Download PDF | Panos Sophoulis - Byzantium and Bulgaria, 775-831 (East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 450-1450) -Brill (2011).
400 Pages
PREFACE
This book stems from a doctoral thesis which I defended at the University of Oxford in July 2005. A project of this duration inevitably accumulates numerous debts of gratitude. I must begin by acknowledging the encouragement and help of James Howard-Johnston who first stimulated my interest in medieval Bulgarian history and supervised the thesis. Elizabeth Jeffreys and Jonathan Shepard, who examined the thesis, have been generous with advice and support. Jonathan Shepard, in particular, read drafts of papers reworked for the book and supplied me with bibliographical information and assistance. Special thanks are due to Florin Curta, who read the whole text in draft and made many helpful observations, all of which have significantly improved the final version.
Tsvetelin Stepanov also read sections of the book and provided invaluable feedback. Taxiarchis Kolias, Natalija Ristovska, Stephan Nikolov, Panagiotis Antonopoulos, Marianne Noble and the late Rašo Rašev have all offered valuable advice, information and references. I should also like to add my profound gratitude to Kiril Nenov who contributed in many ways to this book, both with practical assistance and with information and suggestions. Finally, I must thank Marcella Mulder at Brill for making the publication process so smooth. In the course of writing the thesis and book I have enjoyed the support of a number of institutions. The Alexander S. Onassis Public Benefit Foundation sponsored me during my study in Oxford. In addition, I received financial assistance from the University of Oxford, Exeter College and the Faculty of Modern History, to all of which I am very much indebted.
I am also greatly obliged to the staff of the following libraries for all the assistance given me as a reader: the Bodleian and Sackler Libraries at Oxford, the British Library, the St Cyril and Methodius National Library of Bulgaria, the Archaeological Museum, Sofia, the Regional Museum of History at Šumen, the Varna Archaeological Museum, as well as the French and British Archaeological Schools at Athens. I have been especially fortunate to teach in the Department of Slavic Studies of the University of Athens and should like to thank all my colleagues and staff for providing a fine environment in which to work and study at the highest level. Finally, I must thank my family for their constant support and encouragement, and particularly my father for all he has done for me. Panos Sophoulis
A NOTE ON TRANSLITERATION
Greek personal names and place names have been transliterated directly from their Greek forms except where a Latinate or Anglicized version is well known: therefore Nikephoros, Arkadioupolis, Rhodope, but Constantine, Adrianople, Thrace. Bulgarian names and place names follow the “academic” system of transliteration, using š, ž, č and ă instead of sh, zh, ch and u. However, the consonant щ is rendered as sht (not št), and the short vowel й as j (instead of i). Thus, I refer to I. Jordanov rather than Iordanov. The transliteration for Russian is the same as for Bulgarian, with the addition of ’, y and shch for ь, ы and щ. Place names in Romania follow current Romanian usage. Arabic names follow a simplified version of that in the Encyclopedia of Islam (Leiden, 1960ff.). Armenian names follow the spelling adopted by R. Thomson, A Bibliography of Classical Armenian Literature to 1500 AD (Turnhout, 1995).
INTRODUCTION
The later eighth and early ninth centuries constitute one of the most turbulent periods in the long history of Byzantine-Bulgar relations. By the time of Constantine V’s death in 775 the nomad-led Bulgar state appeared to be on the brink of collapse. Taking advantage of the third civil war in the Caliphate (744–750), that emperor had diverted his military resources to the Balkans in a concerted effort to re-establish imperial power up to the Danube. Between ca. 760 and 775 he held at least nine campaigns against the Bulgars, winning a number of major victories which earned him a reputation as a triumphant military leader. Internecine strife further contributed to the weakening of the Bulgar polity, but, nonetheless, Constantine V was unable to deal the final blow and either conquer it or impose imperial suzerainty and a lasting peace.
The events of the years 760–775 led to a decisive turning point in the history of the Bulgar state and opened a new phase of extensive Byzantine involvement in the region. Constantine’s immediate successors, particularly Irene (780–790, 797–802) and Nikephoros I (802–811), continued to regard the whole area south of the Lower Danube as an ancient part of the empire due for reconquest, and accordingly attempted to confine their neighbours north of the Haimos Mountains. Not only did the Bulgars succeeded in repelling a massive imperial attempt at the reconquest of the northeastern Balkans, but after 811 made themselves masters of large parts of Thrace, eventually pushing as far as Constantinople and besieging the city. These events made a strong impression in Byzantium, as indicated by the accounts of contemporary or near contemporary writers, not least because they provided the context for important political, ideological and social change.
Certainly, apart from being one of the factors contributing to the political instability which engulfed the empire at this time, the repeated defeats at the hands of the Bulgars played a central role in the re-establishment of iconoclasm as an imperially sanctioned doctrine by Leo V (813–820). Byzantium’s relations with Bulgaria during this period have received considerable scholarly attention, yet the need for a new analytical investigation could hardly be clearer. Most surveys on this subject were written in the first half of twentieth century. Since then, a great deal of archaeological research, which provides us with insights into a great range of aspects of medieval life in the Balkans, as well as historiographical work on the Byzantine sources which are relevant for the period with which we are concerned, has been published. However, an essential task, the integration of the written account with the material record, in other words, a synthesis and deeper analysis of the period in question, has not yet been undertaken. The ultimate ambition of this monograph is to fill this gap, and so produce a closely argued, fresh interpretation of events. Among the older works devoted to the subject, the most comprehensive is the Istorija na Bălgarskata dăržava prez srednite vekove (Sofia, 1918–40) by Vasil Zlatarski.
