that the History of Laonicus exists in Greek in three manuscripts in the Bavarian library. Freherus exhibits the passage containing the description of Germany from the second book, p. 36, in Greek and Latin with notes, among the writers of German history.

In French, the writer appeared with a commentary, translated by Blaise de Vigenère, Paris, 1577, 1584, 4°; with the continuation of Thomas Artus to the year of Christ 1612, ibid., 1612, 1620, 1650; and de Mezeray, up to the year of Christ 1661, ibid., 1663, folio. *Recherche sur l’Histoire de Chalcondile, et illustrations de la même Histoire.*

"Laonicus himself," says Bellarmine, *De scriptoribus Eccles.*, "is not free from false narratives, which he believed rashly, being ignorant of our affairs."

Jacobus Gaddius in *Elogio historico* and *l. 1. De scriptoribus non ecclesiasticis*, p. 119, sq., and Casp. Barthius on Claudian, p. 338, find fault with several passages of Laonicus Chalcocondyles. Furthermore, Henry Wharton, a man of distinction, is mistaken when he writes in his appendix to Cave's *Historia litteraria* that Chalcocondyles appeared in Latin from Clauser's version in Paris, 1550. It is also beside the point that in the catalog of books printed by Joannes Oporinus, which is appended to his Life, you may see Laonicus's books mentioned as edited in Greek and Latin in folio; for Oporinus published them only in Latin, having even complained in the preface to the later edition of 1562 that the Greek codex was lacking to him. Demetrius Chalcocondylas, who was over eighty years old, touched upon this Laonicus by kinship and died in Milan, concerning whom I remember saying something in my *Grammaticis*. — FABRIC.

LAONICUS CHALCOCONDYLA THE ATHENIAN: HISTORIES, BOOK ONE

LAONICI CHALCOCONDYLÆ ATHENIENSIS HISTORIARUM DE ORIGINE AC REBUS GESTIS TURCORUM LIBER PRIMUS.

*The author’s intent and reliability. The origin of the Turks, their families, and their seven principal leaders who, after the Tartars began to decline, divided Asia Minor among themselves. The Ottomans, and the sons of Orchan who captured Nicaea in Bithynia, and Amurath I, who occupied a part of Thrace: their deeds.*

^A Laonicus the Athenian has written down these things for history concerning those events of his life that he reached through sight and hearing, deeming it a duty to repay nature while he was yet in the land of the living, and convinced that nothing of these matters should be allowed to perish ingloriously for those who would come after, since they were—in my opinion—no less worthy of memory than any of those events that have ever occurred throughout the inhabited world. I am referring to the end of the Greeks and all that befell them at the beginning of their decline, and to the Turks, who attained a great power, and indeed the greatest that any have ever reached from the beginning of time. Considering the good fortune of this life of theirs, which I see turning in the opposite direction, I hold it right to make mention of both these subjects, and I consider it not improper to commit this account to writing. We shall also make mention of other events that have transpired throughout the inhabited world, not only those of my own time, of which I was a witness, having beheld them myself, but also other matters, reasoning as best I could from things likely to be true, and especially by inquiring of those who appeared to hold the better opinions about them, so that I might state with the greatest possible certainty what best approaches to the truth, and not hold even that in too trivial a regard—I mean the fact that we are relating these things in the Greek tongue. For the Greek tongue is scattered far and wide across the inhabited world, and is intermingled with many others; and the fame of it... ^B Laonicus the Athenian determined to commit to documentary records what he had seen and heard while he was yet alive: partly to render the thanks owed to nature, and partly because he thought that nothing among those events would seem unworthy of being remembered by posterity. For this work comprises (in my opinion) deeds in no way inferior to the fame of those events which are related to have ever occurred in this whole world of ours. Moreover, it contains two things: the ruin of the Greek empire and the evils that redounded upon it; and also the Turks, who in a short time grew to such power that they left all mortals who have ever lived far behind them in wealth and influence. Though they now hold sway over affairs and disturb the happiness of the present life, and lead it in a different direction, I believe that the time will come—to add my own estimate—when their affairs will turn in the opposite direction. Nevertheless, I do not judge it to be unpleasing to weave together a history of both, of the Greeks and the Turks alike. While writing this history, we shall make mention of other things that occurred in the world; yet not things from my own time, of which I was an eyewitness, but of other matters, not following mere likely conjectures, nor—as I received them from those who appeared to be wiser—failing to...

