John V. A. Fine - The Early Medieval Balkans - A Critical Survey From The Sixth To The Late Twelfth Century (1991, University of Michigan Press) PDF

THE EARLY
MEDIEVAL BALKANS
A Critical Survey from the Sixth
to the Late Tvvelfth Century
JOHN V. A. FINE, Jr.

THE EARLY MEDlEYAL BALKANS
The Early
Medieval
Balkans
A Critical Survey
from the Sixth to the
Late Twelfth Century
JOHN V. A. FINE, JR.
Ann Arbor
The University of Michigan Press
First paperback edition 1991
Copyright© by the University of Michigan 1983
All rights reserved
Published in the United States of America by
The University of Michigan Press
Manufactured in the United States of America
2000 1999 11 10 9
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval

system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, or otherwise, without the written permission of
the publisher.
A CJP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Fine, John Van Antwerp.

The early medieval Balklands.
Bibliography: p.
Includes index.
I. Balkan Peninsula-History. I. Title.
DR39.F56 1983 949.6 82-8452
ISBN 0-472-08149-7 (pbk.) AACR2
To Gena, Sasha, and Paul
Preface
This book is a general survey of early medieval Balkan history. Geo-

graphically it covers the region that now is included in the states of
Yugoslavia (Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, Montenegro, and Macedonia),
Bulgaria, Greece, and Albania. What are now Slovenia and Rumania
are treated only peripherally. The book covers the period from the
arrival of the Slavs in the second half of the sixth and early seventh
centuries up to the 1180s. A second volume will continue the story
from this point to the Turkish conquest, a process carried out over the
late fourteenth and through much of the fifteenth centuries.
This book is, to the best of my knowledge, the first of its kind in
any language. There are many works devoted to the history of the
Byzantine Empire (which encompassed much of the Balkans). How-
ever, these works have stressed the history of Byzantium and its insti-
tutions; when the Slavic regions were not imperial provinces these
works have treated the Slavic states only from the point of view of
foreign relations. The various Balkan nations have produced a wide
assortment of histories of their own individual states (or of regions
within those states) in the Middle Ages, and foreign historians have
also produced monographic surveys of specific regions (e.g., of Bul-
garia, Serbia, or Croatia in the Middle Ages). However, no work has
yet dealt with the various medieval Balkan peoples as a whole. Such a
work seems necessary, particularly for this early period when much of
the area was in a state of flux and the protostates' borders did not
coincide with later state boundaries. Since the early medieval period
was an era of both national and state formation, a study that treats the
region as a whole may better trace and explain developments than a
study focused on only one area. This is particularly to the point, since
the regions that have usually been chosen for study by historians have
been defined by what came later, namely by being included in a subse-
quent national state.
The early medieval period is a critical one for Balkan history. Enor-
vm Early Medieval Balkans
mous demographic changes occurred. If we exclude the Greeks, living

in Thrace and Greece, the Albanians, and the Vlachs, scattered in
various mountainous regions of the Balkans, the population of the clas-
sical Balkans disappeared in the sixth and seventh centuries to be re-
placed (partially by assimilation) by new ethnic groups which invaded
and took over the Balkans: the Turkic Bulgars and the Slavic groups
which produced the Serbo-Croatians and the Bulgaro-Macedonians.
In the period that followed, these new arrivals developed into
identifiable nationalities, each acquiring an ethnic awareness which has
survived to the present. Moreover, the first states created by each of
these peoples (which of course greatly cqntributed to the development
of each group's ethnic awareness) also appeared in the early medieval
period.
Finally, during this period all these peoples were officially con-
verted to Christianity. Though many of the peasants retained so many
pagan beliefs that we might consider them semipagans and only nomi-
nal Christians, nevertheless the rulers and their people considered
themselves Christians, and churches and a church hierarchy were es-
tablished throughout their lands. Furthermore, during this period it
was determined which regions were to end up under the religious
jurisdiction of Constantinople (and later under that of independent
national Orthodox churches) and which were to end up under Rome.
Thus when the split in the church came to affect the Balkans, a gradual
process occurring over a long period of time, which peoples were to be
Eastern Orthodox and which Roman Catholic had already been set-
tled. This differentiation, which has lasted to the present, has had a
great impact on the history of the Balkans up to our own day.
Only Bosnia proved to be an exception. Though in the early medi-
eval period it was nominally under Rome, it had so weak a church
organization that Catholicism was not firmly established. Thus, despite
its nominal Catholicism, it was more of a no-man's-land between faiths
than Catholic; hence it is not surprising that it had a unique religious
history in the later Middle Ages when it was to produce its own inde-
pendent and somewhat heretical church. From that period to the pres-
ent Bosnia has been an area of mixed faiths.
This work is to large extent a political history with a good dose of
church history. Needless to say, this emphasis follows the emphasis of
the surviving sources. I would have liked to treat at greater length
social and economic matters. However, we have so few sources on
these questions that broader or more detailed treatment is impossible.
When documents like The Farmer's Law have survived, I have dealt
with them at some length. However, for other matters or other peri-
Preface ix
ods-though sweeping generalizations about the activities of various

social classes are often seen-! have limited myself to more narrow
conclusions that can be supported by the sources. I have very little
sympathy for "what must have been" or for conclusions about other
lands based on what was occurring in the Byzantine Empire at the
same time. I also see little value in works that fill in the blanks on the
basis of the belief that societies pass through certain ordered stages.
The story told here of various people, movements, and events-
including some major ones-differs from that found in previous schol-
arship, because the sources simply do not support many statements
made in existing historical works. Thus it is important for historians to
take each statement of fact found in these works and seek its source.
By this means many items, which turn out to have no reliable source,
can be removed. At this moment historians of the medieval Balkans
should concern themselves primarily with determining what did hap-
pen, and it is as important to remove myths and fictions as it is to
uncover new facts. Since this has been one of my main aims, this work
has fewer broad generalizations than most survey histories. Until the
facts can be established, these generalizations are not warranted, for
trends based on hypotheses really are not trends. It is important to
more or less forget all the myths and tales which generations of Balkan
school children have been brought up on-many of which have a na-
tionalistic origin, showing the heroic past of a people ever struggling to
assert its nationality, and provide justification for preserving or chang-
ing modern borders-and turn back to the sources with a critical eye.
On the sources depends all that we can know of the medieval Balkans.
Yet, because many sources are tendentious or uninformed, the histo-
rian cannot simply take them at face value but must devote much of his
attention to scrutinizing them closely.
It immediately becomes apparent that our sources on the whole
are poor. The narrative sources were chiefly written by foreigners,
often at a considerable distance from events, or by patriotic locals
centuries later on the basis of oral traditions and documents of varying
reliability, many of which no longer survive. Thus, frequently we do
not know what a later author's source was. And even when we can
identify what it must have been, the lack of the original document
often makes it difficult to determine its reliability. Although there
exists a considerable number of other documents, such as letters and
charters, these rarely give us the details and explanations we would
like; thus we are constantly faced with a scarcity of source material.
However, such a lack is no justification to fill in the blanks with fiction
and then, as has so often happened in the past, to serve up this mixture
x Early Medieval Balkans
of fact and fiction as history. There is nothing shameful in admitting

that we do not know things. Only when we admit our ignorance will it
become clear which areas have the greatest need for further study.
Then we can turn to these areas and problems with fresh minds and
possibly uncover some new facts about them. If we cannot find further
material, which will frequently be the case, then we must be satisfied
that there are some things which we may never know.
Though this work is primarily aimed for the general reader and
college student, I hope specialists will also find much in it to interest
them. But, keeping in mind my general audience, I have kept notes to
a minimum and have included only a brief bibliography of the most
basic works. Unfortunately many of these are in foreign languages,
since the literature in English is sparse.
Furthermore, because of the nature of the field-the scarcity of
sources encouraging a great variety of scholarly hypotheses-it has
been necessary to include a certain number of discussions about the
interpretations of scholars and about the sources these interpretations
rest on. Some readers may feel that for a general book I have in-
cluded an excess of scholarly names and views in the text itself,
especially when, as is sometimes the case, I subsequently take con-
trary positions. In almost all cases, however, when I present the
views of a scholar-this is particularly true of the views of Zlatarski
on Bulgaria-only to argue against them, these views have become
"facts" in almost all the literature on the subject. Thus my readers
may well have already come across them as facts; and if this book, as
may be the case, is a reader's first taste of the medieval Balkans, still
if he or she reads further about the Balkans, he or she will surely
come across them. It is thus necessary to call attention to the exis-
tence of differences of opinion, point out that views other than my
own exist, and justify the position which I have taken. Moreover, if
attention were not called to these differences in views, readers finding
one interpretation in my work and a differing interpretation pre-
sented as "fact" in a second work might well become confused. On
the whole the names which I bring into the text are giants in the field
(like Dujcev, Dvornik, N. Klaic, Ostrogorsky, Zlatarski), whose
names should become known to my read~rs, for their work has had
enormous impact on the historiography of the societies they have
studied.
Moreover, such excursuses have their positive side. They present
the reader with unsolved riddles, showing that medieval Balkan history
is an exciting field, where much important work still remains to be
done. They also show the nature of the sources upon which certain
Preface xi
historical conclusions have been based and demonstrate how, at times,

broad conclusions have been erected on little or no evidence. In this
way they serve to correct past errors or point out that something
frequently stated as a fact is really only a theory. Such discussions, by
making readers reflect on the actual evidence standing behind asser-
tions made by historians, may not only instill in readers a healthy
scepticism about statements found in works on the medieval Balkans,
but will serve in general to cultivate readers, who will be more critical
of all the nonfiction which they read.
This book is to a large extent based upon the lectures for the first
half of my course on the medieval Balkans which I have been giving
over the past ten years at the University of Michigan. I owe a debt to
my students' responses to these lectures; their comments and questions
have compelled me constantly to rethink and clarify my thoughts.
Thankfully, this book can be spared their major criticism: that I speak
too fast.
Acknowledgments
The decision to write this work began when the American Council of
Learned Societies (ACLS) Committee on Eastern Europe asked me to
produce a major regional history of southeastern Europe in the Middle
Ages, as part of a series for which they hoped to receive outside
funding. When the funding efforts proved unsuccessful, I decided to go
ahead with my part anyway, because there has long been a need for a
book such as this one.
The first draft was read by one year's Medieval Balkan History
class, whose students were well qualified to tell me what was clear
and what was not. The glossaries at the end of this work owe their
presence to student suggestion. The manuscript also was read by a
variety of friends and colleagues; some were Balkan specialists and
others were asked to read it to comment on manner of presentation,
matters of clarity and interest for nonspecialists, and style. I am
indebted to Professor Ivan Dujcev of the University of Sofija, Pro-
fessor Michael B. Petrovich of the University of Wisconsin, Carol B.
Stevens, and my parents, Professor John V. A. Fine and Elizabeth
B. Fine, for their comments. I owe a particular debt to John H.
Forsyth, Robert J. Donia, and Duncan M. Perry, former graduate
students of mine who spent hours reading, pondering, and writing
out detailed and valuable criticisms which have vastly improved the
work. A teacher can have no better or closer friends than his past
and present graduate students. I am also grateful to Professor Sima
Cirkovic of the University of Beograd for his thorough and careful
responses to various questions that I put to him. Finally, I would
like to express my appreciation to the ACLS Eastern European
Committee, headed by Professor Michael Petrovich, for getting me
started on the project. None of the individuals named, of course,
bears any responsibility for errors of fact or interpretation that may
appear in the work. I am also grateful to the Center for Russian
and East European Studies at the University of Michigan which
XIV Early Medieval Balkans
financed the typing of both the first draft and final version of this
work.
I am most grateful to my wife Gena who, while suffering all the
inconveniences a spouse must when such a project is being carried out,
throughout gave me the strongest encouragement and support, as did
our sons Alexander (Sasha) and Paul. Since she is Yugoslav, this work
treats part of her and our boys' heritage. It is only fitting that this work
be dedicated, with love and appreciation, to the three of them.
Note on Transliteration
and Place Names
Serbo-Croatian is a single language (with, of course, dialectical differ-

ences) written with two alphabets, Latin for Croatian and Cyrillic for
Serbian. Thus the Croatian Latin scheme is a natural one to use for
transliterating Serbian names. Furthermore, it seems to me a better
system than any other now being used to transliterate Bulgarian and
Russian as well. Thus, following Croatian, the following transliteration
scheme is used:
c = ts (except in words already accepted into English such as tsar)

c= ch (soft)
c= ch (hard)
h = guttural kh (though I have left the kh, since it is standard, for Turkic
names such as Khazars, khagan, Isperikh)
j = y (as in yes)
s = sh
z = zh
The Slavic softsign is indicated by a single apostrophe (').
The Bulgarian hardsign has been rendered with a double apostrophe (").
Greek was undergoing evolution at this time with the b coming to

be pronounced as a v. However, I have consistently stuck with the b in
transliterating names, thus Bardas rather than Vardas. The same thing
was happening to u, with its pronunciation shifting from u to v. I have
almost always stuck to the u; thus Staurakios rather than Stavrakios. A
major problem with Greek names is also the fact that their latinization
has already become standard in English. Thus k tends to be rendered
as c rather than k. I have reverted to the less ambiguous k in all cases
(Kefalonia, Nikopolis, etc.) unless names have already become com-
monplace in English: e.g., Nicephorus, Lecapenus, etc. In the same
way the Greek os tends to be latinized to us. In names already com-
xvi Early Medieval Balkans
monplace in the English literature I have stuck with the us, otherwise I
have used the os.
Since control of particular territories in the Balkans has changed
over time from Romans or Greeks to different Slavic people to Turks,
it is not surprising that there are many different names for some cities.
On the whole, I have chosen the name used in the Middle Ages by the
power that controlled that place most. Upon first mention (and also in
the index of place names) I give the variant names for each place (e.g.,
Philippopolis [modern Plovdiv], or Durazzo [Dyrrachium, Durres],
etc.).
Contents
Introduction: Balkan Geography and Society

Geography 1
Society 4
Chapter 1: Historical Background 9

The Indigenous Population 9
The Romans Acquire the Balkans 12
The Roman Empire and Its Balkan Provinces in the Third
and Fourth Centuries 13
Creation and Importance of Constantinople 14
Division of the Empire, 395 15
Characteristics of the Byzantine Empire 16
The Empire Becomes Christian 16
Imperial Administration of the Balkans 18
Land, Magnates, and Peasants 20
Withdrawal of the Goths 21
The Effects of Justinian's Wars of Reconquest 22
~~ ~
Chapter 2: The Slavic Invasions 25

