"İoannis Kinnamos" sayfasının sürümleri arasındaki fark

çeviriye devam
k (çeviriye devam)
k (çeviriye devam)
'''Joannes Kinnamos''' yada '''John Cinnamus''' ({{lang-el|{{polytonic|'''Ἰωάννης Κίνναμος'''}}}} yada '''Κίναμος''' yada '''Σίνναμος'''; fl. 12.yüzyıl), [[Bizans]]lı tarihçi.
[[I. Manuel Komnenos]]'un İmparatorluk sekreteriydi (Yunanca "grammatikos," Çoğunlukla ordu yönetimi ile bağlantılı bir pozisyondur). Onun [[Avrupa]] ve [[Küçük asyaAsya]] seferelerineseferlerine eşlik etmiştir. It appears that Kinnamos outlived [[Andronikos I Komnenos]], who died in 1185.
Kinnamos, was the author of a historytarih<ref>''{{lang-el|{{polytonic|Ἐπιτομὴ τῶν κατορθωμάτων τῷ μακαρίτῃ βασιλεῖ καὶ πορφυρογεννήτῳ κυρίῳ Ἰωάννῃ τῷ Κομνηνῷ, καὶ ἀφήγησις τῶν πραχθέντων τῷ ἀοιδίμᾳ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ τῷ βασιλεῖ καὶ πορφυρογεννήτῳ κυρίῳ Μανουὴλ τῷ Κομνηνῷ ποιηθεῖσα Ἰωάννῃ βασιλικῷ γραμματικῷ Κιννάμῳ}}}}'', oryada ''Summary of the feats of the late emperor and purple-born lord John Komnenos and narration of the deeds of his celebrated son the emperor and purple-born lord Manuel I Komnenos done by John Kinnamos his imperial secretary''. [[Editio princeps]] by [[Cornelius Tollius]] (Utrecht 1652).</ref> thatkitabı coveredyazmıştır. theBu kitap 1118-1176, therebyyılları arasını kapsar. Thereby continuing the ''[[Alexiad]]'' of [[Anna Komnene]], and covering the reigns of [[John II Komnenos]] and Manuel I, up until Manuel's unsuccessful campaign against the [[Ottoman Empire|Turks]], which ended with the disastrous [[Battle of Myriokephalon]] and the rout of the Byzantine army. He was probably an eye-witness to the events of the last ten years that he describes.
Kinnamos's work breaks off abruptly, though it is highly likely that the original continued to the death of Manuel. There are also indications that the present work is an abridgment of a much larger work. The hero of the history is Manuel, and throughout the history Kinnamos attempts to highlight what he sees as the superiority of the Eastern Empire to the West. Similarly, he is a determined opponent of what he perceives as the pretensions of the [[Pope|papacy]]. Nevertheless, he writes with the straightforwardness of a soldier, and occasionally admits his ignorance of certain events. The work is well organized arranged, and its style, modeled on [[Xenophon]], is simple, especially when compared with the florid writing of other Byzantine authors. William Plate considers him the best of the European historians of this period.<ref>[[William Smith (scholar)|Smith]], editor. ''Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology'', 1867.</ref>