^A perform these things, in the first place, with great effect, but greater still when, in the course of a not-mean reign, both the Greek king himself and the kings to come from him, or even the children of the Greeks gathered together, should administer the commonwealth after their own customs in a manner most agreeable to themselves and most excellent to others.

^B The Greeks, therefore, having performed deeds both great and conspicuous, reached a high degree of renown in other lands, and in Europe, and in Libya, extending their reach as far as the Ganges, the Ocean, and the Caucasus. After many others had proceeded to these places, including Hercules and, before him, Dionysus, son of Semele, and furthermore the Lacedaemonians and Athenians, and after them the king of the Macedonians and those who later held his command, many others elsewhere recorded how each of these things came to pass. The Greeks, then, were engaged in these affairs for as long a time as possible, and for many generations, yet they possessed a fortune that was lacking in virtue, for it was never moderate. Furthermore, as they enjoyed successfully the progression of affairs throughout the world, I find that the Assyrians, a most ancient people, making the longest report of themselves, occupied the empire of Asia. Then the Medes were raised to the empire of Asia under the leadership of Sarbares (whom Justin calls Arbactus and Arbaces), ^C shaking off Sardanapalus, the king of the Assyrians, from his throne. Yet they finally lost the monarchy of Asia, being defeated by Cyrus, the king of the Persians. From then on, the kings of the Persians increased to such an immense degree that they even crossed over into Europe. Then, not many centuries later, Alexander, king of the Macedonians, having snatched the monarchy of Asia from the Persians and having conquered the Indians, as well as a not insignificant portion of Libya and also of Europe, left his empire to those who followed him. The Romans, having attained an empire that was the greatest by far in the world, holding a fortune that was equal to their virtue, committed Rome to the great high priest. They themselves, under the leadership of Caesar, crossed into Thrace ^D and, in that region where it is situated closest to Asia, established the Greek city of Byzantium (which is now Constantinople) as their metropolis, waging many battles against the Persians, by whom they were most severely afflicted. The Greeks, from that time, having mingled with the Romans and being far more numerous than them, constantly retained their own language and customs to the end; yet their ancestral name did not remain with them, but it was changed. For the kings of Byzantium no longer bore that name, but with great reverence called themselves Roman emperors and Caesars, and not kings of the Greeks.

^A We have learned, however, that the Romans and their supreme hierarch had, over many years, differed not a little regarding religious matters. They had become separated from the Greeks in other respects also, and in particular because they designated as emperor ^B one who, at one time from the Gauls and at another from the Germans, was always appointed for such a time. Furthermore, they kept sending embassies to the Greeks—without ever ceasing—so that they might establish concord with them regarding religion, convening together in unity. The Greeks, however, were unwilling to overturn the native religious observances that had long been established for them, even though they had been at variance with the Romans for some time. Moved by this cause of dissension, very many of the Westerners, with the Venetians also joining them, and with the Roman hierarch urging them on toward this, decided to wage war against the Greeks with a large fleet. They arrived and attacked the city of Byzantium, and took the city of Byzantium by force; the emperor of Byzantium and the best of the Greeks departed, crossing over into Asia. Upon arriving there, they designated the Greek city of Nicaea for themselves, establishing their royal seat there. Not many years later, they recovered Byzantium again, having entered the city in secret. And, having crossed back into Europe, they continued to reign there. After this, John, the king of the Greeks, perceiving that the affairs of the Greeks were on the razor's edge, took the hierarchs of Byzantium and the most learned of the Greeks and sailed away to Italy, thinking that he would receive aid against the danger impending over him from the Turks, if he were to come to an agreement with them regarding religion. Having arrived in Italy, he shared the religious controversy with the Roman hierarch and entered into a debate, ^C examining the matters thoroughly; in the end, it was agreed that he and the Greeks would demonstrate the matters of the controversy to be concordant with them—and the dispute was dissolved for them. Having received some measure of aid, he made his return again to Byzantium. The Greeks, however, having arrived home, did not remain loyal to the things that had been transacted in Italy and in the synods, decreeing that it was in no way holy for them to agree with the Romans at all, inasmuch as they claimed that the Romans held to impious beliefs. And so, the division between the Greeks and the Romans continued to the end. As for these things, let this suffice as having been said sufficiently—let what concerns the reign of the Greeks and the dispute which they had with the Romans be demonstrated; for the matters concerning the reign and the name were not rightly termed by them. ^D Having myself reached these times, I apprehended the Greeks and the king of the Greeks, first under the tribes in Thrace, and afterwards even under the Barbarians themselves.