The Slavs Settle in the Balkans, ca. 550-ca. 630 25
The Avars: From Peak Strength to Decline, 614-ca. 635 41
The Establishment of the Croatians and Serbs 49
The Slavs in Greece 59
Byzantium and the Balkans in the Seventh Century to 658 64
Migration and Establishment of the Bulgars in Bulgaria, 670s 66
The Theme System and the Beginning of Byzantine
Recovery in the Balkans 69
~~ n
xviii Early Medieval Balkans
Chapter 3: The Balkans in the Eighth Century 74

Bulgaria and Byzantium in the Eighth Century 74
The Byzantine Recovery of Greece 79
The Farmer's Law t\4
Notes 93
Chapter 4: Bulgaria in the Ninth Century 94

Krum 94
Bulgaria, 814 to 852 106
Christianization of Bulgaria 113
Notes 131
Chapter 5: Bulgaria under Symeon, 893-927 132

Symeon's Background and Character 132
The Slavonic Rite and Hrabr's Defense of Slavonic 134
The 894-97 War with Byzantium 137
The 904 Bulgarian-Byzantine Treaty 140
Serbia in the Second Half of the Ninth Century 141
War Breaks Out between Bulgaria and Byzantium, 913 142
Symeon's Coronation 144
War with Byzantium, 913-27 148
Notes 157
Chapter 6: Bulgaria after Symeon, 927-1018 159

Bulgaria and the Serb Lands, 927-65 159
Peter of Bulgaria's Reign to 965 160
Bulgarian Society and Administration 164
The Bogomil Heresy 171
Nicephorus Phocas, 963-69 179
The Russian and Byzantine War over Bulgaria, 965-71 181
Samuel's Revived Bulgaria and Its Wars with Byzantium 188
Basil II's Counteroffensive, lO(Jl-18 197
Byzantium's Position in the Balkans after 1018 200
Notes 201
Chapter 7: Duklja and the Central and Eastern Balkans from

the Death of Basil II, 1025, to the 1180s 202
Duklja after John Vladimir 202
Peter Deljan's Rebellion 203
Stefan Vojislav and Duklja in the Early 1040s 206
Raiders from the North, 1046 to the 1070s 208
The Balkans, 1043-1100 211
Contents xix
Civil War in Duklja 228

Hungary, Byzantium, and Serbia (Raska), 1100-1180 234
Stefan Nemanja Establishes a New Dynasty in the
Serbian Lands 243
Byzantium's Position in the Balkans in the 1170s 244
Postscript to This section 245
Notes 247
Chapter 8: Croatia and Dalmatia 248

Sources on Medieval Croatia 248
Croatia from the Seventh Century to 969 251
The Church in Dalmatia in the Tenth Century 266
Croatia, 969-1075 274
The Slavonic Liturgy Becomes an Issue in the 1060s 280
Norman Balkan Activities in the Late Eleventh Century 281
Croatia, 1075-1102 283
The Hungarian Annexation of Croatia, 1102, and Its Aftermath 284
Summary 290
Notes 291
Appendix: Medieval Rulers 293

Byzantine Emperors to 1204 293
Bulgarian Rulers 295
Rulers of Croatia 296
Serbian Rulers 297
Hungarian Rulers Discussed in Text 298
Glossaries 299
Tcrms ~9
Peoples 304
Sources and Authors of Sources Referred to in the Text 309
Selected Bibliography 315
Index 319
Maps 1-5 following page xix
Map 6 338-39
e.
LKastoria
- TYRRHENIAN=::SEA
IONIAN=::SEA
MEDITERRANEAN _SEA
Map 1. Geographical features of the Balkan region

BLACK=SEA=:=
L Ohrid '6L Prespa
""
LKastoria
mountains
CARINTHIA
l
PANNONIA
Bari
ALBANIA e
EPIRUS
Ionian Is
M EDJTERRANEAN=:SEA
Map 2. Early medieval Balkan regions

jl
TRANSYLVANIA
(
BESSARABIA
WALLACH lA
BLAC K":SEA:::::
">.
-0
0(_,
-s-1,?, THESSALY
"-s-
EPIRUS ANATOLIA
(ASIA MINOR)
~...0
<if!? ian
Mts
PI iska "• Madara
)" • Preslav BLACK=SEA_
Adnanople {
B~garophygon\
oArcadiopol1s
• Prilep
~• Durazzo
..c=L '
Map 3. Major early medieval towns in the eastern and northern Balkans
(
SkopJe
.-?
o Prilep
Ohnd
Presp~
Kastona £I ~
lanssa o
Trikkala •
IONIAN'= SEA
o Olymp1a
Nnemvasia
Map 4. Major early medieval towns in the southern Balkans

Trogir
i f > - Vis
~
Sva~
Map 5. Major early medieval towns in the western Balkans

Introduction: Balkan Geography
and Society
Geography
Most general surveys of the Balkans begin with a survey of the geogra-
phy, presenting the reader with a long list of rivers, mountains, and
products. This, despite the great natural beauty of most of the geo-
graphical features, is usually fairly boring and virtually impossible to
remember. It is my hope that the reader will familiarize himself with
the maps of the Balkans provided in this text so that he can identify
the major regions of the Balkans as well as the important towns,
rivers, and mountain ranges. For the reader's benefit I have included
maps. Thus here I shall simply try to generalize about some of the
important features of Balkan geography and the impact these features
had on Balkan developments.
First, the Balkans are an extremely mountainous region. It is said
that if one ironed out Bosnia and Hercegovina this region alone would
be as large as all of Europe. The regions now called Montenegro and
Albania (particularly the northern part of the latter) are almost wholly
mountainous. A major range runs parallel to the Dalmatian coast. This
range-the Dinaric-to a considerable degree was responsible for the
isolation of what became Bosnia, Hercegovina, and Montenegro and
formed a border between the Italian culture of the coast and the Slavic
culture of the interior. A large mountain range-the Pindus-divides
the eastern and western parts of central Greece, and large numbers of
mountains exist in the Peloponnesus. The Balkan range extending to
join the Rhodope range separates Bulgaria from Thrace.
The mountains, by isolating peoples and encouraging localism,
have hindered the development of states. They contributed to the fact
that the South Slavs never created a single united nation state in the
Balkans, and they have impeded the unification of individual peoples.
2 Early Medieval Balkans
For example, lack of communication resulting from the presence of

mountains encouraged the development of separate Greek dialects and
has resulted in many Greeks feeling a stronger loyalty to a particular
region than to a national ideal. But the mountains have also had posi-
tive effects. Their presence has meant that minority peoples have been
able to take refuge in them to escape conquerors and large migrations
and thereby to retain their identities rather than be entirely assimi-
lated. Thus the Illyrians and Dacians were able to retreat into the
mountains at the time of the Slavic invasions and retain their identities
as Albanians and Vlachs.
The medieval Balkans had plentiful thick forests. These forests,
along with the mountains, provided protection for brigands-a perpet-
ual Balkan institution, be they out-and-out highwaymen, social ban-
dits, or rebels against a dominant power. Guerrilla warfare was not
new to the Balkans in the Second World War; it was a common feature
in the early Middle Ages as well, and the same mountains that
sheltered Partisan bands against the Fascists also had sheltered the
Dukljans (proto-Montenegrins) resisting the Byzantines in the elev-
enth century.
The mountains gave rise to a particular form of society-the pas-
toral. The pastoralists were mobile, nomadic peoples, caring for flocks
(chiefly sheep), who moved with their flocks from the valleys, where
they wintered, up into the mountains for the summer, covering in
some cases enormous distances each year. These groups-the Mon-
tenegrins, Vlachs, and northern Albanians-were organized according
to tribes.
With the exception of the Balkan and Rhodope ranges, all of the
major mountain chains run north-south. This meant that the Balkans
were open to invasion from the north, and it was from the north that
all the early major land invasions came, whether the invaders were
Huns, Goths, Avars, Bulgars, Slavs, Pechenegs, Cumans, or Ghuzz. If
we exclude the Normans, the Ottoman Turks, who appeared in the
fourteenth century, were the first medieval invaders not from the
north, and, of course, their invasion was possible because they had
first conquered Anatolia.
The major mountain range that runs east-west is the Balkan range;
it is not as high as some of the other ranges and thus was not a major
barrier against the barbarian raiders. It had various passes through
which armies could march; however, when military strength was ade-
quate these could be defended. Thus for centuries this range formed the
border between the Bulgarian state and the Byzantine Empire.
Most of the Balkan rivers are not navigable, though the Danube,
Introduction: Balkan Geography and Society 3
the Sava, and the lower Neretva below modern Metkovic are. In fact,
the lower Neretva opens up into a number of channels in the midst of
thick marshes which were a retreat for the leading early medieval
pirates-the Neretljani. Even to the present day many villages here
have no land connections with the outside world and carry on all
communication with it by boat. The major rivers, in particular the
Danube, were important for transporting goods. Rivers, even medium-
sized ones, often served as borders between states. The Danube was
frequently a major border between civilization and "barbarism," and
for long periods the Drina served as a border between Bosnia and
Serbia while the Sava and Drava borders helped Slavonia maintain its
identity. Furthermore, since rivers created valleys (often between high
and difficult-to-pass mountains), land routes tended to follow rivers.
For example, an important route running from the coast into Bosnia
ran along the Neretva.
The main land routes through the Balkans went south from the
Danube or from the coast inland. The most important inland highway is
the one used in this century by the Orient Express. From central Europe
it passes through Ljubljana and Zagreb across the plain to Beograd,
where the Sava and Danube rivers meet and where an important route
enters from across the Danube. Then from Beograd the route swings
south along the Morava River to Nis where it splits in two with one
branch running east through Sofija (medieval Sardika) and Plovdiv
(medieval Philippopolis) to Constantinople, while the second runs south
along the Vardar valley through the city of Skopje on to Thessaloniki
(Salonica) and Athens. This road was both a major trade and a major
invasion route. During invasions and raids the greatest devastation took
place along its path. The earliest Slavic settlement, when the Slavs
turned from raiding to settling, occurred along its Morava valley sec-
tion. Subsequently the Crusaders, who came to the Balkans via Hun-
gary, also used this route.
The second major road was the famous Via Egnatia which began
at the important port of Durazzo (Dyrrachium, Durres) in modern
Albania which was the major Byzantine naval base and military-
administrative center on the Adriatic. From Durazzo the route passed
through Ohrid and Thessaloniki (the second city of the empire in
Europe and a major trade center) on to Constantinople. In addition
roads ran inland from other major ports, like Kotor, Dubrovnik (Ra-
gusa), and Split, through mountain passes and often along river valleys
into the interior of Bosnia and on to northern Serbia or along southern
routes through modern Hercegovina or modern Montenegro on to
southern Serbia and Bulgaria.
For territories near the water, communications by sea were more

important than by land. It was by sea that foreign products reached the
Balkan ports. Much larger cargoes could be carried on ships than could
be hauled overland by caravan. It was also much cheaper to transport
goods by sea. During the late Roman period it was less expensive to
ship goods from one end of the Mediterranean to the other than to cart
them seventy-five miles overland. Thus a large portion of Balkan com-
merce went by sea routes along the Adriatic, Mediterranean, and Ae-
gean. In keeping with this, most of the largest Balkan cities in the
Middle Ages were seaports. At the time of the Slavic invasions many
of the ports, behind their walls, were able to hold out, being provided
with their necessities by sea. Sea connections with the Italian world
also contributed to the success many of the Dalmatian cities had in
retaining their Italian character. It should be noted that for much of
our period many of the major ports, and thus a large portion of the sea
commerce, remained Byzantine.
The Balkans were an underdeveloped area compared to Byzan-
tium. They exported raw materials and imported manufactured goods.
In the medieval period they chiefly exported pastoral products, such as
cheese, and forest products, such as wood, wax, and honey. In the late
Roman period, and again in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries
with the rise of independent Serbian and Bosnian states, products of
the rich Balkan mines (silver, iron, lead) were exported. The people of
the interior of the Balkans imported salt from the Dalmatian coast and
manufactured goods, particularly luxury items-textiles and metal prod-
ucts-from the Byzantine Empire or from Italy. A nobleman often had
to export a large portion of his estate's surplus to pay for his luxury
imports; this did not aid the development of local markets or the local
economy. Since none of the Balkan states had its own coinage until the
thirteenth century, they used either barter or foreign currency (particu-
larly Byzantine). Small-scale purchases at local markets presumably
were chiefly by barter.
The Balkans have two climatic zones. Southern Greece and the
Aegean and Adriatic coastal regions enjoy the hot and dry Mediterra-
nean climate where olive trees, citrus fruit, and grapes thrive. The
interior has a continental climate with a variation in seasons, often
fairly rough winters, and sufficient rainfall for regular agriculture and
the production of cereals.
Society
The overwhelming majority of Balkanites were rural-farmers or shep-

