Bitte denke daran, die Angaben im Artikel durch geeignete Quellen zu belegen und zu prüfen, ob er auch anderweitig den Richtlinien der Wikipedia entspricht (siehe Wikipedia:Artikel).
Nach erfolgter Übersetzung kannst du diese Vorlage entfernen und den Artikel in den Artikelnamensraum verschieben. Die entstehende Weiterleitung kannst du schnelllöschen lassen.
Importe inaktiver Accounts, die länger als drei Monate völlig unbearbeitet sind, werden gelöscht.
Karte mit der geographischen Aufteilung des Byzantinischen Reiches nach dem Vierten Kreuzzug, 1204
Die Partitio terrarum imperii Romaniae (lateinisch „Länderteilung des Romanischen Reiches“),[1] oder Partitio regni Graeci[2] („Teilung des Griechischen Reiches“), war ein nach der Eroberung von Konstantinopel (1204) geschlossenes Abkommen zwischen den Teilnehmern des Vierten Kreuzzugs über die Teilung des Byzantinischen Reichs. Es entstanden das Lateinische Kaiserreich sowie als byzantinische Nachfolgestaaten das Kaiserreich Nikaia, das Kaiserreich Trapezunt sowie das Despotat Epirus. Neben dem Chrysobull des Alexios III. von 1198 stellt die Partitio Romaniae die Hauptquelle für die administrative Unterteilung des Byzantinischen Reichs dar. Sie gibt auch Auskunft über die Gebiete, welche zu dieser Zeit noch unter byzantinischer Herrschaft standen.[3]
Der Vertrag ist in mehreren venezianischen Manuskripten überliefert: im Liber Albus (fols. 34ff.), Liber Pactorum (Vol. I, fols. 246ff.; Vol. II, fols. 261ff.), Codex Sancti Marci (284, folio 3), und in den Muratorii codices Ambrosiani I und II. Die erste kritische Ausgabe der Texte erstellten 1856 Gottlieb Tafel und Georg Thomas für die damalige Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien.[4]. 1965 veröffentlichte A. Carile eine Textausgabe mit Kommentar.[5][6]
Im März 1204, kurz vor der Eroberung von Konstantinopel (1204), schlossen Enrico Dandolo, der Dogen von Venedig, Markgraf Bonifatius von Montferrat, Graf Balduin I. von Flandern und Graf Ludwig von Blois ein vorläufiges Abkommen, in welchem sie die Länder des Byzantinischen Reichs zukünftig unter sich aufteilten.[7] Der Text des Abkommens ist unter den Akten von Papst Innozenz III. überliefert.[8] Demzufolge würden die Venezianer ihre vom oströmischen Kaiser verliehenen Privilegien weiter behalten. Ein zu gleichen Anteilen aus Venezianern und Kreuzfahrern zusammengesetztes Kollegium sollte nach der Eroberung Konstantinopels den Kaiser des Lateinischen Kaiserreichs wählen. Diesem stünden ein Viertel des gesamten byzantinischen Gebietes zu, sowie der Blachernen- und Bukoleon-Palast in der Stadt. Die übrigen drei Viertel sollten zu gleichen Teilen zwischen Venedig und den übrigen Kreuzfahrern aufgeteilt werden.[9] Am 9. Mai wurde Balduin von Flandern zum Lateinischen Kaiser gewählt. Dem Chronisten Gottfried von Villehardouin zufolge sollte Bonifatius die Gebiete um den Bosporus und das Marmarameer „nach der Türkei hin“ und „die griechische Insel“ erhalten. Um den offenbar Unzufriedenen zu besänftigen, überließ Balduin ihm stattdessen das Königreich Thessaloniki.[10]
Nach Heyd, Zakythinos und Carlie Ende September oder Anfang Oktober 1204, nach Oikonomides gleich nach der Eroberung im April oder Mai 1204 verfasste ein Kommittee von 12 Venezianern und 12 anderen Kreuzfahrern das Abkommen.[11] Aufgrund ihrer genauen Landeskenntnis spielte Venedig in den Verhandlungen die Hauptrolle. Viele der letztlich beschlossenen Übereinkünfte gehen auf einen Chrysobull des byzantinischen Kaisers Alexios III Angelos von 1198 zurück.[12] Demnach erhielt der lateinische Kaiser die direkte Kontrolle über ein Viertel des byzantinischen Territoriums, drei Achtel des Reichsgebiets sowie drei Achtel des Satdtgebiets von Konstantiniopel einschließlich der Hagia Sophia standen Venedig zu, die restlichen drei Achtel sollten den anderen Kreuzfahrer-Anführern zugeteilt werden. Auf dem Boden dieser teilung wäre venedig zur dominierenden Macht im Lateinischen Reich aufgestiegen. Entsprechend nannte sich der Doge von Venedig nun: „Dominator quartae et dimidiae partis totius Romaniae – Herrscher von anderthalb Viertelteilen ganz Romaniens“.