^A And some of it was driven from other rule to hold a small dominion—namely, the Byzantine—and the lower coast of Byzantium as far as the city of Heraclea, and along the Euxine Sea, the upper coast as far as the city of Mesembria; and furthermore the whole of the Peloponnese, except for three or four cities of the Venetians; likewise Lemnos, Imbros, and the islands situated there in the Aegean Sea. Now, as to how each of these things came to pass, how the affairs of the Greeks gradually perished, destroyed by the Turks, and how the affairs of the latter grew great, advancing ever to great prosperity up to this current time, we shall record as we proceed, in so far as we have learned with the greatest accuracy.

^B As for the Turks, I for one do not know by what name I should call them in antiquity, so as not to err from the truth. For some think that the Turks are descendants of the Scythians—those whom they call Tartars—conjecturing this more correctly, since their customs have not stood far apart, and they use a language even now not very dissimilar. For they say that the Scythians, having set out from the Tanais for the seventh time, ravaged upper Asia while the Parthians held the hegemony, and [subjugated] the land of the Persians, of the Medes, and of the Assyrians. And after these things, having descended into lower Asia, they made the land of Phrygia, Lydia, and Cappadocia subject to themselves. And even now it is possible to see, as it is said, many of this race dispersed everywhere throughout Asia, having turned their customs and way of life to those of the Nomad Scythians (whom you might not unreasonably call shepherds or herdsmen), yet nowhere in Asia have they had a permanent habitation. ^C And they suggest another conjecture, by which they strive to confirm that the Turks are a progeny of the Scythians, because the barbarous tribes of the Turks dwelling in the lower region of Asia—Lydia, Caria, Phrygia, and Cappadocia—are found to have nothing in their language and the rest of their daily life that distinguishes them from the Scythians operating in the region that runs between the Tanais and Sarmatia. Some think that the Turks are descended from the progeny of the Parthians. For these, they say, when they suffered hostile persecution from the Scythian Nomads—who are so called from moving their pastures—descended into the region of lower Asia, and having leaned toward a more nomadic life, were scattered there throughout the cities; and from this, they say, this race came to be called Turks, as being Nomads. ^D Others claim that this race proceeded from Turka, a great and prosperous city of the Persians, and that, having departed into the lower region of Asia, they were scattered throughout Asia and occupied the land. There are those who desire the Turks to have arrived in this land—whether from Coele-Syria and Arabia or from the Scythians—following Omar, who took succession of the legislation, and to have advanced to the rule of Asia; and having been left there, to have leaned toward a more nomadic life. As to how each of these things holds to the truth, and to what end it is better to proceed in order to learn these things, I cannot conjecture with absolute certainty. This much, however, shall be said: that one might have those who insist that their origin is from the Scythians.

^A For it is manifest that the Scythians who even today live in Europe, towards the East, are in the best agreement with the Turks in the marketplace, in commerce, and in trade. Their nourishment and all other ways of life are to this day the same for both peoples, because the Scythians once ruled over all of Asia. Further, the very name of the Turks insinuates the same thing; for it signifies a man who follows a more rustic manner of life, like the Nomads, and spends the greatest part of his life in that way.

Since this race of Turks was great and extended far and wide, I know it to have been divided into certain parts or tribes; among which was the tribe of the Oguzians, a race neither base nor unwarlike. From these Oguzians was born Duzalpes, ^B a man most studious of equity and justice, and a leader of the Oguzian tribe. I understand that he was praised most highly for his fortitude, and was of such justice (for he delivered judgments to the Oguzians) that litigants would choose him as arbitrator in any matter whatsoever, and both sides would gladly accept the judgment that he rendered. The Oguzians, observing this equity of the man, prevailed upon the king of that region (who then was by name Aladines) with their entreaties, that they might receive him as their judge. And when this occurred, they surrendered themselves to Duzalpes, that he might deal with them according to what he thought would best lead to the prosperity of the Oguzians.