herds. There was a marked difference in character between town and
countryside. This difference was not just the obvious occupational one
of farmer versus urbanite, but was also ethnic and cultural. Along the
Adriatic coast the old (pre-Slavic) Roman-Italian population predomi-
nated in many of the walled cities while the Slavs came to control the
hinterland. A similar (though there quite temporary) phenomenon oc-
curred in Greece. There, after the Slavic invasions and before imperial
recovery, some walled cities and the islands remained Greek while
much of the countryside came to be Slavic. In Dalmatia, throughout
the Middle Ages, the old cities retained their Roman-Italian character
and were more a part of the Italian than of the Slavic-Balkan world.
There was a gradual influx of Slavs into these towns which in turn
reacted to protect their own culture; thus, for example, in the fifteenth
century Dubrovnik issued laws declaring Italian to be the official lan-
guage of the town. All sorts of goods and cultural features, including
Christianity, radiated from these towns into the hinterland, but the
Slavs did not allow themselves to be latinized.
This dichotomy was true further inland as well. For example, for
long stretches of time in what is now Serbia the Byzantines retained
possession of towns like NiS. In Nis there was stationed a bishop,
various administrative officials, and a garrison. But, though this town
remained Byzantine in character, the surrounding countryside con-
sisted of Slavs-sometimes paying tribute to the Roman Empire and
sometimes loyal to a neighboring Slavic state. Later on in the thir-
teenth and following centuries within the Slavic states of Bosnia and
Serbia the towns continued to retain a foreign flavor. Then, after the
mines were reopened, the mining towns were dominated by people
connected with that industry, particularly Saxons from Hungary and
the Italian-speaking coastal merchants who established commercial
colonies in these important centers. In addition the Serbian ruler Ste-
fan Dusan established garrisons of foreign mercenaries (chiefly Ger-
mans) in various of his towns since they were more likely to be loyal to
the central state than the fractious nobility. Each of these foreign
communities had considerable autonomy, being run by its own leaders
under its own laws. In this later period, for example, Dubrovnik estab-
lished colonies in mining centers and market towns across the Balkans.
In the early medieval period, since the mines, the chief incentive for
major commerce, had not been reopened, we find much more limited
activities by coastal merchants inland. In fact, after the Slavic inva-
sions, commerce and the towns declined for a long period of time.
The medieval period was one of great demographic change, result-
ing not only from massive invasion or migration and the preservation
of minority peoples through their seeking sanctuary in the mountains
or other security zones, but also from large-scale forcible transplanting

of populations which was a regular policy of the Byzantine Empire.
Large numbers of captured Slavs were transferred to Anatolia and to
regions further east. And large numbers of eastern peoples (Syrians,
Armenians, etc.) were transferred as settlers along imperial borders
with the Slavs, both to defend these frontiers against the Slavs and to
break up their own dangerously large concentrations in eastern regions
of the Byzantine Empire. Thus forcible resettlements introduced new
ethnic elements into the Balkans and also imported heretics-the Pau-
licians-who were transferred in large numbers to Thrace (particularly
around Philippopolis) in the ninth century. In addition this policy also
brought large numbers of Greeks back to Greece at the beginning of
the ninth century after Emperor Nicephorus I (802-11) had restored
imperial rule over most of Greece; in this case the transfers contrib-
uted to halting the process of slavicization of Greece and to bringing
about the area's rehellenization, thus guaranteeing that Greece re-
mained Greek in culture.
The peoples of the Balkans-both the pre-Slavic population as
well as those who arrived in the Balkans in the course of the early
Middle Ages-will be discussed in the following chapters as they be-
come relevant. However, a word should be said about families in these
societies. Throughout the Balkans, families were organized patriar-
chally. This meant that generally the eldest male dominated. This or-
ganization was found among all classes of society-pastoralists, agricul-
turists, and the nobility. With the death of an elder the remaining
males inherited equal shares; they might hold the inheritance collec-
tively (with one heir acquiring seniority) or they might spilt into indi-
vidual households. In the case of a collective, after a father's death
generally the new elder was his eldest son, though on occasion a
brother of the father would succeed before one of the sons. Charters
have survived signed by "N. and sons" or "N. and brothers." On
occasion even rulers left their realms to be divided among several sons.
Cases of this will be discussed in the narrative that follows. Such divi-
sions of a state seldom worked and generally led to civil war. In medi-
eval Duklja (modern Montenegro) the principle of succession to sons
conflicted with the principle of succession going to the deceased ruler's
brother.
The father in a nuclear family or the eldest male in an extended
one tended to be an autocrat, defining the duties of others and con-
trolling the family's economy. Women had a minimal role in decision
making. By the division of labor women had strictly defined duties
which were carried out-in large households-under the direction of
the elder's wife. Families tended to be larger in the mountain areas

and there society was organized into clans and tribes. In these regions
family honor became the basis for values. Since there were few or no
"state" institutions to maintain order, the tribesmen kept order by
self-help, relying on their family. As a result the blood feud became a
major institution, which has survived into the twentieth century, par-
ticularly among the Montenegrins and northern Albanians.
In settled societies in later times large extended families were
common. In the Slavic lands such a family is often called a zadruga by
modern scholars, though this term was not used by the families them-
selves. Over the past two or three centuries when documentation exists
about their size, a few of these zadrugas reached a hundred members,
though it seems the average size was nearer to twenty. The elder ran
the family, assigned all tasks, controlled the economy (all earnings
went to him and he decided on all family expenditures) and arranged
all family marriages. In the zadruga several generations lived under
one roof; but though larger in size, the zadruga operated on the same
principles as the normal patriarchal household.
A limit was generally kept to a zadruga's size by conflicts within
the household which caused them to break up with the territory being
divided into equal shares among the different sons; then the process
could start again with each son assuming the role of household elder
and coming to have more people under him as his sons married,
brought in women, and began producing children. In the twentieth
century for a series of economic and social reasons this institution has
been dying out, and now the few that survive tend to be much smaller
in size.
Scholars have long thought that the zadruga was an old institution
going back to the primitive Slavs. However, there are no sources to
show this. There is a theory that such an institution arises at a critical
time when people feel the need to band together, for defense against
raiders or for economic reasons. Thus an alternative view has it that,
though the Slavs may have had large families from time to time in the
past, it was not a primitive institution per se. This view holds that
zadrugas arose and developed according to need at critical times, and
that most of the zadrugas noted in sources of the early modern period
were not of ancient origin but arose and developed into a common
institution in the insecure years during and after the Ottoman conquest
of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. This view finds confirmation
in sources about southern France. There villages of nuclear families
were replaced by extended households in the middle of the fourteenth
century. Over the next century and a half (1350-1500), a period of
great insecurity for the people of the south, extended households were
common over much of southern France. A century or so later, with the
return of more stable conditions, once again nuclear families predomi-
nated. This model could well also fit the medieval Balkans.
However, there are no sources to give us any information about
household size among the medieval South Slavs. Thus, though ex-
tended households may have existed, it would be wrong to assume the
existence of the zadruga then, and there is no basis to consider it a
primitive Slavic institution. One might suspect that in periods of inse-
curity there would tend to be larger households and in periods of peace
smaller ones. In addition, one should not expect that all families would
have been organized in just one way or just the other; presumably at
any given moment larger households coexisted with smaller ones. At
times of insecurity the balance probably would have been in favor of
the larger household. But at all times, irrespective of external condi-
tions, internal conditions would have had an effect on the development
of any given household, causing it to grow (as sons married) or causing
it to split up (as brothers or other members inside the household
quarreled).
And now, after these brief introductory remarks, let us turn to
examine the Balkans on the eve of the Slavic invasions.
CHAPTER 1
Historical Background
This chapter will provide a brief summary of the historical background

to set the stage for the major turning point with which this work
begins-the Slavic invasions of the late sixth and early seventh centu-
ries. In the pre-Slavic period and throughout the Middle Ages, the
Balkans were underdeveloped-exporting raw materials and importing
manufactured goods. In the late Roman or early Byzantine pre-Slavic
period the Balkans became an important part of the Roman Empire.
The regions now called Bosnia and Serbia possessed valuable mines.
Thrace was a major granary and the Balkans as a whole were an
important source of manpower for the armies. In particular, the Illyri-
ans, who lived in Dalmatia, !stria, Epirus, northwestern Macedonia,
and what is now Bosnia, Hercegovina, and western Serbia, constituted
a significant portion of the Roman armies and had a well-deserved
reputation as fine warriors.
The Indigenous Population
Before turning to the Roman Empire, its characteristics (particularly

those which were to have an influence upon the Balkan peoples), and
its problems on the eve of the Slavic invasions, let us first survey the
indigenous population of the Balkans. First a line should be drawn
running roughly through Albania, Macedonia, and Thrace on to Con-
stantinople. South of this line were found chiefly Greeks. North of it,
if the classical sources, which are far from ideal on this question, can
be trusted, three peoples were to be found: the Illyrians, Thracians,
and Dacians. (1) The Illyrians lived in the western portion (northwest-
ern Greece, Albania, and a large portion of present-day Yugoslavia).
However, some Yugoslav archaeologists of the prehistoric period, ex-
cavating in this region, have come to believe that the term lllyrian is an
oversimplification that masks a variety of cultures. They have found
significant cultural variations between findings from different so-called
9
Illyrian sites within what is now Bosnia and Hercegovina alone. This
suggests to some of them that the "Illyrians" should be subdivided into
different cultural groups. Whether this also means they should be di-
vided into different ethnic groups is still not known. (2) The Thracians
dwelled in Thrace, much of modern Bulgaria, and eastern Macedonia.
(3) The Dacians inhabited Moesia (roughly what is now northern Bul-
garia and northeastern Yugoslavia) and Dacia (what is now Rumania).
Linguistically these three peoples were all Indo-Europeans, and
some scholars believe that the Thracians and Dacians until a millen-
nium or so earlier had been one people. Various linguists disagree.
Traditionally scholars have seen the Dacians as ancestors of the mod-
ern Rumanians and Vlachs and the Illyrians as the proto-Albanians.
Perhaps (keeping in mind the frequent ethnic mixing as well as cultural
and linguistic evolution) we should retain this view. However, from
time to time these views have been challenged, very frequently for
modern nationalistic reasons. For example, if the Illyrians were the
ancestors of the Albanians, then the Albanians, as original inhabitants,
have some historic right to that region and possibly rights to other
regions which had been settled by Illyrians. And their Illyrian ancestry
has been very important in Albanian nation-building myths. In the
same vein, if the Dacians were proto-Rumanians then they were the
original settlers and have historic rights to Rumania, particularly in the
mixed region of Transylvania against claims of the late arriving (end of
the ninth century) Hungarians. Not surprisingly, Hungarian scholars
have been the leading critics of the claim that Dacians are Rumanians
and argue that the Vlachs (or Rumanians) arrived in the eleventh and
twelfth centuries when Vlachs first appear in the written sources.
Recently the Albanian-Illyrian identification has come under more
serious challenge from linguists. 1 Before turning to the arguments, it
must be pointed out that Dacian, Thracian, and lllyrian are not only
dead languages but languages in which no texts have survived. Thus all
that is known about these languages comes from personal and place
names mentioned in classical texts or surviving place names (top-
onyms). V. Georgiev argues that Illyrian place names are found in a
far smaller area than I have given above for lllyrian settlement. Sec-
ondly, he argues that, though the Albanians now live in what was
Illyria, they themselves come from part of Moesia, from the Morava
region of eastern Serbia. This was ethnically a Dacian region and thus
he argues for a Dacian ancestry for the Albanians. These conclusions,
he believes, are shown by the following: (1) Illyrian toponyms from an-
tiquity do not follow Albanian phonetic laws. (2) Most ancient Latin
loanwords in Albanian have the phonetic form of East Balkan Latin
Historical Background 11
(i.e., proto-Rumanian) and not West Balkan (i.e., Old Dalmatian)

Latin, suggesting the Albanians were descended from the Dacians. (3)
The marine terminology in Albanian is borrowed from different lan-
guages, suggesting that the Albanians were not originally a coastal
people. (4) Few ancient Greek loanwords exist in Albanian; if the
Albanians had originated in the Albanian-Epirus region there should
be more. (5) There is no reference in any source to Albanians in the
Albanian region until the ninth century. (6) Roughly one hundred
Rumanian words are similar only to Albanian words, and when this
fact is combined with the similar treatment of Latin in Albanian and
Rumanian, Georgiev concludes that the Albanians came from what is
now Rumania (or the region of Yugoslavia close to modern Rumania)
and that their language developed during the fourth to sixth centuries
when proto-Rumanian was formed. Rumanian he sees as a completely
romanized Dacian-Moesian language whereas Albanian is a semiro-
manized Dacian-Moesian language.
These are serious (nonchauvinistic) arguments and they cannot
simply be dismissed. Furthermore, during the fourth to sixth centuries
the Rumanian region was heavily affected by large-scale invasions of
Goths and Slavs, and the Morava valley (in Serbia) was a main inva-
sion route and the site of the earliest known Slavic sites. Thus this
would have been a region from which an indigenous population would
naturally have fled.
However, very little is known about the Dacian and Illyrian lan-
guages-and that little consists chiefly of certain place names and a
few historical personal names. The Albanian language could well pre-
serve large numbers of Illyrian features that simply are not known to
linguists. The two languages, Dacian and Illyrian, may have been more
similar than linguists think. And since the Morava region was near the
border between Dacians and Illyrians, through direct contact possibly
Illyrian was influenced by the Dacian language. The lack of early
references to the Albanians is not significant. The centuries before the
ninth are a period of few sources. And, if the Illyrians were proto-
Albanians, the argument does not stand because sources mention 11-
lyrians there earlier. We should also note that Vlachs are not men-
tioned anywhere in this period either.
But, though they are not conclusive, the arguments for the Dacian
origin of the Albanians have strong points and cannot be summarily
dismissed. More evidence is needed which, owing to the nature of our
sources, may never be obtained; thus the question may well be one of
many in early Balkan history which we may never be able to answer.
Moreover, the Albanians did not have a single ancestor in one or the
other of these pre-Slavic peoples; the present-day Albanians, like all