Die Territorien wurden aufgeteilt in den Anteil des Dogen und der Commune Veneciarum (pars domini Ducis et communis Venetiae), dem Anteil des lateinischen Kaisers (pars domini Imperatoris), und dem der Pilger oder Kreuzfahrer (pars Peregrinorum).
Lateinischer Text
Übersetzung
Anteil
Region
Kommentar
Civitas Archadiopoli. Missini. Bulgarofigo. Pertinentia[13] Archadiopoli.[14]
#default=Die Verwendung dieser Vorlage ist in der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia unerwünscht.}} Chortocop[l]i. Casalia Chotriki, Kerasea, Miriofitum.Vorlage:Sfn
Chortokopeion (Χορτοκόπειον) is known from a document from Mount Athos dating to the mid-11th century, but its exact location remains unknown. It was probably located east of Apros, on a crossing of the roads leading from Gallipoli to Adrianople and from Kypsela to Raidestos.Vorlage:SfnVorlage:Sfn Chotriki (Χοτρικί) otherwise unattested, possibly identical with Vorlage:Ill.Vorlage:Sfn
Location not certain, but close to modern İnceburun. Attested in the 1198 chrysobull, a Catalan portolan from Vorlage:Circa, and in later Byzantine sources.Vorlage:Sfn
Casalia de Raulatis et Examilii. Emporium Sagudai.Vorlage:Sfn
Location of Raulaton (χωρίον τῶν Ῥαουλάτων) not certain, probably close to Hexamilion at the base of the Thracian Chersonese (Gallipoli peninsula). Its name likely refers to the Raoul family.Vorlage:Sfn The location of the settlement (emporion) of Sagoudaous (Σαγουδάους) or Sagoude (Σαγούδη) is attested as a port and warehouse in 1152. Its location is not clear, but must have lain in the northern part of the Gallipoli Peninsula, or near Ainos.Vorlage:SfnVorlage:Sfn
Both Lazou (Λάζου) and Laktou (Λάκτου) are otherwise unattested; from their location in the text they must have been in the neighbourhood of Kallipolis.Vorlage:Sfn
Pertinentia de Muntimanis et Sigopotamo, cum omnibus, que sub ipsis.Vorlage:Sfn
the episkepsis of Mountimanoi and the Sigos River with their dependencies
The ἐπίσκεψις τῶν Μουντιμάνων is not elsewhere attested, but was probably located in the south of the Thracian Chersonese.Vorlage:Sfn The Sigos River is likely to be identified with the modern Kavakaltı Dere or, less likely, the Çeşme Dere, in the southern Gallipoli Peninsula.Vorlage:Sfn
Provintia Lakedemonie, micra et megali episkepsis, i.e. parva et magna providentia. Kalabrita.Vorlage:Sfn
the province of Lacedaemonia and the minor and major episkepseis therein, and the town of Kalavryta
Cephalonia and Zakynthos had been captured already during the last Norman invasion in 1185, and are usually held to have since then formed a county palatine, initially under Margaritus of Brindisi, and ruled in 1204 by Matthew Orsini.Vorlage:SfnVorlage:Sfn However, Orsini's rule is not based on documentary evidence, but on Karl Hopf's conjectures, and A. Kiesewetter proposes that Maio di Monopoli (alias Matthew Orsini) may have taken control of the islands in 1206 from the Byzantines, who had recovered them since Margaritus's demise in 1294.[19]
