[34]there is an important series of articles on the cumans by d.rasovskij，sem.kond.7（1935），245 ff.；8（1936），161 ff.；9（1937），71 ff.；10（1938），155 ff.；for further bibliography cf.moravcsik，byzantinoturcica 1，2 nd ed.，92 ff.
[35]cf.b.leib，alexiade 2，141，n.3;m.gyoni，‘le nom dedans l’alexiade d’annenène’，bz 44（1951）（dolger-festschrift），243，note 1.
[36]alexias 2，16，15（ed.reifferscheid）；2，144，2（ed.leib）。
[37]m.mathieu，‘les faux diogènes’，b 22（1952），133 ff.
[38]cf.above，p.353，under sources.on the rtions between alexius 1 and robert of nders cf.the interesting article by f.l.ganshof，‘robert le frison et alexisnène’，b 31（1961），57 ff.the excellent troops which count robert did in fact send fought in the service of byzantium at nedia and also seem to have taken part in the battle at mt.levunion.
[39]cf.w.holtzmann，‘studien zur orientpolitik des reformpapsttums und zur entstehung des ersten kreuzzuges’，hist.vierteljahrsschr.22（1924），167 ff.，and‘die unionsverhandlungen zwischen kaiser alexios 1.und papst urban 2.im jahre 1089’，bz 28（1928），38 ff.
[40]it was ndon，alexis 1，who pointed out that，contrary to older opinion，the byzantine emperor never invited the west to embark on a crusade，and that this was not only aplete surprise to him but exceedingly inopportune.this view has been epted by most schrs，including a recent historian of the first crusade，runciman，crusades 1，116 ff.on the other hand p.插ranis，‘byzantium，the west，and the origin of the first crusade’，b 19（1949），17 ff.，and‘aims of the medieval crusades and how they were viewed by byzantium’，church history 21，2（1952），3 ff.，uses the evidence of the synopsis sathas（theodore scutariotes）which seems to indicate that the byzantine emperorunched the crusade by an appeal to urban 2.it is，however，a question here of something which is in fact ater and protin source.but cf.the note by d.c.munro，‘did the emperor alexius 1ask for aid at the council of piacenza 1095?’am.hist.rev.27（1922），731 ff.for criticism of 插ranis，cf.also p.lemerle，‘byzance et croisade’，rzioni di x congresso intern.di scienze storiche，rome，1955，3，600 f.，n.3.in any case，the point is not whether alexius 1 did，or did not，ask the west for help，for there is no doubt that he had done so time and again.the real problem is the kind of help which he had in mind：did he want auxiliary troops for his empire，or did he wish to kindle a crusade?to attribute thistter n to the byzantine emperor would be to credit him with an intention he could never have had，and，moreover，to ignore the fact that the crusading movement was the oue of western development and feeling.
[41]dolger，reg.1196，1200，1202，1203.on the purely western 插racter of the feudal rtionship between the crusaders and the emperor alexius，cf.j.ferluga，&lsquo ligesse dans l’empire byzantin’，zrvi 7（1961），104 ff.
[42]cf.runciman，crusades 1，301 ff.；j.h.hill，‘raymond of saint gilles in urban’s n of greek andtin friendship’，speculum 26（1951），265 ff.；j.h.hill-l.l.hill，‘the convention of alexiusnenus and raymond of saint gilles’，am.hist.rev.58（1953），322 ff.
[43]cf.c.erdmann，die entstehung des kreuzzugsgedankens（1935）；e.joranson，‘the problem of the spurious letter of emperor alexius to the count of nders’，am.hist.rev.55（1950），820 ff.cf.also p.354，note 1.
[44]the text of this document，which is of great constitutional importance，is given in annanena，alexiad，2，209 ff.（ed.reifferscheid）；3，125 ff.（ed.leib）；dolger，reg.1243.a detailed analysis of the treaty is given by j.ferluga，&lsquo ligesse dans l’empire byzantin’，zrvi 7（1961），99 ff.
[45]miklosich-müller 3，9 ff.；dolger，reg.1254 and 1255.
[46]cf.stein，‘untersuchungen’29 ff.；bréhier，institutions 138 ff.
[47]the statements of stein on the use of the title of dux（‘untersuchungen’21 ff.）should be corrected in the light of what has been said，for he overlooks the fact that by the end of the tenth century the governor-generals of the most important byzantine themes had regrly had this title and that since then there was a distinct difference of rank between the dux，the catepan and the strategus，as skabnovic，viz.gosudarstvo 187 ff.had already pointed out.cf.above，p.311 f.cf.also the well-documented study by glykatzi-ahrweiler，recherches 52 ff.
[48]cf.stein，‘untersuchungen’57.r.guind，‘etudes de titture et de prosopographie byzantines.les chefs de marine byzantine：drongaire de flotte，grand drongaire de flotte，mégaduc’，bz 44（1951）（dolger-festschrift），222 ff.，gives a very thorough ount of all the holders of this office known from the sources.
[49]stein，‘untersuchungen’50 f.and 56 f.；r.guind，‘le grand domesticat à byzance’，eo 37（1938），53-64;vurent，‘le grand domesticat.notesplémentaires’，ibid.65-72.
[50]cf.ch.diehl，‘un haut fonctionnaire byzantin，le logothète，ménges jorga（1933），217 ff.；cf.the review of this by g.stadtmüller，bz 34（1934），373 ff.