Balkan peoples, are an ethnic mixture and in addition to this main
ancestor they contain an admixture of Slavic, Greek, Vlach, and
Romano-Italian ancestry.
In addition to these three Indo-European peoples, each living in
its own zone of the pre-Slavic Balkans, other peoples had impact as
well. Large numbers of Celts had passed through earlier, leaving their
contribution to the gene pool as well as a wide variety of cultural
(particularly artistic) influences. Large numbers of Roman veterans
were settled in the Balkans (in particular, in what is now Yugoslavia).
Different Germanic peoples (Ostrogoths, Visigoths, and Gepids)
raided and settled (both on their own and as Roman federate troops)
in the Balkans in large numbers over three centuries (third to sixth).
And in the towns were merchants, officials, and soldiers, drawn from
the whole empire, which included Italians, Germans, Greeks, Arme-
nians, and other eastern peoples from Anatolia, Egypt, and Syria.
The Romans Acquire the Balkans
Roman influence during the period before Christ was chiefly along the
coast and concentrated in coastal towns. Its impact was little felt in the
interior before Augustus (27 B.c.-14 A.D.). In the period extending
from the second century B.c. to early in the first century A.D. the
Romans subdued the Illyrians. The first Roman successes were in Dal-
matia. The Romans increased their influence by settling many veterans
in and along Dalmatia. The Dalmatian towns were given various privi-
leges, including autonomy, which they retained throughout the Middle
Ages. At first there was considerable instability in Roman Dalmatia,
owing to Illyrian pirates and raiders from the mountains who swept
down upon the coast to plunder. But as the coast became romanized,
its towns became very similar to those in Italy. Throughout the Middle
Ages these old coastal towns were far more Italian than they were
Balkan. Salona, which lay just outside of modern Split, was the chief
Dalmatian city.
In the first century A.D. the Romans began pushing their frontiers
inland across the Balkans (across modern Yugoslavia) toward the Dan-
ube. Following their conquest, they established forts and small towns
(the ruins of some of which have been excavated), and built roads to
connect the towns and fortresses with the coast. Other roads were built
to link a variety of rich mines (particularly in Bosnia and Serbia) with
the coast, and the Romans exported minerals and timber from the
Balkans. The roads were kept in repair and were guarded (with key
places garrisoned) to secure transport and communications. The rest of

the region (i.e., most of the countryside) was still populated by the
indigenous populations (lllyrians and any other peoples) and surely
retained its "Illyrian" character, with limited Roman influence.
The boundary between eastern (Greek) and western (Roman) cul-
ture ran through what is now Albania and Macedonia. The Greeks,
living to the south of this line, kept their Greek language and culture
and maintained their own local administration and controlled their
cities. In general the Greeks remained loyal to Rome. Many more
towns existed in the Greek-Macedonian region than existed to its
north. As in the interior of the northern Balkans, some Roman veter-
ans were also settled in Greece. They established new Latin-speaking
towns and villages within the Greek zone.
The Roman Empire and Its Balkan Provinces in the Third

and Fourth Centuries
The third century A.D. was a period of chaos. The northern part of the
Balkans, because its mountain ranges ran north-south, had no natural
military defense and was easily accessible to invasion. In the third
century intensive Goth raids were launched by land from across the
Danube. At the same time Goth pirates began raiding Roman towns
along the Black Sea coast. Frequently the Roman generals sent out to
defend Roman territory against them revolted and claimed the throne.
Throughout the third century there were civil wars; the throne changed
hands on the average of every three or four years. There were also
numerous revolts which did not succeed, and provinces broke away,
loyal to this or that pretender. Thus, much of the Balkans was devas-
tated by wars and raids and for much of the time was not really under
the control of the ruler in Rome.
During all this internal chaos the Goth raids continued, lasting
from the third to the fifth century. Yet, though these raids were fre-
quent, they tended to be concentrated along major routes (e.g., the
Orient Express route through the Morava valley) and roads leading off
the main routes to other centers. Probably they rarely went further
from these routes than was necessary to forage for food. Furthermore,
along these main routes were concentrated the major cities (sources of
the most booty) and the major concentrations of population (urbanites
or nearby villagers supplying urban needs) for slaves. These areas were
plundered time and again. But it probably is not accurate to picture
the whole Balkan region (or even large parts of it) as being desolate;
such a picture would be valid only for the region along the main
routes. Much of the population probably reacted as people did later, at

the time of the Turkish conquest, withdrawing into the hills and moun-
tains further from the routes to avoid the invaders.
The result was probably the depopulation of villages and poorly
fortified towns on and near main routes, with an accompanying reduc-
tion in commerce and the standard of living, while much of the interior
presumably remained untouched (though probably less well supplied
with the goods obtained by trade). Thus the Goth raids caused some
devastation, depopulation of certain areas, flight of population to
other areas, decline of commerce, and a dislocation of the tax base.
All this must have weakened the area for subsequent invaders (the
Slavs and Avars).
In the midst of these troubles Diocletian (284-305) assumed the
throne. Feeling that the empire was too large for one ruler to adminis-
ter, he divided it among two senior and two junior emperors, each one
with specific territorial responsibilities. Despite the actual division the
theoretical unity of the empire was retained. Diocletian, the leading
senior emperor, then chose to move east. Peace was established during
his reign, but after his abdication further power struggles and various
territorial divisions followed, until Constantine emerged in 324 as the
sole emperor.
Creation and Importance of Constantinople
Constantine chose to live in the east and he established a new center

there, Constantinople. He began to build the city in 324 and it was
dedicated in 330. Constantinople was given tremendous walls and de-
fenses and was to hold out against all attacks from east and west
(except for the Fourth Crusade in 1204) for over a thousand years. As
long as the city remained unconquered, the empire survived. Constan-
tinople soon became the chief city in the empire, though throughout
the fourth century the imperial capital remained where the emperor
and his suite were; and they were generally in transit moving from one
city to another. At the end of the fourth century the emperors settled
down permanently in Constantinople and it became the real capital. In
a short time Constantinople became a great cultural center from which
Christianity, literature, art, music, ideas, and goods spread. Its wealth
attracted invaders and imitators. A great trade center, it became the
richest and most advanced city of Europe. It was a key point in both
east-west trade between Asia and Europe and in north-south trade
between the Steppes and the Black Sea on the one hand and the
Aegean and North Africa on the other.
Across the straits from Constantinople lay Anatolia. For centu-

ries, except for occasional wars with Persia and later wars with the
Arabs, Anatolia was untouched by invasion. Thus Anatolia was an
intact source of manpower and grain to supply the capital and eastern
heartland of the empire, allowing the empire to survive. So, while the
west (including the Balkans) was ravaged by barbarians and collapsing,
the city of Constantinople, located opposite Anatolia, was able to
survive. Eventually after major losses in the Balkans, with the re-
sources from the east, the empire was able to regroup its forces and
recover most of the lost parts of the Balkans.
Constantinople's magnificent fortifications were not only a barrier
preventing Balkan invaders from breaking through into Anatolia; they
also prevented the great power invaders from the east-Persians and
Arabs-from penetrating into the Balkans and Europe until finally the
Ottoman Turks succeeded in circumventing these defenses and gaining
a foothold in the Balkans during the second half of the fourteenth
century. Within a century they had made themselves masters of the
Balkans and the capital city itself.
Division of the Empire, 395
In 395 the emperor Theodosius I died, leaving the empire divided in

two parts, west and east, to his two sons. Though in theory they were
colleagues and it was still one empire, from here on the empire was
never united in fact. The two different civilizations developed on their
own: Latin and Greek (eventually each with its own Christian church).
After the Slavic invasions of the late sixth and seventh centuries cut off
east-west communications (overland via the Balkans while Slav [and
later Arab] pirates cut off sea communications), these differences be-
came even greater, making it impossible for the two to agree on cer-
tain major issues again. This was to be an important factor behind the
later church quarrels and eventual (eleventh century) church split. The
various differences that had always existed between Greek and Latin
cultures increased as did separate political ambitions. The line dividing
the two parts of the empire was basically the same as the old Greek-
Latin cultural line and the later Orthodox-Roman Catholic line. This
boundary ran through the Balkans from Sirmium on south to Skadar.
Thus the Balkans became the border region between Old Rome and
New Rome (Byzantium) and between Latin and Greek. The Balkans
also served as a borderland between civilization (the empire) and the
barbarian world beyond the Danube.
Characteristics of the Byzantine Empire
After its capital was established in the east, the empire became, in
scholarly parlance, the Eastern Roman Empire. Furthermore, because
Constantine and all of his successors (except Julian the Apostate, 361-
63) were Christians, the empire from here on can also be called the
Christian Roman Empire. As a consequence of these two changes the
Roman Empire had become the Byzantine. However, though used by
scholars, none of these three names was used at the time. Though the
empire had its center in a Greek cultural and linguistic area, as a result
of which there followed a gradual hellenization of its institutions and
culture, the emperors recognized no change. The empire remained the
Roman Empire and the citizens (even though Greeks came to domi-
nate it) still called themselves Romans. The term Hellene (Greek)
connoted a pagan. The term Byzantine was an invention of Renais-
sance scholars after the fall of the Byzantine Empire and was never
used by its contemporaries. By the middle of the seventh century
Greek had become the official language of all spheres of government
and the army; nevertheless the empire remained "Roman" and despite
divisions of its territory at times it was always seen as a single unit.
Essentially the Byzantine Empire was a combination of three major
cultural components: (1) Roman in political concepts, administration,
law, and military organization, (2) Greek in language and culture, and
(3) Christian in religion.
The Empire Becomes Christian
The empire became officially Christian under Constantine. Of course,

the Christianization of many people (though a relatively small percent-
age) went back to the first century. Christianization was a long process
and even after the imperial conversion it still was far from completed.
Under Constantine, the first Christian emperor, a major theo-
logical dispute broke out over the relationship of Jesus Christ to God
the Father. It was known as the Arian dispute. We can ignore the
theology here because with the exception of the Goths, who became
Arians but who departed from the Balkans before the Slavs arrived,
all the Balkan peoples became Nicenes, that is, followers of the form
of Christianity that was defined at the Council of Nicea in 325 and
which triumphed throughout the Byzantine east by the end of the
fourth century. What is important for us is that the Christians were so
glad at last to have an end to persecutions, a Christian emperor, and
to have become a favored religion that they allowed the emperor to
acquire a great role in church affairs. So when the Arian controversy

became heated, Constantine called the council at Nicea, financed the
passage of bishops to it, presided over it, and, though he was not a
theologian at all, was allowed to press a compromise solution (in
many ways theologically unacceptable) upon the assembled bishops
which was adopted. Thus the emperor dominated the church council.
Constantine then gave the decisions of Nicea the force of imperial
law. This became the basis for state persecution of variant religions as
heresy. Correct belief was to become a criterion for full citizenship.
Heresy became a crime against the state.
Because religion (and loyalty to the state) became the criterion for
citizenship, nationality (or ethnic group membership) had no impor-
tance for one's citizenship. The state remained, as it had been earlier,
multinational. But now all Orthodox Christians in the empire regard-
less of nationality were defined as Romans; and such a criterion for
citizenship was to be true also for the later medieval Slavic Orthodox
Balkan states of Serbia and Bulgaria. In them too all Orthodox Chris-
tians were equally citizens and community was thus seen along these
religious lines. 2 This was not only true in the Byzantine and Orthodox
Balkan states but also later in the Hungarian Empire (though here it
was Catholicism that defined the community) and in the Ottoman
Empire which divided its people into different religious communities
called millets.
At the same time at the Council of Nicea the emperor set the
precedent that he had the final word in matters of faith and that the
state had the duty to protect the church. This resulted in the church
losing its independence and becoming a department of state. Thus
from a spiritual point of view one can see how the conversion of the
empire was to have many negative effects on the Christian religion.
However, the church leaders of the early fourth century did not con-
sider precedents. They were grateful to the Christian emperor, they
tolerated his dominance, and quite possibly the leaders of the winning
side were happy to have the state enforce their views.
Soon, as Constantinople became a true capital, the bishop of that
city was elevated to patriarchal rank. But not surprisingly, with the
church becoming a department of state, the emperor came to control
the appointment and actions of the patriarch.
These models of emperor and patriarch and of the role of the
ruler in church affairs were to be imitated later on, after their conver-
sions, by the Bulgarians and Serbs. Byzantine culture (much of it
religious culture) was also to be imitated; this culture, including litera-
ture, art, architecture, and music, was to accompany the Christianiza-
tion of the Balkans, which was brought about by missionaries sent

from Constantinople. In addition, various later Orthodox Balkan
rulers, in imitation of Byzantium, sought to become emperors them-
selves and modeled their court ceremonial as well as the titles of their
court officials on the Byzantine court.
The fourth and fifth centuries saw a gradual elimination not only of
the Arian heresy but also of pagan cults. After Rome itself finally be-
came Christian only Athens held out as a pagan center until Justinian
finally closed the Academy in 529. Athens then declined to a second-
rate provincial town. Yet though Christianity nominally triumphed,
paganism (particularly as rites and specific beliefs rather than as a coher-
ent religion) remained side by side with it. Old pagan customs received a
Christian veneer. Christian holidays were set on pagan feast days and
many of the old pagan rites connected with these days were retained
under a Christian cover. Attributes of pagan gods became features of
Christian saints, and often the saint whose day fell on the holiday of a
former pagan deity acquired some of that god's attributes. Churches
were erected on existing sacred spots and much of the ceremonial for a
saint's day-such as the ritual meal-retained old pagan forms. Where-
as some pagan rites were absorbed into Christian ones, others continued
to exist in their old form, being practiced on specific days or for specific
needs-e.g., for the welfare of family, animals, and crops. Thus many
people, particularly villagers, even though they became nominally
Christians, can be called more pagan than Christian.
Imperial Administration of the Balkans
When the Roman Empire was centered in Italy, the Balkans had been
a distant borderland. The establishment of the capital in Constantino-
ple brought the Balkans much nearer the center of things. More Ro-
man influences penetrated the peninsula, which, owing to its proximity
to the capital, became more important for the empire to defend and
hold. Now there was more Roman activity here; more officials and
troops were present than had been the case when the imperial center
lay in Italy.
The Balkans were split among three imperial prefectures: (1) the
Prefecture of the East, which in addition to Asia Minor and the other
eastern provinces also included Constantinople and Thrace, (2) Illyri-
cum with its capital in Thessaloniki, which included Greece and the
central Balkans, and (3) Italy, which in addition to that peninsula
included Pannonia, !stria, and Dalmatia. Dalmatia at that time in-
cluded a great deal more of its hinterland than it does now. Thus, the
Italic Prefecture roughly contained the Balkan territory that later was
to become Roman Catholic.
Diocletian and Constantine initiated a series of economic and ad-
ministrative reforms which, on the whole, we can ignore in this survey.
However, after their reforms the army was composed of two types of
troops: (1) Frontier forces (limitanei) whose task was to defend the
borders. Many of those so settled were barbarians: Goths and Slavs.
(2) The elite troops which were the mobile armies, divided into five
large units based in the interior, particularly around the capital; these
were able to be sent on foreign operations or to any place of weakness
where the frontier defenses were insufficient. Each of these five units
was under a commander who reported directly to the emperor. In this
period more and more barbarians (particularly Goths) were taken into
the army. Some were integrated into the regular Roman units but large
numbers became federates, settled on lands under their own leaders;
their settlements tended to be drawn from just their one ethnic group
and they fought in their own contingents under their own chiefs.
Since there was a shortage of cash, Diocletian instituted a new tax
system. By it the state's major sources of revenue, the land and head
taxes, were to be paid in kind (i.e., produce). They were assessed on
the rural population which was, of course, the overwhelming majority
of the empire's population. In addition, most civil officials' and mili-
tary salaries were also paid in kind. Early in the fourth century the
monetary system was reformed and the coinage was standardized. It
remained at the same standard, undebased, until the eleventh century.
It was far more stable than any modern coinage. The Byzantine solidus
was used throughout the Balkans and remained in use through much of
the Middle Ages even in the independent Slavic states. Finally in the
twelfth century the Venetian ducat came more and more to replace the
solidus, and it became the model for the independent Balkan coinages
that began to be issued in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. In
the Byzantine period and during the later independent period as well,
much of the trade in the interior remained in kind. Local markets were
certainly more based on barter than on cash.
Despite these reforms, disorder continued throughout much of the
Balkans, particularly the large-scale raids, which were able to dislocate
any system. However, it is evident that from the time of Diocletian
there was more efficiency than previously in tax collection (with taxes
raised in kind and chiefly used in the area where they were raised) and
in the recruitment of soldiers. The military reforms also failed to solve
the Goth problem. Goth raids continued through the fourth and fifth
centuries and proved to be a major drain on the treasury, necessitating
the hiring of soldiers to fight them or paymg the Goths protection