Tafel and Thomas proposed a series of emendations and identifications to "Colonie cum Cycladibus. Nisia.", with "Colonie" possibly a reference to the Temple of Poseidon at Sounion (after which Cape Sounion was known as Capo Colonne), "Cycladibus" a reference to the Cyclades, and "Nisia" identified as Naxos island.Vorlage:Sfn This was rejected by Th. Menke and Jean Longnon, who emended the text to read "Provintia Colonie cum Chilari, Canisia.", i.e. Koloneia in Epirus, Kjari, and Konitsa, while Dionysios Zakythinos proposed identifying "Chilari" with Chlerenon, and "Canisia" with Kanina.Vorlage:Sfn
Tafel and Thomas proposed identifying Lopadi as the island of Levitha,Vorlage:Sfn but according to Zakythinos it is equally likely to refer to Lopadion in Mysia, which is attested as an episkepsis in the 1198 chrysobull, since portions of the text have evidently been moved around so that they no longer correspond to their original arrangement by geographic proximity.Vorlage:Sfn Carile finds the identification with Lopadion less likely, however.Vorlage:Sfn
Orium Patron et Methonis, cum omnibus suis, scilicet pertinentiis de Brana. Pertinentia de Cantacuzino, et cum villis Kyreherinis, filie Imperatoris Kyrialexii, cum villis de Molineti, de Pantocratora, et de ceteris monasteriorum, sive quibusdam villis, que sunt in ipsis, scilicet de micra et megali episkepsi, i.e. parva et magna pertinentia.Vorlage:Sfn
the horion
}}
#default=Die Verwendung dieser Vorlage ist in der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia unerwünscht.}} of Patras and Methone with its dependencies, namely the estates of the Branas and Kantakouzenos families, the estates of kyra Irene, daughter of Emperor kyrAlexios III, and the estates of "Molineti", of "Pantokrator" and other monasteries
The horion of Patras and Methone probably occupied the entire western half of the Peloponnese.Vorlage:Sfn The name "Molineti" is evidently associated with windmills; two medieval locations correspond to this, both of them in modern Pylia.Vorlage:Sfn The location or identity of "Pantokrator" are unknown.Vorlage:Sfn
Nicopolla, cum pertinentia de Arta, de Achello, de Anatolico, de Lesianis, et de ceteris archondorum et monasteriorum.Vorlage:Sfn
A Porta aurea et Blachernali et occidentali Steno usque ad Midiam et Agathopoli. Similiter et ab ipsa civitate Vizoi usque ad Zurlo et TheodoropoliVorlage:Sfn
The points mentioned in the beginning define the circumference of Constantinople, from the main ceremonial gate in the southwestern part of the land walls to the northwestern quarter of Blachernae on the shore of the Golden Horn, and the "Narrows" (Stenon) of the Bosporus.Vorlage:Sfn
The theme of the Optimatoi encompassed the parts of Asia Minor closest to Constantinople, with Nicomedia as its capital. Its mention apart from Nicomedia in 1204 may be the result of a confusion by the Latin writers, but both the rest of the Partitio and the 1198 chrysobull indicate a breaking up of the province sometime in the 12th century into smaller districts. In 1198, a separate "province of Mesothynia" is mentioned along with the "province of Nicomedia", which is absent in 1204.Vorlage:SfnVorlage:Sfn
Tarsia, on the eastern bank of the Sangarios, and Metabole, probably south of Lake Sapanca, historically belonged to the Optimatoi, whereas Plousias to the Bucellarian Theme. The "Servochoria" (Σερβοχώρια) is the area where Emperor John II Komnenos settled the Serbs in 1129/30.Vorlage:Sfn