Then, when his son, named Oguzalpes (who is also called Aguzalpes), had claimed for himself the rule of the Oguzian tribe, he aspired ^C to tyranny; and by bearing arms hostile to the Greeks, he in a short time attained to the greatest renown in Asia. Furthermore, Orthogules, the son of Oguzalpes, being possessed of a most ready hand, harassed many peoples with arms, and everywhere acquired great glory. He also prepared a fleet, relying on which he sailed with a hostile mind to the islands in the Aegean Sea, situated by the region of Asia and Europe. He also ravaged Europe. From there, having led his ships into the river Tenarum near the city of Aenos, ^D he proceeded a great distance up the river. They say that he made incursions into Europe in other places as well. Finally, having entered the Peloponnese, Euboea, and Attica, he wrought the greatest slaughter, and with the regions devastated, he returned home laden with plunder and captives, from which he amassed the greatest wealth for himself. They say that this Orthogules, while staying in Asia, made raids upon neighboring peoples; and as things turned out well, he mustered an army. Fortified, therefore, by a sufficiently strong army, he subdued the neighboring Greeks, and plundered the rest; and when others, struck with fear,

^A took him as the author of the destruction of the neighboring land, he pressed forward from there; he began to lead the neighboring Greeks and advanced to great power. How he first obtained power in these matters, and how it happened in this or another way, I could not easily state, though it is told by many. I omit these things after mentioning them to this extent. But I learned that the Ottoman line of the Oguzian tribe came to this rule as follows. There is a fortunate village by Mysia called Soguta, and a river of the same name by it. It is distant from the sea of the Euxine Pontus about two hundred and fifty stadia; this could be called the village of Itea. The Oguzians, having arrived in this region, dwelt there for some time. Now Ottoman, son of Orthogulis, was not at first very well favored by the winds of fortune. However, since he was endowed with a liberal and strong spirit, he gained the hearts of those who lived in the village with his resources, and kept them most devoted to himself in a short time. Hence, when they contended with continuous hatred against the Greeks, he was declared leader by the consent of all. Having therefore attacked the Greeks in war who inhabited that region, he did not withdraw from the battle before he had either slain or put to flight all of them. From this, as matters succeeded prosperously, he extorted very many victories from the Greeks.

But when the fame of his name had filled very many ^C regions, he also flourished with the greatest glory among Aladin; he was created a leader by him, having performed deeds valiantly with widely renowned exploits. After King Aladin died, and his nobles fell into discord among themselves, it is said that he came into discussions with them, and they with one another; having made a treaty and an alliance with them, and having exchanged oaths, he agreed to carry on the war with all of them in common, and to ravage whatever land they could, and to divide whatever they might conquer among themselves according to what was mutually agreed upon. And thus, as he drove their forces, he ravaged no small amount of land, exhibiting great deeds and acquiring frequent wealth, so that in a short time he rose to no mean power. These leaders, being seven in number, divided among themselves the region ^D which they had then subjected by arms; later, committing the partition to lots, it fell to Caramanus to take the interior of Phrygia as far as Cilicia and Philadelphia. The lot of Sarchanes assigned him the maritime region of Ionia, as far as Smyrna. The region of Lydia up to Mysia fell to Calamus and his son Carasus. But as for Bithynia...

it fell to Otomanus along with Tecie. The sons of Amures received Paphlagonia and the regions that slope toward the Euxine Sea, as fate directed the partition. They say that Cermianus was not one of those seven chieftains, but had previously ruled Conium, a city of Caria, where he had kept his royal seat for some time. Being expelled from there, he retired to Ionia and there lived a private life, embracing peace. Whether those seven chieftains joined their forces together, or whether each ^A conquered those regions by himself; or how one succeeded to the riches and kingdom of another, I do not believe it necessary to describe with meticulous curiosity. This, however, is certain: the kings of the Otomanid line greatly honored the village of Sogutha, since they frequently went there and rendered to the inhabitants of the village their customary dues.