money (tribute) not to attack.
The Byzantines developed many diplomatic techniques which
were to be utilized throughout the empire's history and whose fame
added a new meaning to the term Byzantine. (The word Byzantine, in
the sense of being wily and not completely honest, exists to the present
day in many of the languages of Europe.) (1) The Byzantines created a
chancellery to collect information on barbarians. (2) They paid tribute
to buy peace or to buy allies. (3) They granted titles of honor to
barbarian chiefs, bringing them into the imperial hierarchy of princes.
(4) They granted them territories, generally territory which, though in
theory imperial, had already been lost to the empire; either the receiv-
ing barbarians already held it and the empire, desiring peace, used the
grant as a means for this, or some less friendly barbarian held it and
the empire told a more friendly chief that if he won the lands, they
could be his. (5) They educated the sons of barbarian chiefs in Con-
stantinople, which also gave the empire possession of useful hostages.
(6) They played one group of barbarians off against another. (7) They
built up within barbarian nations pro-Byzantine factions which were
supported against anti-Byzantine rulers or factions. The empire often
financed its allies with gold. (8) The empire sent missionaries to con-
vert to Christianity barbarians and then through the church hierarchy,
under the patriarch of Constantinople, exerted Byzantine cultural and
political influence.
Land, Magnates, and Peasants
One feature of the period from the fourth through the sixth centuries
was the growth of large estates and the absorption of many state lands
and the lands of many free peasants (including whole villages) by the
great magnates. Some scholars seem to believe that this phenomenon
was almost total; yet it is clear that although there were great increases
in the holdings of the great magnates, many small holdings and free
villages remained. The novels (new laws) of Justinian (mid-sixth cen-
tury) included edicts against the absorption of free holdings in Thrace
and Illyricum; since these were general laws it demonstrates clearly
that a sufficient number of free holdings still existed to be worth pro-
tecting by general legislation. Saints' lives also show that in addition to
the great estates free villages existed in all parts of the empire. The
sources are far too meager to provide a general picture of landholding
in the Balkans. But we must beware of the tendency of historians to
carry real trends to the nth degree. Although there was an increase in
the size of many great estates, in the percentage of lands under their
control, and even in the number of such estates, still many small
holders and free villages continued to exist. In addition it is certain
that the ratio of great to small and the percentage of land under the
great magnates varied from province to province.
At the same time various peasants, probably in large numbers,
were fleeing to the mountains or to other distant regions out of the
reach of tax collectors. Others sought the protection of patrons by
becoming serfs on estates; and the number of serfs increased in this
period. Since many magnates had tax exemptions-or enough pull to
evade taxes-the peasant often found himself better off financially as a
serf than as a free peasant. The effect of abandoned lands and of free
men becoming serfs was to reduce the income of the state at this
critical time when it needed cash to raise armies to fight the barbarian
invaders.
To try to keep the peasants on land and taxpaying artisans in their
places, the state passed laws intended to bind men to their trades (and
sons to the trades of their fathers) and the peasants to the land. Many
studies describe the empire in these terms. However, we may wonder
how rigid life really was. How was the empire able effectively to en-
force such laws? The fact that these laws were reissued frequently
suggests that the problem continued and the policy was not effective.
Thus it is doubtful that life in the Balkans (a particularly chaotic re-
gion) was really as rigid as the laws demanded. However, binding men
to professions clearly was the aim of the government. And since the
main tax was on land, and since land to be taxable needed a cultivator,
the state did try to bind the peasants to the land. In good times, people
on the whole probably followed these laws willingly. The artisans, as a
result of state limitations on the number of artisans in any trade, had a
guaranteed income, and the peasant, who was guaranteed the right to
his plot, probably also was usually content to remain on his land.
However, raids and increasing tax demands, which often were impossi-
ble to meet, caused flights and the dislocation of the system. In these
insecure centuries when people were killed, carried off by raiders, or
fled to the hills (often to become brigands) to escape taxes, population
decreased. And this of course meant reduced income for the state,
which was faced with ever increasing budgetary needs.
Withdrawal of the Goths
In 476 the Goth Odovacar overthrew in Italy the last weak western
emperor. The emperor Zeno in the east could do nothing to prevent
this so he accepted Odovacar's pledges of loyalty and his recognition of

Zeno's suzerainty. Zeno made Odovacar part of the court hierarchy
with the rank of patrician. In theory there was still one empire and
Italy was still part of it.
However, the eastern emperors were unhappy with the situation
and soon nicely killed two birds with one stone by persuading the
Ostrogoth Theodoric, who had been a troublemaker in the Balkans, to
march against Odovacar in Italy. Theodoric eliminated Odovacar and
set up an Ostrogothic kingdom in Italy in 493 against which some forty
years later Justinian campaigned in his attempt to restore the old Ro-
man Empire. This kingdom included some of the western Balkans,
!stria, Dalmatia, and part of Pannonia. With the establishment of this
kingdom most of the Goths in the Balkans migrated thither leaving the
Balkans (except the regions noted above) more or less clear of them,
and the Goths ceased to be a Balkan problem. The Goths left little
long-term influence on the area. However, their exodus surely made
the Balkans more inviting for the Slavs and Bulgars, now living across
the Danube, to raid; for the Goths, whether they were fighting for the
empire or for their own interests, were sturdy soldiers who could resist
plundering by these other peoples. Moreover, after the centuries of
destruction and unrest caused by the Goths, the Balkan peoples surely
were weaker and less able to resist the newcomers.
The Effects of Justinian's Wars of Reconquest
At the start of his reign, the emperor Justinian (527-65) was con-
cerned with the barbarians beyond the Danube. He built fortresses
along the Danube (or ordered them built, for probably in general the
localities had the actual responsibility to build them) to tighten de-
fenses against the barbarians. Older fortresses were repaired. He also
repaired the walls and fortifications of various cities in the interior of
the Balkans. Such walls, even if not manned, could give shelter for
urban populations and neighboring peasants when raids came. How-
ever, Justinian was primarily concerned with the loss of Rome and
Italy to the Ostrogothic kingdom which Theodoric established in 493.
Caught up by the imperial idea and his desire to restore the old Roman
Empire, he fought an almost continual war for forty years to recover
Italy, Spain, and North Africa. The parts of the Balkans held by the
Goths were restored early, Dalmatia by 537, !stria by 539. By the end
of his reign Jus tin ian seemed successful; he had recovered Italy, the
coast of North Africa and much of Spain. However, he achieved this at
enormous loss of manpower and an exhausted treasury. The recovered
territories were full of barbarians hostile to Roman rule and awaiting

their chance to revolt. Thus these lands required further manpower
and state expense to hold. And just three years after his death, the
A vars drove the Lombards out of Pannonia into northern Italy, which
undid half of his work of Italian reconquest. Thus much of his work
went for naught.
In order to carry out these western campaigns Justinian ignored
two major problems: the Persians in the east and the barbarians to the
north of the Balkans. Not only did he not concentrate serious efforts
on these two frontiers, but, lacking sufficient manpower to carry out
his western conquests, he had to take troops away from them to send
west, leaving these frontiers relatively unprotected. This led not only
to the weakening of imperial defenses but also to all sorts of financial
problems. For with insufficient troops (a problem which had increased
with the departure of the Goths) he had to hire mercenaries and to
bribe barbarians with tribute not to attack, both of which were costly.
And raids continued anyway, since the empire was faced with many
individual tribes, each under its own leader; tribute paid to one had no
effect on others. The result of these raids was, of course, reduction of
manpower and tax income.
Since Justinian needed cash for his ventures, he was then forced to
increase the rate of taxes on the remaining peasants. Many could not
pay and fled. Some of these became brigands, which increased the law
and order problem. These flights also increased the depopulation and
led to more lands being out of cultivation which caused further decline,
both in productivity and in the state's income. The shortage of troops
caused many of the Danube frontier forts to be left unmanned or
undermanned and consequently worthless, a fact which encouraged the
barbarians to raid, which in turn intensified the economic problems of
the area.
Moreover, Justinian's whole policy was pointless, for it was al-
ready too late to unite the two parts of the empire, which were already
divided in fact and whose unity was an anachronism. Justinian did it by
force but the empire lacked the resources to retain these conquests;
and by exhausting his manpower and economic resources, he left an
empire with an empty treasury, unable to face serious threats from the
Persians and Slavs. (The treasury had been further emptied by the fact
that Justinian had carried out a guns and butter policy; he had also
directed a massive and expensive building program of churches, pal-
aces, etc.) Had he concentrated on the enemies on his two frontiers,
he might well have been able to achieve success. However, he left both
problems to his successors. Shortly after his death in 565, the empire
found itself involved in a costly Persian war. To make matters worse,

the Slavs had from the late 550s become a serious threat to the empire;
they were to become even more dangerous after Justinian's death,
when their raids across the weakly defended Danube frontier became
almost annual. Justinian thus left an enormous empire with huge com-
mitments which spread its limited resources far too thin.
NOTES
1. V. Georgiev, "The Genesis of the Balkan Peoples," Slavonic and

East European Review 44, no. 103 (July, 1966): 285-97.
2. By the fourteenth century the pastoral Vlachs in Serbia had acquired
certain specific variant legal requirements; these might be seen as somewhat
altering the equality of citizenship between them and the settled agriculturists.
These distinctions, however, probably arose for logical occupational-economic
reasons rather than ethnic prejudice.
CHAPTER 2
The Slavic Invasions
The Slavs Settle in the Balkans, ca. 550-ca. 630
In the fifth century Slavs first show up north of the Danube in the
written sources. Many scholars feel that they had arrived in that region
even earlier than that. Where they had come from has long been a
most controversial point. Yet it is a point that really is not too impor-
tant for the history of the Balkans, because we know so little about the
possible homelands and the cultures of the various peoples in them
during these centuries. The evidence used for locating the homeland of
the Slavs-that is, the region where they became a distinct people from
their Indo-European cousins-is all linguistic and archaeological.
Much new evidence is being uncovered now which may eventually
settle the point, but at present the best case can be made for the
Ukraine, possibly between the Bug and the Dnepr. The Ukrainian
theory has been advanced by a variety of scholars. 1 Adherents of this
view believe that the Slavs followed the path toward the Danube used
by a large number of Turkic peoples-including Huns, Avars, Bulgars,
Pechenegs, and Cumans.
The sources speak of many disunited tribes divided into two
groups north of the Danube in the fifth and sixth centuries-the
Slaveni and the Antes. Some linguists have argued that the word
Antes is not Slavic but Iranian. However, Procopius, a sixth-century
historian who is a major source for this period, says the two groups
(Slaveni and Antes) speak the same language and in looks do not
differ from one another. The Strategikon (a military manual from the
late sixth or early seventh century attributed to the emperor Maurice)
confirms Procopius by stating that the two groups lived in the same
way and had the same customs. To a Byzantine speaking about Slavic
languages, the word same could really mean similar. But, in any case,
if the Antes really were not originally Slavs, it seems most likely that
they had been a conquering group which had asserted authority over
25
various Slavic tribes and had thereby donated their name, but had in
time become linguistically and culturally assimilated by the larger
number of Slavs. Thus there seem to have existed two groups linguis-
tically Slavic and ethnically probably more Slavic than anything else
but certainly not pure Slavs. Some scholars, such as the prominent
Bulgarian historian V. Zlatarski, think, and it is perfectly plausible,
that the Slaveni to the west were the ancestors of the linguistic group
that became Serbo-Croatians while the Antes were the ancestors of
those who were to become Bulgaro-Macedonians.
The name Antes suggests this people was intermixed with Ira-
nians, and linguists point to a large number of Iranian loanwords in
Slavic that were acquired very early. This would not be surprising if
the Slavs came from the Ukraine because there they would have had
contact with both Iranian Scythians and Sarmatians. Indeed, the Sar-
matians were still to be found in Backa and the Banat near the Danube
at the time the Slavs arrived there. Archaeologists working in that area
speak of cultural borrowings by the Slavs from Sarmatians living in the
Ban at.
There are also in Slavic a large number of early Germanic loan-
words. In the southern Ukraine as well as along their whole route to
the Danube, the Slavs would have run into many Germanic peoples;
Germans were still to be found in the Danubian region when the Slavs
arrived and were to remain there for a considerable time thereafter. In
what is now Rumania these Slavs met Dacians. Rumanian archaeolo-
gists have discovered a variety of cultural borrowings by the Slavs from
the indigenous population of Rumania. They have even unearthed
what they claim to be joint sites, showing Slavs and Dacians living in
the same communities.
Byzantine Descriptions of Slavs' Way of Life
What were these early Slavs like and how did they live? Brief descrip-
tions are given by several Byzantine writers. The Slavs were wild and
free (i.e., not subjected by anyone else) and without leaders. Proco-
pius stresses that they were not ruled by one man but from ancient
times had lived in "democracy." (Needless to say, too much has been
made of this last word by various Slavic scholars.) They had public
gatherings to decide on policies. The Strategikon, attributed to the
emperor Maurice, states that the Slavs lived without authority and in
mutual hatred (i.e., in hatred between groups); they did not recognize
military ranks; they had many chiefs but no supreme chief. The differ-
ent tribes disagreed with each other and it was not difficult to play one
The Slavic Invasions 27
tribe off against another. (However, it proved impossible for the Byz-
antines to solve the Slavic problem or defeat them for the same reason;
for if the Byzantines defeated or made a pact with one tribe, that
arrangement was valid for just one small group and had no effect on
any other tribe, and a vast number of small tribes existed.)
Procopius says that the Slavs lived in poor huts spread far apart
and that they frequently moved (i.e., either they were pastoral or else
primitive farmers who quickly exhausted the soil and had to move on).
They tended to war on foot with spears and bows and arrows; other
than shields they had no armor. They did not keep captives long in
slavery. They tried to ransom them quickly and send them home; those
who were not ransomed were soon allowed to live freely within their
society like everyone else. The Slavs had much endurance, poor food,
were very hospitable, and avenged injuries to their guests. They lived
in or near woods, swamps, or along rivers; they generally had secret
exits for escape routes and hid their valuables. When fleeing, they
often hid under water, breathing through straws. In battle they
stressed guerrilla tactics and specialized in hit-and-run ambushes. The
Byzantine strategists felt it was best to attack them in the winter when
their tracks could be seen in the snow, when it was easy to cross frozen
rivers, and when their stock was at home.
Slavic Religion
Procopius reports that the Slavs had a chief god of lightning, their only
lord of the world, to whom they sacrificed animals. It is generally felt
that this one god was Perun, a leading deity and the master of thunder
and lightning. He was worshiped by many Slavic peoples; and though
his name is not given in any written source about the South Slavs,
many toponyms derived from his name exist in the Balkans. Procopius
also says they worshiped springs (possibly this should mean they wor-
shiped at springs) and nymphs to whom they also sacrificed. This last
item is probably accurate, since nymphs (vilas) have played an impor-
tant part in South Slavic folklore to the present.
Much has been written about ancient Slavic religion; but a great
deal of it is worthless, for we really know almost nothing about it
because we have so little information. There has been a strong ten-
dency among scholars to take any ancient Slavic deity or belief found
anywhere-be it in Russia, among the Baltic Slavs, or in Procopius-
and make it common to all Slavs, and then to combine all this material
into some sort of conglomerate system of early Slavic belief. There is
no evidence that such a common system ever existed, and thus it is