The Bucellarian Theme was established Vorlage:Circa, and Paphlagonia was created as a distinct theme from it sometime in the early 9th century. It is likely that the themes of the Bucellarians and Paphlagonia had been administratively unified—unclear when or for how long—for defensive purposes, a recurrent practice in Byzantine history.Vorlage:Sfn
Formerly part of the Armeniac Theme, these three important coastal cities are often mentioned in conjunction with Turkish raids during the 12th century.Vorlage:Sfn
In the 1198 chrysobull, the episkepsis of Pylae and Pythia is mentioned, formerly part of the theme of the Optimatoi. The identity and location of Kerama is unknown, unless it is a misspelling for Germia, attested as a toponym in the area of Mysia.Vorlage:SfnVorlage:Sfn
Malagina was the first army assembly point and camp (aplekton) for imperial expeditions in Asia Minor, and the site of major imperial horse farms. It was raised to a distinct administrative unit under the Komnenian emperors, due to its importance and exposure to Turkish raids.Vorlage:Sfn
According to Niketas Choniates, the theme of Neokastra originally encompassed the cities of Adramyttium, Chliara, and Pergamon, after they were refortified by Manuel I Komnenos. However, these cities are mentioned separately from the province both in the 1198 chrysobull and in the Partitio.[20]Helene Ahrweiler interpreted the evidence to suggest that Neokastra did indeed originally encompass the three cities, but that in 1198 Adramyttion may have formed a separate district, and that the separation between the cities and the province evidenced in the Partitio was the result of a copyist's error.[21]
Some scholars, including Carile,Vorlage:Sfn emend "Samakii" to "ta Malachii", identifying it with the Byzantine village of Malachiou (possibly modern Atburgazı) near Mycale, but as Peter Thonemann points out, the locality of Samakion is mentioned in the Life of St. Lazaros of Galesion.Vorlage:Sfn
The area traditionally belonged to the theme of Macedonia, with Makri lying at the boundary with the theme of Boleron to the west.Vorlage:Sfn Brachon is otherwise unknown; as a misreading of "Blachon", it may refer to the Monastery of the Saviour "of Blachon" near Ainos).Vorlage:SfnVorlage:Sfn
Pertinentia Scifis et Pagadi, cum omnibus, que sub ipsa.Vorlage:Sfn
the episkepsis of "Scifis" and "Pagadi" with its dependencies
The identification of Scifis and Pagadi (probably from πηγάδι, "well") is disputed. Tafel and others equated Scifis with Tzympe, which then would locate Pagadi between Tzympe and Madytos,Vorlage:Sfn while others suggest locating both on the eastern bank of the lower Maritsa river near Ainos.Vorlage:Sfn Zakythinos proposed an identification of Scifis with the "village of Sophous" attested in the typikon of the Theotokos Kosmosoteira Monastery.Vorlage:Sfn
Pertinentia Maditi, cum omnibus, que sub ipsa.Vorlage:Sfn
Koila Teichos is most likely identifiable with the Long Wall running at the base of the Thracian Chersonese at Agora. Zakythinos proposed an identification with the Anastasian Wall, but this does not fit the geography.Vorlage:Sfn The exact identity or locations of Tinsakkos,Vorlage:Sfn Potamia,Vorlage:Sfn and Aacros/AatiosVorlage:Sfn are unknown, but lay on the Chersonese, just as the remaining locations.