I further learned by report that Otomanus, son of Orthogul, was the first of this lineage to arise from that village. Setting forth from there, he captured the cities of Asia, and having taken Prusa, a city of Mysia flourishing in wealth, by famine, he established it as the seat of his kingdom. Finally, having performed many deeds bravely and splendidly, leaving behind children and a distinguished kingdom, he paid the debt of nature at Prusa. This man was the first of his line to arrange most excellently everything that pertained to the salvation of the kingdom. And so that he might make his realm as stable and favorable as possible, he gathered together satellites whom he designated ^B as the king’s "Januae" or "Gates." And since he was now a cause of fear to all because of this power, he easily kept his subjects under his command, as they were all ready at his nod whenever they were called, and performed nimbly whatever the king’s Gates commanded.

They commemorate that this man, Orthogul, was most noble in all things; and because, on account of his excellently administered affairs, he was reputed more august than a human and almost divine, he left to his posterity a distinguished surname, so that they are called Otomanidae or sons of Otomanus. During his reign, eight thousand Turks crossed into Europe by way of the Hellespont, and having captured and occupied a Greek fort in the Chersonese, they sallied forth from there, riding through Thrace as far as the Ister. They hoped to overrun the region; they plundered much, and, having captured as many slaves as possible, they transported them into Asia, driving and carrying off the Greeks and the Triballi.

At this time, no small division of Scythians, emerging from Sarmatia, hastened to the Ister. Having crossed it, they caught the Turks who were in Thrace, joined them in fierce battle, and routed them; and, save for a few, they slaughtered them all most remorselessly. As for those who escaped the slaughter by flight, they were carried to the Chersonese, and from there were transported back into Asia, and finally stayed away from Europe. ^{C D} At that time, the affairs of the Greeks were enjoying a precarious fortune, as they were agitated by internal discords

^A regarding the kingdom of Byzantium, both kings, grandfather and grandson of the Palaiologos family. When they were tossed by seditions, some followed one, and a portion the other. From this it resulted that their affairs most plainly perished. For of the elder Andronikos was born a son, to whom was given the name Michael, who died before he could be promoted to the kingdom. After his death, his son Andronikos, as his grandfather was now worn out by old age, desiring to ascend to the summit of royal dignity, undertook hostilities openly against his grandfather. Since, however, he was more shameless and stubborn than to obey those counseling better things, he brought the Greeks into most serious crises. For he summoned the Triballians, and winning over the nobility of the Greeks involved in the care of the kingdom, he brought it about that no one of the Greeks could any longer prevent the Turks from crossing into Europe. ^B At that time, Prusa was captured, having been subdued by famine by Ottoman, and not a few other cities in Asia were also taken. Whence the Turks grew to great power in Asia, and crossing into Europe, they inflicted great damage upon Thrace; and many others, in fact also Chalites, who, having been driven by the Greeks into the fort which was called Chersonesus, summoned Turks from Asia, and resisted the attacking king, and for a long way advancing into Thrace, he engaged in plunder. But with the leader of the Triballians and those who had recently arrived from Italy being brought, the protection of the Chersonesus began to be besieged by land and sea. But the Turks, since they were by no means fighting with equal forces, fled in the middle of the night into Asia, unbeknownst to the enemy. Nevertheless, the Greeks treated the Turkish turncoat leaders and Azatinas somewhat unkindly, in order that they might bind to themselves with greater goodwill those whom they had recruited from Italy and Taracon [Gallipoli], so that they might bring aid against the king of the Turks, Orchanes, who had moved his army to Philadelphia. Moreover, to occupy the garrison of Calliopolis (which is also Kallipolis) in the Chersonesus, the Taraconenses and Italians, with the addition of Azatinas and the other Turkish turncoats, ^C attempted to attack the city (15). But when their undertaking was made known to the townspeople (for it was signified to the Greeks by someone who was in that city), they went through Thrace; and having crossed the Rhodope, they came to Cassandria, of old called Pydna. Then those of Azatinas's Turks who were present came to the king of the Triballians, but those who had turned back from Asia went on foot to the Chersonesus, having in mind to see in what way they could return to Asia. They even forged treaties with the Greeks in certain places. But when the Greeks laid an ambush for them, wanting to capture them, they escaped by flight into the fort of the Chersonesus, ^D and again were inflicting very many injuries upon the Greeks.