most dubious that such a composite picture could be accurate.
For instance, scholars have written a great deal about early Slavic
dualism, i.e., that the primitive Slavs had good and bad gods, two
opposing supernatural camps at war with one another. However, there
is little evidence for this. First, the presence of a supreme deity
(Perun) argues against a dualist cosmology. Secondly, the later legends
about saints and their attributes and behavior, much of which is inher-
ited from pre-Christian spirits and gods, depict the saints as saints of
function. This suggests that the pre-Christian spirits and gods had been
so too. Thus there would have been, e.g., a god of rain who could help
people by bringing rain for crops or hurt them by floods and droughts.
This amoral functional depiction of gods does not coincide with a
dualist world view. The only evidence for the existence of dualism
comes from the Christian period (chiefly from among the Baltic Slavs),
when sources mention a black god whose negative characteristics may
simply reflect the common tendency of pre-Christian deities to become
demons after the victory of the new religion.
Thus it seems most probable that the early Slavs were not dualists;
they seem to have had a pantheon of gods of functions (e.g., of thunder,
sea, crops, and animals) who could help people or hurt them depending
on whether or not they carried out appropriate rites. These rites in-
cluded sacrifices and seem to have been held at particular sacred spots.
In addition to the gods, there seem to have been other supernatural
creatures which also had to be appeased, including nymphs.
Slavic Activities in the Balkans in the Mid-Sixth Century
Though some Slavic incursions had occurred earlier, the number of

raids increased in the second half of Justinian's reign. If we can believe
Procopius, they were an annual affair, and the number of specific raids
mentioned in sources confirms this generalization. Procopius also
speaks of Slavs living in the vicinity of certain Thracian cities, suggest-
ing that by the middle of the sixth century a certain amount of Slavic
settlement (as opposed to raiders coming, raiding, and then returning
beyond the Danube) had begun in the Balkans. Procopius confirms his
own statements by giving in the course of his works a fairly large
number of Slavic place-names in what is now north and east central
Yugoslavia (particularly along the Morava and Timok river valleys)
and northern Bulgaria. These places were clearly well established by
the early 550s when Procopius wrote.
Some Slavs were settled as federates in the Balkans (their settle-
ments could be responsible for some of the place-names) and others

were already fighting for Justinian in Italy. Thus at least in the north-
eastern Balkans, south of the Danube, by the middle of the sixth
century there already was a fair number of Slavic settlements. Proba-
bly, though, this settlement was relatively small-scale (compared to
what was to follow), for there is no evidence that regions had lost their
Roman character and become slavicized yet.
The basic pattern of Slavic activity up to the late 560s was raiding.
The bands crossed the Danube, in general following the main routes
into Thrace or Macedonia, occasionally penetrating into Greece (on
one occasion as far south as Corinth). The bands were lightly armed
and mobile. Since walls could stop them, they could not conquer cities
or whole regions. In this period, though some towns were taken, no
major cities fell.
When the Slavic raiders arrived in an area, the urban and local
village populations fled to walled enclosures. Generally local militias
defended the walls in smaller places. However, the countryside was
open to pillage. Thus the peasants suffered the greatest misery, for
their crops were often ruined and they might be taken prisoner. The
raiders got what booty they could; particularly often it was captives,
hence they could profit by attacking villages. Then they returned home
across the Danube. The Balkan peninsula was thus open for annual
plunder but was not occupied by the Slavs in a major way. Though
there was some limited Slavic settlement, much of it could have been
colonies of federates with military responsibilities settled by the Byzan-
tines inside the Balkans.
The A vars and Their Impact on the Slavs
Large-scale Slavic settlement began in the Balkans in the late 570s and
early 580s. These larger population movements, still on the level of
individual tribes, are associated with the arrival of the Turkic Avars, a
nomadic group who, having lost a major war to other nomads in the
east, had then migrated west, subjecting various Caucasian tribes and
other groups north of the Sea of Azov and the Black Sea. They annihi-
lated the Antes as a political force and subjected various Turkic Bulgar
groups. They appeared north of the Danube at the end of the 550s and
in the mid-560s established themselves in what later became known as
the Hungarian plain, with their main settlements between the Danube
(after it bends north) and the Tisza rivers.
In the Balkans archaeologists have found vestiges of A var settle-
ments along the Sava and Danube rivers as far east as the mouth of the
Morava. Further east along the Rumanian and Bulgarian sides of the
Danube, Slavic sites are found but not Avar. Thus the Avars settled to
the west of the main Slavic concentrations. The A vars were excellent
soldiers and horsemen; they were tightly organized with their ruler,
called a khagan, supreme over the various Avar groups. They made
treaties with their neighbors and fixed frontiers. Below them was a vast
array of subject peoples, various Slavic and Bulgar tribes plus the
remnants of the Huns. In addition to subject tribes, they also had large
numbers of vassal tribes while others were allies.
The A vars asserted their authority over many Slavs and other
peoples north of the Danube. Since the Slavs were divided into numer-
ous petty tribes, they were easily subjugated. The presence of the
A vars also surely sent other Slavs scurrying south across the Danube to
escape subjection or tribute. Rumanian archaeologists think still other
Slavs were driven up into Transylvania, and they date the arrival of the
Slavs in that region to the coming of the A vars. The presence of the
Avars also curtailed the pattern of gradual settlement of Slavs in the
Balkans. This had been the pattern up to then, and had it been al-
lowed to continue at the same slow rate, the empire in time probably
could have gradually hellenized them. For, despite some Slavic settle-
ment, there was up to that time no sign that the Roman Balkans had
lost their Roman character. However, the presence of the Avars, who
either mobilized Slavs as troops or caused them to flee in large num-
bers, was an impetus for large-scale Slavic settlement to the south of
the Danube.
The settlement of the Slavs was also facilitated by Byzantine in-
volvement during much of this period in a war with the Persians; thus
they could not bring troops to the Balkans. Furthermore, the Slavs
were aided in their conquest by their large numbers; they simply infil-
trated and eventually submerged whole regions. Their lack of organ-
ization was also a help; they had no overall political leader to defeat in
battle and thereby force their retreat. It was necessary to defeat each
individual little chief and tribe and that was impossible.
The Avars were masters of sieges, and now cities began falling to
them and their Slav clients. The loss of cities often led to the loss of
imperial control over whole regions. In 582 the Avars conquered the
Byzantine border fortress of Sirmium (modern Sremska Mitrovica),
which eliminated a major Byzantine border defense post, and soon the
Slavs were pouring into the Balkans. The fall of Sirmium has always
been depicted as a major event. Possibly its importance is somewhat
exaggerated, for before its fall it was possible to bypass Sirmium and
cross the Danube elsewhere. In addition, various sources mention
large-scale Slavic campaigns in the year before Sirmium's fall. In any

case, it fell in the period (581-84) during which most scholars date the
first massive Slavic invasion-settlement.
John of Ephesus-a contemporary but not local writer-states,
Three years after the death of Justin II under Tiberius [i.e., 581]
the cursed nation of Slavs campaigned, overran all Hellas, the
provinces of Thessaly and all of Thrace, taking many towns and
castles, laid waste, burned, pillaged, and seized the country. And
dwelt there in full liberty and without fear, as if it belonged to
them. This went on for four years, and until the present, because
the emperor was involved with the Persian war and the armies
were in the east.
He goes on to explain that the Slavs had a free hand to do what they
wanted, expanding where they would in the Balkans, and treating the
land like a conquered province up to the outer walls of Constantino-
ple, and "today they still are established and installed in, Roman prov-
inces, killing, burning, and pillaging, having learned to make war bet-
ter than the Romans."
Most scholars feel this long stay in the Balkans (581-84) is the
beginning of large-scale Slavic settlement, and it is close to the time
the sources give for the beginning of the Slavic occupation of Greece.
Menander-a late-sixth-century historian whose work only partially
survives in extracts incorporated in the works of later authors-speaks
of a hundred thousand Slavs in Thrace and of Greece being pillaged by
Slavs in 582. Evagrius-a church historian who died near the end of
the sixth century-states that in these years the Slavs twice reached the
Long Wall, captured Beograd and all of Hellas. And the Chronicle of
Monemvasia-a late-tenth- or early-eleventh-century source based on
earlier material-dates the beginning of Slavic settlement in Greece in
587. Thus the first half of the 580s were peak years for raids, warfare,
and destruction; the Slavs were relatively unopposed since the main
Byzantine forces were tied up in the east fighting the Persians.
For the period that follows, we have a major source about Thes-
saloniki and its environs in The Miracles of Saint Demetrius. These
hagiographic tales recount how the great saint reappeared from the
beyond to rescue his city from various crises, many of which were
Slavic and Avaro-Slavic sieges and attacks. The tales make it clear that
by the second decade of the seventh century massive Slavic settlements
existed in the environs of Thessaloniki. In fact, that city had become
virtually a Roman island in a Slavic sea.
The Byzantine Counteroffensive against the Avars
The Persian war ended in 591 and now at last the emperor Maurice
(582-602), a skilled general, was free to turn to the Balkans. He dis-
patched various military forces into the Balkans during the next decade.
The outline of the campaigns that follows is accurate but the actual dates
are not always certain. Thus the reader may find discrepancies of a year
or so between dates given here and those given elsewhere. In the ab-
sence of clearer sources, however, all that is certain is' the correct se-
quence of events; the actual dates must remain questionable.
Maurice rightly realized that the Avars were the key problem and
aimed his campaigns against them. He sent troops into the Balkans
which retook Beograd and pushed the Slavs and A vars back across the
old Danube-Sava frontier. This victory amounted to no more than
driving out the military peoples who had been in occupation of cities; it
certainly had little effect on the numerous nonmilitary Slavic settlers
scattered around the Balkans. Maurice's war lasted ten years; on the
whole it was successful despite various checks and small defeats. These
reverses usually occurred when Maurice became jealous of his success-
ful and able general Priscus. When this happened he recalled him,
replacing him with his own brother Peter who was a mediocre com-
mander. Peter was usually soundly trounced, necessitating Priscus be-
ing sent back to pick up the pieces.
The Avars did not give up without a fight and after their expulsion
they returned to lay siege to Beograd in 593 and 596. In 597 they sent a
massive raid through Dalmatia (then a broad province including also
most of modern Bosnia), which destroyed some forty fortresses. In
roughly 599 the Avars with a massive army broke through Byzantine
defenses all the way to the walls of Constantinople, where a plague
struck them, killing off large numbers, including several sons of the
khagan. The khagan at this point retreated, carting off many prisoners;
we are told he took seventeen thousand and demanded a ransom of
half a gold piece for each. When Maurice refused to pay the sum, the
Avars slaughtered them all. His failure to buy back the captives did
much to destroy Maurice's popularity, which was to influence the
events that followed. Byzantine armies were back in the field in 600,
when they regained Sirmium which reestablished the Danube as the
frontier. Peace was then agreed to by both sides for the sum of one
hundred twenty thousand gold pieces a year tribute to the A vars as
protection money.
But now for a change it was the Byzantines who broke the treaty,
and they did so almost immediately, still in 600; after campaigning for
about a month, they crossed the Danube, probably with the aim of
destroying the centers of Avar power. However, it was hard to make
permanent gains since the tribes beneath the Avars were loosely bound
to them; if one was defeated, it had no effect on others, and if one
alliance was smashed, others were formed. It was decided to attack the
real center of Avar power. So in 601 new forces were sent across the
Danube, marching up toward the Tisza River where they won a major
victory over the Avars. Hoping to follow this up and eliminate the
Avars once and for all, Maurice ordered the troops to winter there
across the Danube and then to continue the campaign the next year;
possibly he also was following the advice in the military manual attrib-
uted to him to campaign against the Slavs in the winter. However, the
troops were not used to wintering away from imperial territory and
morale was bad (it seems partly owing to Maurice's failure to ransom
the seventeen thousand captives), so a revolt broke out under an of-
ficer named Phocas. He brought the forces back over the Danube and
marched on Constantinople; civil war broke out at home and Phocas
was admitted into the capital. Maurice and his family, captured trying
to escape, were all butchered.
Byzantium Loses the Balkans
Almost immediately the Persian king of kings declared war on Phocas