Exact location unknown, probably on the Thracian Chersonese; earlier suggestions identified it with Polyboton or the small monastery of St. Nicholas near the Golden Gate, but do not fit the context.Vorlage:Sfn
Pertinentia de Jalocastelli/Hyalo Castelli.Vorlage:Sfn
The name Ὑελοκαστέλλιον means "glass castle". Its exact location is unknown, but is attested as a coastal site during the revolt of Andronikos Lapardas in 1183. Likely on the Thracian Chersonese.Vorlage:Sfn
Tafel and Thomas suggested an identification with Silta near Selymbria,Vorlage:Sfn but this does not fit the geographical context, which suggests proximity to Ainos.Vorlage:Sfn
The province is otherwise unattested. According to Zakythinos, it appears to be related to the Vardariotes, a group of Turkic people, mostly Magyars, settled in the area in previous centuries.Vorlage:Sfn
Provintia Verye, cum cartularatis tam Dobrochubisti, quam et Sthlanitza.Vorlage:Sfn
The term "Dodekanesos" ("Twelve Islands") first appears in Byzantine sources in the 8th century as a naval command encompassing the southern Aegean Sea. The term remained in use throughout the medieval period for the Cyclades, and only in the 19th/20th centuries became transferred to the modern Dodecanese.Vorlage:Sfn Its placement in the text is unusual, lying between areas of continental Greece; perhaps the result of a scribal error or, according to Jean Longnon, a result of a trade, whereby Ostrovos, originally claimed by the Crusaders, and the Cyclades, claimed by Venice, were exchanged (apart from Andros and Tinos), thus explaining the unexpected placement of both entries in the text of the treaty.Vorlage:Sfn
Mentioned in the 1198 chrysobull, tentatively equated with the area of settlement of the Belegezites near Demetrias and Phthiotic Thebes. Zakythinos proposes an additional identification with the toponym of "Levachata", attested in 1289 near Halmyros.Vorlage:SfnVorlage:Sfn
Tafel and Thomas emend the beginning to read "Petrion. Kelliae.", identifying the former with the Nea Petra Monastery and the latter with the area in Mount Ossa mentioned by Anna Komnene.Vorlage:Sfn Zakythinos rejected this reading in favour of the videlicet ("namely") of the Ambrosianus I manuscript.Vorlage:SfnVorlage:Sfn The location of Petrai (plural) is unknown.Vorlage:Sfn "Dipotamon" (Διπόταμον, "Two Rivers") may be located between the rivers Pineios and Rabenikos in northern Thessaly, and perhaps to be identified with the kleisoura (defile) of Libotanion, known from the time of Alexios I Komnenos.Vorlage:SfnVorlage:Sfn Tafel and Thomas identify Calacon as the genitive of Galaza, a suffragan of the Metropolis of Neopatras,Vorlage:Sfn while Zakythinos suggests either the reading Kalamos, or, from the variant "Talantum" in the Codex Sancti Marci, Atalanti.Vorlage:SfnVorlage:Sfn
Pazi/Pazima et Radovisidon, et orium Athenarum, cum pertinentia Megarum.Vorlage:Sfn
The identity and location of Pazi/Pazima are unknown.Vorlage:Sfn Tafel and Thomas suggest the town and bishopric of Stagoi in Thessaly,Vorlage:Sfn while Carile suggested the bishopric of Patzouna, known only as a suffragan of the Metropolis of Larissa.Vorlage:Sfn
Based on the forms of the names, the source material for the compilation of the treaty was in Greek, while the prevalence of fiscal terms like episkepsis points to the use of the cadastral and tax registers of the central Byzantine administration.Vorlage:SfnVorlage:Sfn
Several areas are left out of the Partitio. In Europe, the lands of Macedonia and Western Thrace, between the Maritsa and Vardar rivers, as well as the northeastern Peloponnese, Boeotia, and central Euboea, are absent. These were lands assigned to Boniface of Montferrat, and thus evidently excluded from the general partition. This fact also helps to assign the terminus post quem for the treaty, namely the agreement of 16 May 1204 between Boniface and Baldwin of Flanders that established the Kingdom of Thessalonica.Vorlage:Sfn
As Zakythinos points out, the territorial division shown in the Partitio and in the 1198 chrysobull for Asia Minor is much more conservative, and reflects far closer the "traditional" thematic structure than in the European provinces.Vorlage:Sfn On the other hand, the two documents differ considerably in the extent of territory they mention: the 1198 chrysobull contains the central and northern portions of western Asia Minor, but also the southern shore with Attaleia, Cilicia, and even Antioch, whereas in the Partitio, includes the Black Sea shore from Paphlagonia up to Pavrae.Vorlage:Sfn
The Partitio Romaniae initiated the period of the history of Greece known as Frankokratia or Latinokratia ("Frankish/Latin rule"), where Catholic West European nobles, mostly from France and Italy, established states on former Byzantine territory and ruled over the mostly Orthodox native Byzantine Greeks. The provisions of the Partitio Romaniae were not fully carried out; much of the Byzantine realm fell into the hands not of the crusaders who had sacked the capital but of the local Byzantine Greek nobles, who established the Byzantine successor states of the Despotate of Epirus, the Empire of Nicaea and the Empire of Trebizond, while the Crusaders also squabbled among themselves. The Latin Empire itself, consisting of the area surrounding Constantinople, Thrace, and the Sea of Marmara was also drawn into a disastrous conflict with the powerful Second Bulgarian Empire. Latin rule became most firmly established and lasted longest in southern Greece (the Principality of Achaea and the Duchy of Athens), as well as the Aegean islands, which came largely under the control of Venice.
↑C.M. Brand: Partitio Romaniae. In: Alexander Kazhdan (Hrsg.): The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. Oxford University Press, Oxford und New York 1991, ISBN 0-19-504652-8, S.1591–1592.
↑Der latienische Begriff pertinentia entspricht dem byzantinischen Steuerdistrikt der episkepsis und findet meist auf kaiserlichen, klösterlichen oder privaten Besitz Anwendung. Maksimović (1988), S. 35; Zakythinos (1941), S. 241–243
↑Andreas Kiesewetter: Quarta Crociata. Venezia - Bisanzio - Impero latino. Atti delle giornate di studio. Venezia, 4-8 maggio 2004. Istituto veneto di scienze, lettere ed arti, Venice 2006, ISBN 978-88-88143-74-3, Preludio alla Quarta Crociata? Megareites di Brindisi, Maio di Cefalonia e la signoria sulle isole ionie (1185-1250), S.343 (italienisch).Fehler bei Vorlage * Parametername unbekannt (Vorlage:Cite book): "editor3; editor1; editor2"
↑Hélène Ahrweiler: Travaux et mémoires 1. Centre de recherche d'histoire et civilisation de Byzance, Paris 1965, L'Histoire et la Géographie de la région de Smyrne entre les deux occupations turques (1081–1317), S.134–135 (französisch).
A. Carile: Partitio terrarum imperii Romanie. In: Studi Veneziani. 7. Jahrgang, 1965, S.125–305.
Benjamin Hendrickx: Les duchés de l’Empire latin de Constantinople après 1204: origine, structures et statuts. (deutsch: The Duchies of the Latin Empire of Constantinople after 1204. Origin, Structures and Statutes). In: Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire. 93. Jahrgang, Nr.2, 2015, S.303–328, doi:10.3406/rbph.2015.8837 (französisch, persee.fr).
Nicolas Oikonomidès: Byzantium from the Ninth Century to the Fourth Crusade: Studies, Texts, Monuments. Aldershot 1992, ISBN 978-0-86078-321-3, La décomposition de l'empire byzantin à la veille de 1204 et les origines de l'empire de Nicée : à propos de la « Partitio Romaniae », S.3–28 (französisch, [1976]).
Şerban Marin: Dominus quartae partis et dimidiae totius imperii Romaniae: The Fourth Crusade and the Dogal Title in the Venetian Chronicles' Representation. In: Quaderni della Casa Romena di Venezia. 3. Jahrgang, 2004, S.119–150 (academia.edu).
