In the first part of this historical series, it was shown that Von Hammer erred in his use of the Turkish calendar. It was customary with him to write the year of the Hegira above its corresponding Julian year, as, for example, 701/1301.1 Early Turkish calendars were also written in similar fashion, and included the day of the month, as 701 [Sept. 6] 1301. This tabular statement signified that the year 701 A. H. began with September 6 in 1301, and continued to the last week in August, 1302. Hence, an event in the spring or summer would still be dated in 701 A. H., but not in 1301, for on January 1 the year 1302 began. These facts Von Hammer overlooked. Apparently, if an event were given as 701/1301 in his personal table, he would call it 1301 Julian, no matter in what month of the year the event occurred.
This Orientalist also attempted to tie the chronological outline of the Turkish analyst Hadschi Chalfa2 to the day and month given by Pachymeres for Othman's initial attack on the Greek Empire—July 27. In Rinaldo Carli's translation of Hadschi Chalfa's Cronologia, the "complete rout" of the Greeks by Othman in Caramania is placed in the year of the Hegira 701.3 This "fierce battle" was interpreted by Von Hammer as the first attack. But the Cronologia dates its battle after the month of April, and hence its year 701 A. H. must coincide with the year 1302 Julian. Both Pachymeres and Possinus are in agreement with Hadschi Chalfa that the final defeat of Muzalo—not his first attack—was in 1302.4 To some of our readers these technicalities may sound confusing on account of the foreign names and dates. But they all lead up to the importance of proving the year to which Pachymeres' July 27 date belongs. With this end in view, we shall outline the section in which the date occurs.
Pachymeres' Outline of Book IV
Book IV of Pachymeres' narrative in Volume II begins with the year 1299. In this section the author does not mention the year itself, but he ties it to a synchronism. Pachymeres' original text is in Greek, which was translated later into Latin by Possinus. We cite the Latin text:
"Tandem tamen manse Februario ineunte pro ficisci constituit . . tune igitur vespere parasceues, quando Jam ex more antiquo ad conzmorationem mortuorum faces accendebantur, exiit urbe imperator, Dripeamque se contulit."'Translation: Yet finally he[Andronicus] arranged to depart at the beginning of the month of February . . . then therefore in the evening of parasceue [Friday], when now by ancient custom torches were being burned in commemoration of the dead, the emperor left the city and came to Dripea." [On his way to Thessalonica.]
Possinus demonstrates from the calendar of the Greek Church that this torch ceremony for the dead occurred on February 6 in that year,8 which sufficiently agrees with Pachymeres' Februario ineunte. Consequently, the year to be found has to agree with one in which February 6 is Friday (parasceue). This is the synchronism, and 1299 is the year, whose January I was Thursday.' Hence each hebdomad in January and February of that year began on Thursday (1-8-15-22-29-5), bringing February 5 on Thursday, and therefore February 6 on Friday. Such proof is even more exact than if the author had actually named the year.
During the spring and summer of 1299 the emperor was in Thessalonica, trying to complete a treaty marriage with the Crale of Serbia, for the object of raising troops to aid the Oriental border in Asia Minor. He returns to Constantinople on November 22, 1299, a great ceremony being staged for his return, for he had been absent from the city for a long time.8 Pachymeres then carries his narrative through the years 1300, 1301, and 1302, fixing his chronology by synchronisms and astronomical events, before he describes the attack on the Oriental border by Othman in 1299. He indeed mentions that this and that part of the empire was being oppressed by misfortunes of war—even of Constantinople itself and of adjacent regions. He promises to return later with a more complete account of the war.9 The accompanying brief synopsis leads up to Othman's attack on the castle of Bapheum. The Greek garrison there was commanded by Muzalo.
In the synopsis which follows, Nos. 1 and 2 are synchronisms; 3 and 4 are of astronomical record—all four are indisputable dates. The chronology of these three years is well authenticated. Hence the sudden announcement of the defeat of Muzalo as the worst defeat of the war must have come in the year 1302, probably in the summer when the Turks were customarily raiding the harvests.27 At this time not only Othman but other leaders also were in command of the attacking barbarians. Pachymeres now proceeds to describe the initial assault on the Byzantine border three years before, when Othman first met Muzalo in the fields around Nicomedia, where he was pillaging food for his army. This is the event that dates the beginning of the Turkish prophecy.
Othman's Attack on Bapheum Bk. IV, ch. 25)
The attack on the castle of Bapheum in 1299, when Othman first met Muzalo, represents the actual beginning of the Turkish invasion of the empire. Pachymeres calls it the "beginning of enormous evils," and one in which "during the space of a few months all the territory around Nicaea and Brusa was plundered and pillaged." 28 The narrative begins:
"Mensis siquidem Julii die vicesima sePtima circa Bapheum (locus hie Prope inclytam Nicomediam), Atmam cum suis multorum minium numerum explentibus improviso aPparens at subito irruens—sed melius fuerit rem aliquanto repetitam altius a suis retro ducere principiis."29
Translation: Without doubt," on the twenty-seventh day of the month of July around Bapheum (this place was the well-known Nicornedia), Othman, with his army full of many thousands in number, unexpectedly appearing, and suddenly attacking—but it would be better to prolong the account, and repeat it somewhat further back from the beginning.
Othman suddenly and unexpectedly appears for the attack—we shall omit the prolonged account—after the river Sangarius had left its bed for the third time, thereby destroying the protective moat around the castle, and leaving the garrison of Muzalo exposed to the assaults of the Persians.31 The overflowing of the river Sangarius in the spring of the year made it possible for an attack on Bapheum later—indeed it accounted for the suddenness of Othman's unexpected appearance. Owing to rains and floods and melting snows, the river changed its bed three times, but finally returned to its original bed. Then the castle moat became so filled with silt and sand that the enemy could cross on foot.32 Suddenly it was announced to the Greek commander Muzalo, "The inland country is full of the enemy." 33
The circumstance of the flooding Sangarius was a singular episode, and one that identifies the year 1299 as that of the initial Ottoman attack on the Greek Empire. The scene occurred near the old bridge which Justinian had formerly built over the river." The assault was late in July, but the river was still in flood, which indicates unusually heavy precipitation in that year. The harvest, too, was late, which the farmers were hurriedly gathering into the storehouses and barns on the day Othman attacked.33
It is inconsistent to date this raid in the year 1301 of Von Hammer, when, in the language of Pachymeres, "the perennial springs and bubbling fountains" of the hills went dry,36 and the fields were covered with dust. People thought that the dryness (siccitas) and hot winds were caused by the comet, which was seen all summer. The harvest was small and remarkably early. "The meadows blossomed and ripened in a month !" 37 In describing this same period-13w and 13o2—Phrantzes writes that it had not been possible "to plow or sow for a year and ten months," though he ascribes the main cause to the ever-increasing pillage by the Turks and their associate plunderers.38 The nature of the harvest season in 13m—a very dry season—was therefore contrary to that of the year in which the battle of Bapheum took place, when the river was in flood.
On the other hand, the year 1299 exactly harmonizes. The winter of this year was severe in the extreme—the worst on record! " The snow had piled up above the doors, and the paths had to be marked by stakes and poles. The rivers, still frozen in February, were covered over with thick ice. The planted fields were injured, and also the seed. All this necessarily led to heavy floods and a late harvest, which Othman seized, along with numerous herds of cattle and sheep. Gregoras speaks of the overflowed bank of the river, where the Turks had spent the whole night before the battle in measuring off their camp." By the aid of the fierce plunderers from Paphlagonia under Amurius, Othman achieved his pillage of Bapheum on July 27, 1299, just as Pachymeres implies, and Fossinus insists in his analysis. The Latin translator says:
"Othman increased in power when a very strong force of the fiercest warriors from Paphlagonia had been joined to his army, and, in a battle near Nicomedia, the metropolis of Bithynia, he subdued Muzalo the Roman leader who had attempted to resist, which [city] he, as lord of the field, then held as a city besieged. Pachytneres plainly reports that these things happened around Bapheum near Nicomedia on the twenty-seventh day of the month of July: from a series of things in the Synopsis, we truly affirm in like manner that this was the year rzoo of the Christian Era." 41
The character of the year 1299 and the circumstances connected with the first raid of Othman precisely agree, while with them the year 1301 does not agree.
Final Defeat of Muzalo, Greek Commander
Through the courageous aid of the Alans in the attack on Bapheum, Muzalo escaped. His horse was wounded, and he was seized, but he was rescued by one of his own soldiers, and the scattered army fled into Nicomedia with their commander." In this vicinity, and also further inland in Mesothinia, Muzalo strove to resist Othman for three years." Early in the year 1302, the emperor sent more Alans to Muzalo, but he was completely defeated and routed later in the year, about the same time that Michael IX was conquered at Magnesia by other Persian troops."
