Andreas Gkoutzioukostas
Academic Appointments ►2006-2011: Lecturer in Byzantine History/Institutions, Department of Ancient Greek and Roman, Byzantine and Mediaeval History, School of History and Archaeology, Faculty of Philosophy, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.
►2011-2018: Assistant Professor of Byzantine History/Institutions, Department of Ancient Greek and Roman, Byzantine and Mediaeval History, School of History and Archaeology, Faculty of Philosophy, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.
►2018-2021: Associate Professor of Byzantine History/Institutions, Department of Ancient Greek and Roman, Byzantine and Mediaeval History, School of Historyand Archaeology, Faculty of Philosophy, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
►2011-2018: Assistant Professor of Byzantine History/Institutions, Department of Ancient Greek and Roman, Byzantine and Mediaeval History, School of History and Archaeology, Faculty of Philosophy, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.
►2018-2021: Associate Professor of Byzantine History/Institutions, Department of Ancient Greek and Roman, Byzantine and Mediaeval History, School of Historyand Archaeology, Faculty of Philosophy, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
less
Related Authors
Interests
Uploads
Papers by Andreas Gkoutzioukostas
The ellipsis and the fragmentation of the cases described in the Peira are confirmed once again. The author of the source is not interested in all cases to give the course of court cases, unless it concerns the content of the title in which are included, as in the case of section 51.31 under the heading "Περὶ δικαστῶν”. On the contrary, section 7.15 , which is under the title "Περὶ διαλύσεως", does not describe in detail of how the case finally reached to the emperor, as the author is concerned with the outcome of the dispute resolved by a compromise solution before a court decision. Consequently, Eustathios' judgments and legal opinions included in Peira are formulated according to the titles of the chapters and their content, making in many cases difficult the accurate understanding of the information by the contemporary scholars.
belonged to (e.g. protoasecretis) or are assumed by scholars to be associated with the imperial secretariat
(e.g. mystikos) and who are known (e.g. droungarios of the vigla, kritai of the velum and kritai of the
hippodrome) or thought to have been judicial officers (e.g. mystographos, mystolektes, thesmophylax,
thesmographos, exaktor, kensor and praitor) are approached critically, and some new interpretations and
suggestions based on the information of the primary sources and the conclusions of our research over
the past decade are proposed.
governors continued or survived in Byzantium, especially in 10th and 11th centuries in Macedonia,
according to the evidence of documents from Athonite monasteries.
conclusions of our analysis are the following: The first holder of the military position of the tourmarches of phoideratoi was Leon the Armenian,
who later became emperor; he did not settle in Constantinople with his
phoideratoi as head of an imperial tagma, as has been argued, but rather in the thema of Anatolikon, where his tourma belonged. Nor was Michael Traulos, who had in fact been appointed komes kortes of the strategos of Anatolikon and not “komes of the imperial tent”, settled in the capital. The corps of the phoideratoi did not operate in an autonomous manner, to defend the eastern border, as has been recently proposed, but it was
under the command of the strategos of Anatolikon, as was also the case with all the other tourmai, which were subjected to the generals of the themata in which they were located. Four tourmarches of phoideratoi are
mentioned in the sources: Leon the Armenian, Thomas the Slav, Elnasir or Alnasir or Artasir (all in the 9th c.), and Samuel (second half of the 10th c.), while Michael Traulos never attained this office, contrary to what certain
scholars have argued. Finally, any connection between the 9th-century phoideratoi and the recruitment of foreign barbarians from the East is not
convincing and cannot be substantiated by the sources; the survival or revival of the name of the phoideratoi for one of the tourmai of the Anatolikon thema was due to the fact that, after the re-organisation of the phoideratoi as part of the imperial mobile military units during the reign of Tiberius II, they moved to and remained in the East under the command of the magister militum per Orientem, where later the theme of Anatolikon
was established.
The ellipsis and the fragmentation of the cases described in the Peira are confirmed once again. The author of the source is not interested in all cases to give the course of court cases, unless it concerns the content of the title in which are included, as in the case of section 51.31 under the heading "Περὶ δικαστῶν”. On the contrary, section 7.15 , which is under the title "Περὶ διαλύσεως", does not describe in detail of how the case finally reached to the emperor, as the author is concerned with the outcome of the dispute resolved by a compromise solution before a court decision. Consequently, Eustathios' judgments and legal opinions included in Peira are formulated according to the titles of the chapters and their content, making in many cases difficult the accurate understanding of the information by the contemporary scholars.
belonged to (e.g. protoasecretis) or are assumed by scholars to be associated with the imperial secretariat
(e.g. mystikos) and who are known (e.g. droungarios of the vigla, kritai of the velum and kritai of the
hippodrome) or thought to have been judicial officers (e.g. mystographos, mystolektes, thesmophylax,
thesmographos, exaktor, kensor and praitor) are approached critically, and some new interpretations and
suggestions based on the information of the primary sources and the conclusions of our research over
the past decade are proposed.
governors continued or survived in Byzantium, especially in 10th and 11th centuries in Macedonia,
according to the evidence of documents from Athonite monasteries.
conclusions of our analysis are the following: The first holder of the military position of the tourmarches of phoideratoi was Leon the Armenian,
who later became emperor; he did not settle in Constantinople with his
phoideratoi as head of an imperial tagma, as has been argued, but rather in the thema of Anatolikon, where his tourma belonged. Nor was Michael Traulos, who had in fact been appointed komes kortes of the strategos of Anatolikon and not “komes of the imperial tent”, settled in the capital. The corps of the phoideratoi did not operate in an autonomous manner, to defend the eastern border, as has been recently proposed, but it was
under the command of the strategos of Anatolikon, as was also the case with all the other tourmai, which were subjected to the generals of the themata in which they were located. Four tourmarches of phoideratoi are
mentioned in the sources: Leon the Armenian, Thomas the Slav, Elnasir or Alnasir or Artasir (all in the 9th c.), and Samuel (second half of the 10th c.), while Michael Traulos never attained this office, contrary to what certain
scholars have argued. Finally, any connection between the 9th-century phoideratoi and the recruitment of foreign barbarians from the East is not
convincing and cannot be substantiated by the sources; the survival or revival of the name of the phoideratoi for one of the tourmai of the Anatolikon thema was due to the fact that, after the re-organisation of the phoideratoi as part of the imperial mobile military units during the reign of Tiberius II, they moved to and remained in the East under the command of the magister militum per Orientem, where later the theme of Anatolikon
was established.