[51]cf.h.g.beck，‘der byzantinische“ministerprasident”’，bz 48（1955），321 ff.
</br>
[35]cf.b.leib，alexiade 2，141，n.3;m.gyoni，‘le nom dedans l’alexiade d’annenène’，bz 44（1951）（dolger-festschrift），243，note 1.
[36]alexias 2，16，15（ed.reifferscheid）；2，144，2（ed.leib）。
[37]m.mathieu，‘les faux diogènes’，b 22（1952），133 ff.
[38]cf.above，p.353，under sources.on the rtions between alexius 1 and robert of nders cf.the interesting article by f.l.ganshof，‘robert le frison et alexisnène’，b 31（1961），57 ff.the excellent troops which count robert did in fact send fought in the service of byzantium at nedia and also seem to have taken part in the battle at mt.levunion.
[39]cf.w.holtzmann，‘studien zur orientpolitik des reformpapsttums und zur entstehung des ersten kreuzzuges’，hist.vierteljahrsschr.22（1924），167 ff.，and‘die unionsverhandlungen zwischen kaiser alexios 1.und papst urban 2.im jahre 1089’，bz 28（1928），38 ff.
[40]it was ndon，alexis 1，who pointed out that，contrary to older opinion，the byzantine emperor never invited the west to embark on a crusade，and that this was not only aplete surprise to him but exceedingly inopportune.this view has been epted by most schrs，including a recent historian of the first crusade，runciman，crusades 1，116 ff.on the other hand p.插ranis，‘byzantium，the west，and the origin of the first crusade’，b 19（1949），17 ff.，and‘aims of the medieval crusades and how they were viewed by byzantium’，church history 21，2（1952），3 ff.，uses the evidence of the synopsis sathas（theodore scutariotes）which seems to indicate that the byzantine emperorunched the crusade by an appeal to urban 2.it is，however，a question here of something which is in fact ater and protin source.but cf.the note by d.c.munro，‘did the emperor alexius 1ask for aid at the council of piacenza 1095?’am.hist.rev.27（1922），731 ff.for criticism of 插ranis，cf.also p.lemerle，‘byzance et croisade’，rzioni di x congresso intern.di scienze storiche，rome，1955，3，600 f.，n.3.in any case，the point is not whether alexius 1 did，or did not，ask the west for help，for there is no doubt that he had done so time and again.the real problem is the kind of help which he had in mind：did he want auxiliary troops for his empire，or did he wish to kindle a crusade?to attribute thistter n to the byzantine emperor would be to credit him with an intention he could never have had，and，moreover，to ignore the fact that the crusading movement was the oue of western development and feeling.
[41]dolger，reg.1196，1200，1202，1203.on the purely western 插racter of the feudal rtionship between the crusaders and the emperor alexius，cf.j.ferluga，&lsquo ligesse dans l’empire byzantin’，zrvi 7（1961），104 ff.
[42]cf.runciman，crusades 1，301 ff.；j.h.hill，‘raymond of saint gilles in urban’s n of greek andtin friendship’，speculum 26（1951），265 ff.；j.h.hill-l.l.hill，‘the convention of alexiusnenus and raymond of saint gilles’，am.hist.rev.58（1953），322 ff.
[43]cf.c.erdmann，die entstehung des kreuzzugsgedankens（1935）；e.joranson，‘the problem of the spurious letter of emperor alexius to the count of nders’，am.hist.rev.55（1950），820 ff.cf.also p.354，note 1.
[44]the text of this document，which is of great constitutional importance，is given in annanena，alexiad，2，209 ff.（ed.reifferscheid）；3，125 ff.（ed.leib）；dolger，reg.1243.a detailed analysis of the treaty is given by j.ferluga，&lsquo ligesse dans l’empire byzantin’，zrvi 7（1961），99 ff.
[45]miklosich-müller 3，9 ff.；dolger，reg.1254 and 1255.
[46]cf.stein，‘untersuchungen’29 ff.；bréhier，institutions 138 ff.
[47]the statements of stein on the use of the title of dux（‘untersuchungen’21 ff.）should be corrected in the light of what has been said，for he overlooks the fact that by the end of the tenth century the governor-generals of the most important byzantine themes had regrly had this title and that since then there was a distinct difference of rank between the dux，the catepan and the strategus，as skabnovic，viz.gosudarstvo 187 ff.had already pointed out.cf.above，p.311 f.cf.also the well-documented study by glykatzi-ahrweiler，recherches 52 ff.
[48]cf.stein，‘untersuchungen’57.r.guind，‘etudes de titture et de prosopographie byzantines.les chefs de marine byzantine：drongaire de flotte，grand drongaire de flotte，mégaduc’，bz 44（1951）（dolger-festschrift），222 ff.，gives a very thorough ount of all the holders of this office known from the sources.
[49]stein，‘untersuchungen’50 f.and 56 f.；r.guind，‘le grand domesticat à byzance’，eo 37（1938），53-64;vurent，‘le grand domesticat.notesplémentaires’，ibid.65-72.
[50]cf.ch.diehl，‘un haut fonctionnaire byzantin，le logothète，ménges jorga（1933），217 ff.；cf.the review of this by g.stadtmüller，bz 34（1934），373 ff.
[51]cf.h.g.beck，‘der byzantinische“ministerprasident”’，bz 48（1955），321 ff.
</br>