to avenge Maurice, who had previously restored him to his throne.
This initiated a twenty-year war with Persia. Factions of what were
more or less street gangs ran wild in the capital. Phocas, who was
extremely suspicious, began purging large numbers of the highest and
most experienced military officers. Flunkies rose to high positions and
there seems to have been considerable financial corruption. The Bal-
kan frontier along the Danube and Sava, which Maurice had restored,
seems to have collapsed almost immediately and the Balkans were
opened once again to Slavic raids. Once again, as in the 580s, these
included large-scale settlement. Owing to the new Persian war, few
imperial troops were available to defend the Balkans. By 604 the
Avars, who had not bet>n destroyed, regrouped, and, as a result of
their demands, received a considerably increased tribute.
In the years that followed, under Phocas (602--10) and during the
early years of Heraclius (610--41), the Byzantine Empire, lacking in
money and manpower, was in no position to oppose the Slavs. The
Persian war continued, and in 615 Persian troops reached the Bospho-
rus. The Balkans were now freely overrun by Slavs who settled in even
larger numbers than previously. Slavic settlement at this time seems to
have been chiefly in what is now Bulgaria, Serbia, Macedonia, and parts
of Greece. Presumably this new settlement dates from the reign of
Phocas when the empire began to be beset by major difficulties. How-
ever, Barisic dates it from Heraclius' reign. He notes that no source
mentions Slavic activity in the Balkans during the reign of Phocas; the
many disasters that the sources mention all occurred after Heraclius had
taken the throne in 610. 2
Whereas the eastern lands were overrun by Slavs, the more west-
ern territories of what is now Yugoslavia (western Bosnia, Croatia,
and Dalmatia) seem to have chiefly suffered Avar raids. It has long
been believed that in these regions the Avars did not settle and that
the settlement which did occur was by Slavs who were under the
Avars. However, recently a strong case has been made that in these
western regions large-scale settlement by actual Avars occurred; 1 the
mid-tenth-century work known as De Administrando Imperio by the
emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus repeatedly states that Avars
settled this region. In addition, there is a variety of toponyms in this
region derived from early Turkish words (probably Avar), which con-
firms Constantine's information on Avar settlement. Furthermore, ar-
chaeologists have turned up Turkic (probably Avar) sites and objects
in these western regions as far south as what is now Montenegro.
Finally, up to the present, archaeologists have found no Slavic settle-
ments in this area from the sixth or early seventh centuries.
The raids increased in frequency in the second decade of the
seventh century. Slavs, having increased their numbers in what were
to become Bulgaria and Serbia, pressed south into Macedonia and
reached the Aegean. This settlement provided the basis for the Slavic
states that were to appear in these regions later. They penetrated into
Thessaly and on occasion ravaged Thrace where they also established
some settlements. They also raided some of the Greek islands.
Other marauders reached the Dalmatian coast which, after the
departure of the Goths, had, until then, suffered few incursions. It
seems likely that the Avars themselves played a major role in the
onslaught upon Dalmatia. Salona (near modern Split), the capital
city of the province of Dalmatia, which stretched from Kotor north
to !stria, was sacked and destroyed in 614. The population fled to
Diocletian's walled palace at Split which was able to hold out.
Thereafter Split rose quickly in importance as one of Dalmatia's
major cities. Constantine Porphyrogenitus in the De Administrando
Imperio gives two accounts of the sack of Salona: one (chap. 29) is
confused, at times calling the attackers Avars, at other times calling
them Slavs, and at still other times making the two terms synony-
mous. His other account (chap. 30) mentions only Avars. One can
suggest that the account emphasized the Avars not only because
they were prominent participants but also because they directed the
attacks. Since the numbers of actual Avars seem to have been lim-
ited, it seems likely that Slavs would have accompanied them. How-
ever, in this region the A vars retained direct control until they were
driven out a decade or two later by the Croats.
Constantine Porphyrogenitus then goes on to describe the con-
quest at this time of Zahumlje, Dioclea (Duklja, modern Montene-
gro), and the mouth of the Neretva. In these chapters he mentions
only Avars and makes no mention of Slavs, again crediting the Avars
with the major role. The evidence from toponyms and archaeology, as
has been noted, shows that there was some direct Avar settlement in
these regions as well. This, of course, does not rule out early settle-
ment by some Slav clients of the ruling Avars in these western regions.
For it is natural for a source to stress the role of the dominant people
who directed an attack and at times to ignore other peoples in their
armies, even if numerous. As a result of these Avar offensives in the
second decade of the seventh century the western part of what is now
Yugoslavia seems to have fallen under direct Avar rule, while the
eastern territories were under Slavs, some of whom may have been
connected with the Avars; but in the east Avar control, being nothing
more than indirect rule, was much looser than in the west.
In Dalmatia, besides Salona, the city of Epidaurus fell and the
inhabitants of that town fled to a more defensible spot where they
founded Dubrovnik (Ragusa). When the Avar campaigns were com-
pleted in Dalmatia, only Zadar, Trogir, Split, Dubrovnik, Budva, Ko-
tor, and most of the islands had withstood their attacks. The islands,
which had not had much importance until now, became a place of
asylum for refugees from the coast and, in particular, Rab, Krk, and
Cres became major food suppliers for the surviving cities of the main-
land which had lost control of the territory beyond their walls. Thus
the islands expanded both their fishing activities and agricultural pro-
duction. The major Dalmatian islands acquired a role they had not had
previously and were to have no longer after a Croatian state was
established in Dalmatia in the ninth century.
The surviving Dalmatian towns bore many similarities to the
Greek coastal towns which held out. The Greek towns remained
centers of Greek and Christian culture and were to play a major role in
rehellenizing Greece after Slavic occupation there. These Dalmatian
coastal towns, though failing to romanize the barbarians settling all
around them, would survive as Roman-Italian cities and would in time
serve as conduits for Christianity and urban literate culture to the

peoples of the interior.
Meanwhile within the interior of the Balkans most major cities fell
to the invaders, including Nis and Sardika (Sofija). Beograd somehow
managed to remain in Byzantine hands; Constantine Porphyrogenitus
mentions its governor dealing with the Serbs in about 630. Thessaloniki
also held out. But besides these two cities and various coastal towns, the
Balkan towns were overrun and imperial authority disappeared.
In the lost areas urban life disappeared or declined; many of the
towns became little more than villages. Commerce as well as communi-
cation across the Balkans virtually ceased owing to both urban decline
and the insecurity of the roads. Christianity as a religion of the Balkan
population almost disappeared in the interior. Literate culture more or
less died out.
Greece, except for certain coastal cities and certain mountainous
regions, was overrun by large numbers of Slavs and was lost to impe-
rial control. Slavs poured down to the tip of the Peloponnesus in
Greece. This Slavic settlement was on such a large scale that the Bal-
kans were lost for several centuries to the empire. When the dust
settled, the empire held only most of Thrace, a few walled cities along
the Dalmatian and Greek coasts, and many islands.
That so much territory was lost to imperial control suggests that
the invasions were massive. This conclusion is confirmed by source
references (possibly sometimes somewhat exaggerated) to large num-
bers of raiders (in one case to one hundred thousand participating in a
particular raid in Thrace). Since imperial control was lost from such a
large area, we can assume that, though the Balkans were not evenly
settled throughout, the Slavs must have had large numbers of settle-
ments in every region of the Balkans lost to the empire. At the same
time other Slavs settled in territory that remained imperial. Byzantine
sources tell of Slavs in Thrace who were not always as loyal as the
authorities might have liked.
Most of the Balkans was settled by Slavs of one of two types
(excluding the smaller groups of Slavic Slovenes and Turkic Avars in
the western Balkans). Each of these two main Slavic groups was to be
named for a second conquering group who appeared later in the sev-
enth century.
The first of these two groups was the Bulgaro-Macedonians,
whose Slavic component the Bulgarian historian Zlatarski derives from
the Antes. They were conquered in the late seventh century by the
Turkic Bulgars. The Slavs eventually assimilated them, but the Bul-
gars' name survived. It denoted this Slavic group from the ninth cen-
tury throughout the rest of the medieval period into modern times.
Until the late nineteenth century both outside observers and those
Bulgaro-Macedonians who had an ethnic consciousness believed that
their group, which is now two separate nationalities, comprised a
single people, the Bulgarians. Thus the reader should ignore refer-
ences to ethnic Macedonians in the Middle Ages which appear in some
modern works. In the Middle Ages and into the nineteenth century,
the term Macedonian was used entirely in reference to a geographical
region. Anyone who lived within its confines, regardless of nationality,
could be called a Macedonian. Nevertheless, the absence of a national
consciousness in the past is no grounds to reject the Macedonians as a
nationality today.
The second of the two Slavic groups settling in the Balkans was the
Serbo-Croatian Slavs, whom Zlatarski derives from the Slaveni. These
Slavs came to be dominated by two different but similar tribal peoples
called Serbs and Croats in the second quarter of the seventh century.
But though subjected by a smaller military elite of true Serbs and
Croats, who gave to the larger number of Slavs these new names, the
masses who made up these peoples go back to a single group of Slavs
(probably Slaveni) who settled in the Balkans during the sixth and early
seventh centuries. Though in the twentieth century increasing numbers
of their descendants have come to feel otherwise, they were a single
people (though one broken up into many small tribal groups).
Fate of the Indigenous Balkan Population
What was the fate of the indigenous population? Many were killed,
while others were carried off beyond the Danube as captives (some of
whom were ransomed and returned), or fled to walled cities or to the
islands. Still others withdrew to the mountains or remote regions, and
their descendants reappeared later as Vlachs or Albanians who begin
to turn up in written sources in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. The
Thracians disappeared from history. But many indigenous peoples
surely simply remained; perhaps in their original homes or perhaps
moving a short distance to establish new homes in the same general
area. Thus there came to be Slavs in every region of the Balkans
(including imperial territory like Thrace) but they were not every-
where; considerable numbers of the indigenous population remained,
sometimes in isolated pockets and sometimes in close proximity or
even in the same communities with the Slavs. Presumably Slavic con-
centrations were heaviest along the main routes. For example, along
the Orient Express route (Beograd, Nis, to either Sofija or Thessalo-
niki) are found references to early settlement, and many Slavic place-
names show up there early. Along this route, owing to constant raids,
the greatest depopulation would have occurred, leaving lands vacant to
be taken by the newcomers. Presumably also in the nearby fertile
regions of central Serbia there was large-scale early settlement.
Probably fewer Slavs penetrated early into more remote or less
fertile regions, e.g., Lika, much of Bosnia and Hercegovina, and Mon-
tenegro. Here were refuge areas where the original population could
have remained in larger numbers, possibly joined by refugees from
other areas. Such a process would have been more likely if in fact these
regions had been areas of direct Avar rule. Because the Avars were
primarily pastoralists and not numerous, one would not expect them to
have completely depopulated an area when they took it over but rather
to have ruled over the existing population, collecting tribute or taxes. In
these western refuge areas, then, it is likely that the ratio of indigenous
people to Slavs would have been higher. If so, this probably would have
led to more indigenous influence on these Slavs, and the greater the
number of remaining pre-Slavic peoples, the greater would have been
the intermixture of the two groups and the greater the likelihood of their
forming joint communities of the type for which Rumanian archaeolo-
gists think they have found evidence in Rumania.
Archaeology in western Yugoslavia shows considerable cultural
continuity from the pre-Slavic to the Slavic population. Frequently the
same towns continued to function as did many fortresses; the Croatian
zupa (territorial) organization seems to have been heavily influenced
by the earlier Illyrian territorial organization. A continuity of cult and
graveyard sites exists; the Slavs took over the techniques of the indige-
nous population in tomb construction. The Slavs acquired indigenous
metallurgical techniques, leading them to produce many of the same
type of metal farm implements and household objects as their prede-
cessors. Slavic house construction also reflects many indigenous influ-
ences. The acquisition of such things as metalworking techniques and
architectural and grave-construction features suggests that close and
friendly contacts existed in places between the two populations.
The Archaeological Evidence
In general, archaeologists have dated Slavic settlement in the Balkans

to the seventh century. They claim the scarcity of (and some even feel
the total lack of) Slavic sites in the Balkans from the sixth century is
evidence for initial Slavic settlement in the seventh rather than the
sixth century.
However, Irma Cremosnik presents good evidence for at least two

sixth-century Slavic sites in eastern Bosnia (Dvorovi near Bijeljina and
MusiCi near Visegrad). 4 Despite the date of these two sites, some
scholars argue that the basic conclusion of archaeologists still is ten-
able. Yet, if two such settlements existed in relatively remote places
like Visegrad and Bijeljina, it seems probable that were funds avail-
able for massive exploration and excavation many other sixth-century
sites might be discovered. Furthermore, the most intensively studied
areas lie in western Yugoslavia, which seems to have been chiefly a
region of A var settlement. The two sixth-century Bosnian sites are in
easternmost Bosnia along the Drina River, which forms the border
with Serbia. Presumably, if one is seeking sixth-century Slavic sites,
intensive work must be done in more eastern regions.
Professor Barisic also points out that because most Slavs were
agriculturists, their settlements would have been in rural areas outside
the cities. Because most archaeologists (particularly in Serbia where
one would expect the earliest Slavic settlement along the Morava and
Timok rivers) have concentrated their work on cities, it is hardly sur-
prising that few sixth-century Slavic sites have been found. 5 Further-
more, peasant villages would have left fewer and less monumental
remains; thus peasant sites would be harder to discover.
In Serbia archaeologists have based their conclusions for no sixth-
century Slavic settlement on their excavations of cities. They point to
the discovery of Byzantine coins in cities throughout the Balkans from
the reigns of most all of the sixth-century emperors up to and including
the reigns of Phocas (602-10) and Heraclius (610-41). They believe
this shows that the Byzantines kept the cities into the seventh century.
Some scholars feel this means the Byzantines held the surrounding
countryside as well. However, again we must pause. The situation of
Thessaloniki has been noted; this city remained Roman while its sur-
rounding countryside was largely Slavic. Such could easily have been
the pattern for other cities as well. Moreover, the presence of Byzan-
tine coins from dates well into the seventh century need not mean
Byzantine possession. Slavs could have come by these coins through
looting and trade.
Misdating of sites may be another reason for there seeming to be
fewer sixth-century localities than there actually are. In many cases
dating is done on very tenuous grounds, and some so-called seventh-
century sites could well be sixth-century and, conversely, localities
declared to be extremely early could really be from a century or so
later. But at present, assuming that the dating of known sites is cor-
rect, it is a fact that there is very little archaeological evidence of Slavic
settlement from the sixth century. However, regardless of archaeologi-