Gottlieb Lukas Friedrich Tafel, Georg Martin Thomas: Urkunden zur älteren Handels- und Staatsgeschichte der Republik Venedig, mit besonderer Beziehung auf Byzanz und die Levante: Vom neunten bis zum Ausgang des fünfzehnten Jahrhunderts. 1. Theil (814–1205). Kaiserlich-Königliche Hof- und Staatsdruckerei, Vienna 1856 (mdz-nbn-resolving.de).
Peter Thonemann: The Maeander Valley: A Historical Geography from Antiquity to Byzantium. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2011, ISBN 978-1-107-00688-1 (google.com).
Dionysios Zakythinos: Μελέται περὶ τῆς διοικητικῆς διαιρέσεως καὶ τῆς ἐπαρχιακῆς διοικήσεως ἐν τῷ Βυζαντινῷ κράτει. (deutsch: Studies on the administrative division and provincial administration in the Byzantine state). In: Ἐπετηρίς Ἐταιρείας Βυζαντινῶν Σπουδῶν. 17. Jahrgang, 1941, S.208–274 (griechisch, handle.net).
Dionysios Zakythinos: Μελέται περὶ τῆς διοικητικῆς διαιρέσεως καὶ τῆς ἐπαρχιακῆς διοικήσεως ἐν τῷ Βυζαντινῷ κράτει. (deutsch: Studies on the administrative division and provincial administration in the Byzantine state). In: Ἐπετηρίς Ἐταιρείας Βυζαντινῶν Σπουδῶν. 18. Jahrgang, 1948, S.42–62 (griechisch, handle.net).
Dionysios Zakythinos: Μελέται περὶ τῆς διοικητικῆς διαιρέσεως καὶ τῆς ἐπαρχιακῆς διοικήσεως ἐν τῷ Βυζαντινῷ κράτει. (deutsch: Studies on the administrative division and provincial administration in the Byzantine state). In: Ἐπετηρίς Ἐταιρείας Βυζαντινῶν Σπουδῶν. 19. Jahrgang, 1949, S.3–25 (griechisch, handle.net).
Dionysios Zakythinos: Μελέται περὶ τῆς διοικητικῆς διαιρέσεως καὶ τῆς ἐπαρχιακῆς διοικήσεως ἐν τῷ Βυζαντινῷ κράτει. (deutsch: Studies on the administrative division and provincial administration in the Byzantine state). In: Ἐπετηρίς Ἐταιρείας Βυζαντινῶν Σπουδῶν. 21. Jahrgang, 1951, S.179–209 (griechisch, handle.net).
Dionysios Zakythinos: Μελέται περὶ τῆς διοικητικῆς διαιρέσεως καὶ τῆς ἐπαρχιακῆς διοικήσεως ἐν τῷ Βυζαντινῷ κράτει. (deutsch: Studies on the administrative division and provincial administration in the Byzantine state). In: Ἐπετηρίς Ἐταιρείας Βυζαντινῶν Σπουδῶν. 22. Jahrgang, 1952, S.159–182 (griechisch).
Dionysios Zakythinos: Μελέται περὶ τῆς διοικητικῆς διαιρέσεως καὶ τῆς ἐπαρχιακῆς διοικήσεως ἐν τῷ Βυζαντινῷ κράτει. (deutsch: Studies on the administrative division and provincial administration in the Byzantine state). In: Ἐπετηρίς Ἐταιρείας Βυζαντινῶν Σπουδῶν. 25. Jahrgang, 1955, S.127–157 (griechisch).
[[Category:1200s in the Byzantine Empire]]
[[Category:1200s treaties]]
[[Category:1204 in Europe]]
[[Category:13th century in the Republic of Venice]]
[[Category:Byzantine Empire–Republic of Venice relations]]
[[Category:Fourth Crusade]]
[[Category:Latin Empire]]
[[Category:Latin words and phrases]]
[[Category:Partition (politics)]]
[[Category:Treaties involving territorial changes]]
[[Category:Treaties of the Republic of Venice]]
[[Category:Venetian period in the history of Greece]]