It is obvious that some historians have confused the two battle scenes with Muzalo—the initial attack at Bapheum, and his final rout in Alesothinia, which the Turks appear to include in their Caramania.45 An understanding use of the year of the Hegira and its correct application to the Julian year would have harmonized these important records of medieval Turkish history. Let us note the contrasting features between the two military scenes with Muzalo:
1. In the raid on Bapheum in rzoo the Alans were brave and fell in the fight, "offering their own bodies as a protection to the fleeing Romans." " In the Turkish battles of 1302 the Alans were not dependable, and asked for a three months' rest in the midst of the fight, and got it. This discouraged the remainder of the listless troops, and in the end Michael was defeated and fled to Pergamum with the remnant of his army, while the Alans went toward home, pillaging and plundering the Greek villages en route.47
2. In the 1299 attack on Bapheum, Muzalo was "the lone guard of the border." " He was not permanently captured by Cuhman. After the 1302 battle of Magnesia, it was announced that Muzalo also was completely defeated and overthrown. Pachymeres' narrative mentions the three barbarian leaders who were in the field at this time, besides "others," too! In this year, therefore, the Persians were attacking in several sections, while in 5299, the army of Othman was the only offensive.
3. The first attack on the empire was in Bithynia, of which Nicomedia was the metropolis. The final defeat of Muzalo in 1302 was in Mesothinia, which was farther inland than Bithynia, and was also called Mesonesium by Pachymeres." This territory appears to be the same as the Turkish Caramania of Hadschi Chalfa.
In this analysis and review of Pachymerian history, in harmony with the analysis of the same by Possinus, it has been shown that July 27, 1299, was the date of the first Ottoman assault on Byzantine territory. It has also been demonstrated that the Von Hammer date of 1301 for the same event came about from his erroneous use of the Hegira calendar, and that his date actually corresponds to the year 1302, when the Greek Muzalo was finally overcome. The record in the Cronologia of Hadschi Chalfa appears to bear out this conclusion. The date July 27, 1299, therefore, consistently marks the beginning of the I50-year "torment" in Revelation 9.
Almost every large library has a copy of Pachymeres' history. CarWs translation of the Cronologia is also found in a few libraries. Hitherto, the prophecy relating to the periods of the fifth and sixth trumpets has been dependent upon the thirteenth century source of Pachymeres for the identification of the initial date of Turkish aggression. We have not thus far found any other source mention of the date. These histories are available to every other library through the loan division. The negatives of these important pages can be placed in Adventist colleges for critical study and research. By this means students of prophecy can seriously investigate the historical background to which the chronology in Revelation 9 is tied.
References
1Josephi de Hammer, Commentatio de Byzantinae 7listoriae Ultimis Scriptoribus ex Historia Osmanica Elucidandis et Corrigendis (1825), p. 5.
2 Hazi Halife Mustafa' Cronologia Historica (Venetia, 1697). E tradotta Idioma Italiano Da Gio: Rinaldo Carli.
3 Id., p. 110.
4 Georgius Pachymeres, Corpus Scrip torum Historiae Byzantinae (Bonn ed., 1835), Vol. Alt., p. 851. (Petri Possini Observationum.)
5 Id., p. 278.
6 Id., p. 848.
7 The day of the week corresponding to any Julian date can be obtained from the Julian Day Numbers, the tables for which are given in every American Ephemeris.
8 Pachymeres, op. cit., p. 290.
9 Id., p. 313.
10 Id. p. 278, p. 286.
11 Id., p. 290. Emperor gave his five-year-old daughter in marriage to Crale, king of Serbia. (Cf. Pachymeres, op. cit., Vol. Prius, p. 576.)
12 Pachymeres, op. cit., Vol, Alt., p. 290.
13 Id., p. 302. p. 304. Cf. George F. Chambers, A Handbook of Descriptive and Practical Astronomy (Oxford, 1889), Vol. I, P. 514.
14 Pachymeres, op. cit., Vol. Alt., p. 305, p. 306; pp. 792-795.
15 Th. Ritter v. Oppolzer, Canon der Finsternisse (Wien, 1887).
16 Pachymeres, op. cit., Vol. Al p. 307.
17 Id., p. 308.