Given his broad chronological scope, Zlatarski was inevitably restricted to providing a narrowly political account on which all subsequent studies depend. Steven Runciman1 and Petăr Mutafčiev2 present a lively and lucid picture, although, like Zlatarski, they seem uninterested in the organizational structure and institutions of the Bulgar state. The best study of early Bulgarian history published so far is Veselin Beševliev’s Die protobulgarische Periode der bulgarischen Geschichte (Amsterdam, 1981). Beševliev devotes sections of his book to the basic structures of the khanate and makes adequate use of archaeological and epigraphic evidence to illustrate his narrative, but when it comes to Byzantine-Bulgar relations adds little that is new. Recent contributions in the field include I. Božilov’s and V. Gjuzelev’s comprehensive three-volume history of Bulgaria3 and D. Ziemann’s work on the Bulgarian early Middle Ages.4
The historiography relating to the period in question is dominated by the Chronographia of Theophanes. As well as C. Mango and R. Scott’s translation of the text, especially helpful is Ilse Rochow’s excellent commentary on the period 715–813.5 In the field of archaeology, the works of Ž. Văžarova, D. Dimitrov, M. Comşa, R. Rašev, I. Jordanov, U. Fiedler and J. Henning (who directed a joint German-Bulgarian research programme in Pliska’s “Outer Town” between 1997 and 2003), to mention but a few, have enriched our understanding of early Bulgar society and culture. In terms of the geographical context, the sixth volume of the Tabula Imperii Byzantini series, focusing on Thrace, is an essential reference work which can be supplemented by Krasimira Gagova’s survey6 and the still useful volumes of the Geographical Handbook Series (Naval Intelligence Division) on Bulgaria and Romania.
This book will make extensive use of the growing, albeit diverse, body of material now available to scholars to produce the first synthetic narrative political history of Byzantine-Bulgar relations for this period written in English. The hope is that by the end of the volume a number of important problems that scholars have so far failed to address, let alone resolve, will at least have been clearly stated and our knowledge and appreciation of the early medieval Balkans will have been improved considerably. This study is predicated on the understanding that the historical record must be at the heart of the construction of any modern narrative of Byzantine-Bulgar relations. I have therefore begun my investigation by submitting the historiography of the period in question to thorough, critical scrutiny.
Although this book will primarily draw upon written sources, most—but not all—Byzantine, the material record (inscriptions, coins, lead seals etc.) will also be of crucial importance. As well as re-evaluating the primary sources and considering a substantial amount of secondary literature on the subject, I have also benefited from travelling extensively and visiting archaeological sites throughout the region with which this study is concerned. If the relations between the Byzantine empire and Bulgaria during the late eighth and early ninth centuries are to be meaningfully analysed, attention first needs to be paid to the geographical and historical context in which they developed. The scene is set in Chapter 2 which begins by outlining the relief, climate, and urban and communications network of Byzantine Thrace and Bulgaria.
The second part of the chapter is principally aimed at unravelling and understanding the steppe character of the Bulgar state—a character which some scholars, contrary to the growing body of evidence, continue to challenge. It describes its basic structures and institutions, and specifically its social, political and military organization, with special emphasis placed on the spiritual life and ideology of the Turkic-speaking ruling elite. It then goes on to provide a synopsis of Byzantine-Bulgar relations from ca. 680 until the death of Constantine V. Chapter 3 is primarily concerned with Bulgaria’s relations with the sedentary and nomadic peoples living beyond the frontier region (in Wallachia, the Carpathian basin, Transylvania, Crimea and the steppes north of the Black Sea) in the seventh to ninth centuries, thereby shedding important light on the political history of southeastern Europe in the early Middle Ages. It also provides a brief historical background to Asparuch’s migration to the Balkans following the Khazar conquest of the south Russian steppes.
The scene is then set for the next four chapters which investigate the Byzantine-Bulgar rivalry for political mastery over the Slavic tribes of the southern Balkans between 775 and 816. A significant portion of each of these chapters deals with developments inside the empire itself. I have done this because I do not believe that Byzantium’s relations with the Bulgars can be understood without a basic appreciation of these events. Equally important is a basic knowledge of events on the empire’s eastern and western borders. For, as I will be arguing below, the aggressive policy against the Bulgars in the late eighth and early ninth centuries may be partly explained as a response to the strong pressures, both military and diplomatic, exerted on the empire by its Abbāsid and Carolingian neighbours during that period. The final chapter of this book offers a short account Omurtag’s reign, which is often said to have marked a turning point in the history of early medieval Bulgaria. It is in the course of this discussion that the key characteristics of Omurtag’s political power are identified. The chapter investigates the mechanisms through which the khan was able to check the influence of the warrior aristocracy and establish a virtual monopoly on the exercise of political power in the Bulgar state. It then goes on to consider the episode from Omurtag’s reign which is most fully represented by the surviving Byzantine sources: the revolt of Thomas the Slav. Finally, brief mention is made of Omurtag’s attempt to create a sense of group identity among his diverse subjects (Bulgars, Christians, Slavs), an identity that looked beyond the preexisting ethnic or religious boundaries. Within this analysis, what is offered is not a conventional political narrative of the reign of Omurtag so much as an analysis of changing political structures and the key elements in their evolution.
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق