Время Анны Комниной

That is why Mitrofanov examines in detail the fragments of Anna Komnena on the impostors Pseudo-Michael and Pseudo-Diogenes I Furthermore the Author mentions out of the Russian Chronicles the rebellion of the impostor Pseudo-Diogenes II “Devgenevich” and the rebellion of his son, the Pseudo-Prince Vasilko Leonovich.

Pseudo-Michael was a protеgе of the Normans and Robert Guiscard personally; Pseudo-Diogenes I relied on the help of the Cuman Khan Tugorkan, while Devgenevich and Pseudo-Prince Vasilko enjoyed the support and official recognition of the Grand Duke of Kiev Vladimir Monomakh (1113–1125).

Vladimir Monomakh even related himself to the impostor Devgenevich by marring his daughter Maritsa to him. Their son was the impostor Pseudo-Prince Vasilko. On the basis of these undeniable historical facts, proved by A. Yu. Mitrofanov, the phenomenon of Byzantine imposture, which had been largely documented and described by Anna Komnena and other Byzantine historians, mentioned by the Author, proves to be an old and well known strategy of impostors on the byzantine imperial throne.

This phenomenon is repeated by Russian political culture. This circumstance manifested itself many centuries later during the Time of Troubles (1605-1613) and during the reign of Empress Catherine the Great (1762–1796), and then influenced the formation of the phenomenon of Soviet leaders and Soviet totalitarianism.

A. Yu. Mitrofanov explores in detail the state of the armed forces of the Byzantine Empire and the Normans who were extensively documented by Anna Komnena, and he comes to the conclusion about the Westernization of the Byzantine military aristocracy in the era of the Emperor Alexios Komnenos.

A. Y. Mitrofanov criticizes the views of some researchers who claim that Anna Komnena was not an author of an original work, but only treated the notes of her husband, Nikephoros Bryennios, who was well versed in military Affairs.

That is why A. Yu. Mitrofanov examines those notes of Nikephoros Bryennios.

His investigations of these notes are proving, that Anna Komnena conducted her own independent research work and had access not only to the notes of Nikephoros Bryennios or the testimonies of the Bishop of Bari, as wrote Ya. N. Lyubarsky, but also to the lost memoirs of George Palaiologos and Tatikios.

The book of A. Yu. Mitrofanov “The Time of Anna Komnena” is not a dry scientific monograph, but a work, which is written in a living literary language. This book of A.