cal finds, written sources provide material for a different conclusion.
The Slavic place-names mentioned by Procopius, and noted earlier,
are clear evidence of some sixth-century Slavic settlement.
A second problem with the conclusions of archaeologists has been
their attributing sites to particular peoples. It seems to me that there is
frequently a great leap of faith in labeling many of the early sites. How
can one be sure whether a site is pre-Slavic or Slavic? To date it is not
sufficient since pre-Slavic peoples survived into and after the seventh
century. Frequently few objects are found in graves to give us a basis
to assign a site to one group or another. Often the few objects found
are not conclusive to label the site even though certain archaeologists
may claim certainty. For example, wavy-line pottery motifs are often
credited to the Slavs; they did have such motifs but this motif was
found all over Europe. The so-called Slavic button types seem not to
be unique; the so-called Slavic fibula is found among Germans into the
seventh century, and Visigoths ruled Bosnia from 490 to 535. Thus
many of the "proof" items are not certain. To this situation must be
added the subjective factors of the excavators, some of whom want the
sites they uncover to belong to their own special period or peoples or
to their own ancestors; such archaeologists may exercise special plead-
ing and pass off hypotheses as facts. In addition, since cultural borrow-
ings occurred and objects were acquired in commerce, so-called Slavic
items can turn up in non-Slavic graves and vice versa. Frequently it is
impossible to ascertain to whom a site belongs.
One further problem remains. If the indigenous population re-
mained in some areas in large numbers, then why did Christianity die
out throughout the interior? For archaeologists have concluded that
this is indeed what happened. Though the dating of early Balkan
churches is a most controversial subject, with archaeologists disagree-
ing as to whether certain churches are pre-Slavic (fourth to sixth cen-
tury) or early Slavic Christian (ninth to eleventh), they do agree that
there was a gap without churches that included the seventh and eighth
centuries.
Their conclusions leave three possibilities: ( 1) the generally ac-
cepted view believes that as a result of the Slavic invasions the indige-
nous Christians were more or less eliminated from the area and Chris-
tianity in the interior almost completely died out; (2) the dating of
some of the churches is incorrect and actually there are churches from
every century, in which case Christianity did not entirely disappear;
and (3) since few pre-Slavic churches have been found in the interior,
possibly the indigenous population was not really that deeply Chris-
tianized. When the invasions came the priests and missionaries fled,
and the indigenous peoples, though remaining in numbers in the Bal-
kans, in time lost what Christian beliefs they had had and reverted to
paganism. In any case, the fate of Christianity shows that either the
balance between indigenous population and Slav was heavily in favor
of the latter or else the indigenous populations had been shaky Chris-
tians who easily shed this religion for other rites.
In conclusion, in many regions of the Balkans after the invasions
there were two populations-old-timers and newcomers. In time, ow-
ing to the superior numbers of Slavs (again suggesting the invasions
were massive), the descendants of the indigenous population on the
whole were assimilated and became Slavic-speaking, whereas in
Greece (in time, aided by more Greeks being settled there in the ninth
century, plus the role of church and administration) the smaller num-
ber of Slavs scattered throughout Greece came to be hellenized.
The Avars: From Peak Strength to Decline, 614-ca. 635
Slavic and A var Threats to Thessaloniki, 614-17
Between 614 and 616, at the same time that the Avars were leading
their major offensive against Dalmatia, The Miracles of Saint Deme-
trius describes the attacks by five named Slavic tribes by sea in small
boats along the coasts of Thessaly, western Anatolia, and various
Greek islands. They then decided to capture Thessaloniki in a com-
bined land and sea attack. Under the walls of the city they camped
with whole families. They were led by a chief (the Greek title used is
exarch) named Chatzon. During the sea attack, a vision of Saint De-
metrius was seen by the whole town population, including the Jews,
showing that the famous Jewish colony in Thessaloniki was already
established. Right after this vision a sudden shift of the wind occurred
and many boats capsized. The sailors who had been spilled out tried to
climb into other canoes which now became overloaded and capsized in
their turn. To save themselves, those still in boats beat off the others
with oars and many drowned. Following this disaster, the Slavs re-
treated and many of their prisoners escaped.
Shortly thereafter Chatzon received a safe conduct and was al-
lowed to visit the city; however, within the city a mob rioted, and the
leaders of the city were unable to protect Chatzon, who was killed. His
furious tribesmen then sent an embassy to the Avars. The embassy
brought gifts and offered gold and prisoners to the Avars if they would
help the local Slavs take Thessaloniki. The Slavs told the khagan that
to take the city would be an easy task because Thessaloniki was en-
tirely encircled by Slavs who had depopulated all the other towns; it
stood alone, attracting refugees from the Danube, Pannonia, and Da-
cia. The Miracles specifically refers to refugees from Nis and Sardika,
showing that these cities had already fallen. The khagan accepted the
offer and assembled an army of Avars, Slavs, Bulgars, and other
peoples. After two years of preparations, the khagan arrived and de-
manded that the city surrender. His demands were refused and the city
suffered a thirty-three-day siege during which the environs were
plundered. Then finally a treaty was drawn up, the Avars were paid off
and the prisoners held by the Avars were ransomed. This story shows
that the Slavic settlement was well advanced and provides evidence of
the fall of two rna jor cities from the interior.
A var Threats to Constantinople
At roughly the same time-the date is disputed but most scholars

accept 617-the A vars sent envoys to treat with the emperor Herac-
lius. The emperor went out to meet them, but as he approached the
place set for the meeting, he was warned of a large number of armed
A vars preparing an ambush. He fled and just managed to find the
safety of Constantinople's walls in time. Angry at the failure ~o capture
the emperor, the khagan ravaged the environs of Constantinople. Two
years later, in 619 (unless it is actually the aftermath of the event just
described from 617), there seems to have been a second Avar attack
which ravaged Thrace and then returned to the Danube carrying off,
we are told, two hundred seventy thousand people.
In 621 peace was concluded between the empire and the Avars,
giving Heraclius briefly a free hand to turn against the Persians who in
619 had conquered Egypt, which, among other things, was the main
source of grain for Constantinople. In 622 the Avars demanded and
received increased tribute, and some relatives of the emperor had to
be sent off to the Avars as hostages; but the peace allowed Heraclius
to continue his campaigns in the east. Four years later in 626, however,
the emperor's worst fears were realized when the Avars and Persians
seem to have teamed up to attack the capital. A horde of Avars, Slavs,
Bulgars, Gepids (a Germanic tribe), and other barbarians under the
command of the khagan appeared before the walls of Constantinople.
A small Persian army appeared on the Asiatic side. Whether their
appearance was by prearrangement or whether the Persians, hearing of
the Avar attack, sent a squadron thither to get in on the act and obtain
some of the fruits of victory is a matter of scholarly debate. At the
time Heraclius was in Armenia recruiting soldiers to lead an attack on

Persia itself, and the defense of the capital was in the hands of the
patriarch. Persian envoys sailed across to Europe to meet with the
A vars, but on their way back they were captured by the Byzantines.
The khagan demanded the surrender and evacuation of Constanti-
nople; the citizens were told they would be allowed to leave with only
their clothes on their backs, but with no baggage. The Slavs were
mentioned as being on foot with no armor, a description which agrees
with those from the previous century. The Slavs also had their fleet of
small boats there, presumably having sailed down from the Black Sea;
but this fleet was annihilated by the Byzantine fleet, and, according to
the Byzantine sources, after this defeat the enraged khagan butchered
all the surviving Slavic sailors who fell into his hands. The khagan was
not prepared for a long siege, and, having failed by sea, he retreated.
Many Slavs then deserted.
Most scholars see this as the beginning of the end for the Avars;
this was their last attack on Constantinople. After its failure the Byz-
antines ceased to pay the A vars tribute. In 629 a battle occurred be-
tween Slavs and Avars. Shortly thereafter the Avars suffered two ma-
jor defeats. The first was at the hands of the Croats, who then set up
an independent state in Illyricum. Secondly, the Bulgars near the Sea
of Azov under Kovrat's leadership liberated themselves around 635. In
addition, prior to the attack on Constantinople (a western chronicle
dates it 623) some Czechs under Sarno, allied to the Franks, success-
fully broke away from the A vars and established their own state. But
though various Avar defeats and Avar decline followed the 626 events,
it would be difficult to show how the failure of an offensive campaign
and a quarrel with certain Slavic subjects were responsible for that
decline.
The Bulgar Revolt of Kovrat, ca. 635
From the late fifth century the Bulgars, a Turkic people, had been
living in scattered tribes north of the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov
and along the lower Don. They were in two major groups: Kutrigurs
who had moved west of the Black Sea in the 490s and the Utigurs to
their east. In the first half of the sixth century both groups raided the
empire from time to time, and Justinian was fairly effective at either
buying them off with tribute or playing off one group against the other.
In the second half of the sixth century both of these groups were
subjected by other nomads, the more westerly Kutrigurs by the Avars
and the more easterly Utigurs by a group known as the West Turks.
By the 630s the sources mention a group of Onogur Bulgars living

in the region between the Caucasus and the Sea of Azov under a ruler
named Kovrat. He had already established good relations with the
empire. Two ninth-century historians, Theophanes and Nicephorus
(probably from a common source, however), report that in 619 an
Onogur Bulgar prince Organa (Orhan) and his nephew Kovrat had
come to Constantinople, made a treaty with the empire, and accepted
Christianity. After a lengthy visit in the capital, the two Onogurs re-
turned to their people in the east.
Soon Kovrat became the ruler of the Onogurs and in 635 he threw
off Avar rule, drove the Avars from his lands, and once again con-
cluded an alliance with the empire. He also succeeded in uniting all the
eastern Bulgar groups who were living north of the Black Sea, Sea of
Azov, and the Caucasus. Kovrat died in roughly 642, leaving five sons.
No sign of Christianity is seen among any of them. Each of the five
sons, probably around 660, migrated to a different place with a follow-
ing. Two of the five are important to us. First, an unnamed son with
his supporters moved west and settled in Pannonia, accepting Avar
suzerainty. (The Avars, despite a series of seventh-century defeats
leading to the loss of much of their empire, continued to retain their
centers in the Hungarian plain until Charlemagne defeated them in the
790s.) Second, another son, Isperikh (or Asparukh) moved into what
is now Bessarabia, and then in the 670s crossed the Danube into Bul-
garia. He conquered the Slavic tribes there and eventually established
a Bulgarian state. It was centered in the northeast of present-day Bul-
garia, stretching along both sides of the lower Danube, and extending
south to the Balkan mountains. In passing, we may note that a third
son established the Volga Bulgars who eventually accepted Islam and
acquired an important role in that region.
The Controversy over Kuver
The Miracles of Saint Demetrius (Miracle II, 5) describes a certain chief

called Kuver-generally thought to be a Bulgar-who had been made
governor by the Avars over a mixed population of Christian Bulgars,
Greeks, and other people in the region of Sirmium. This mixed popula-
tion had been made captive "about sixty years before" at the time of the
unsuccessful attack against Thessaloniki by the Slavs under Chatzon
(described in Miracle II, 1) and the Avar intervention that followed.
These events occurred between 614 and 618 and, if we add sixty years to
this, we obtain a date in the late 670s. It is even possible that these
people were the descendants of the two hundred seventy thousand cap-
tives taken in Thrace and carried off beyond the Danube in about 6 l 9.
Though they had long been cut off from their roots, these subjects under
Kuver had retained their Christianity and their desire to return to their
ancestral homeland (which most scholars place in Thrace and/or Mace-
donia). Kuver, learning of their sentiments, revolted; his subjects sup-
ported him.
They began a migration south; the Avars attacked them five or six
times and each time Kuver was victorious; finally, the A var khagan
had to withdraw with those still faithful to him further to the west, i.e.,
to the northwest of his state. Kuver then crossed the Danube with his
people and came to "our region" (i.e., near Thessaloniki) and occu-
pied a plain whose name is given but which means nothing to us now.
Zlatarski claims the plain was near Bitola; however, Bitola seems a bit
far from Thessaloniki to be considered in "our region."
Kuver sent an envoy to the Byzantine emperor (who unfortu-
nately is unnamed) for permission to settle there with his people and
requested that the Slavs of Dragovica supply him with food. These
Slavs were one of the five tribes mentioned in 614. They were to give
their name to a region in Thrace for which a later dualist church was to
be named. Kuver's request was granted and he and his followers set-
tled inside imperial territory; possibly the empire saw him and his
people in the role of federates. This event must have occurred after
658, the date of a campaign by the emperor Constans II into this
region, because prior to the 658 campaign no imperial control existed
in this region and there would have been no reason to seek imperial
permission. 6 In addition, prior to 658 no emperor would have had any
authority over the Dragovica Slavs. Once settled there, Kuver's people
in Thrace and Macedonia wanted to disperse and return to their origi-
nal or ancestral homes. Kuver's advisors opposed this for they wanted
to keep them together as a group with Kuver as khagan; for if they
were allowed to disperse he would lose his whole power base. Kuver
now requested the emperor to oppose this dispersal and to sanction
Kuver's authority over them.
Possibly rebuffed, Kuver soon thereafter turned against the em-
pire. Realizing that he needed a base and fortified center, he decided
to capture Thessaloniki. He tried to take the city by ruse: he set off a
civil war in the city in the midst of which the gates were to be opened
to him. However, his agents were unmasked by Saint Demetrius and
the city did not fall, and there the story ends, for the purpose of the
story was to show how the saint saved the city, and the preceding was
given just to provide the context for the miracle. The Miracles say no
more about Kuver and his following, and other sources do not mention
him by name though one event, mentioned in a Byzantine chronicle

which shall be discussed at the end of this chapter, may involve his
Bulgars.
The Bulgarian scholar Zlatarski suggests that Kuver, whose revolt
he dates ca. 670-75, was the unnamed son of Kovrat who had left the
Steppes in the 660s. This son, as mentioned, had moved west to Pan-
nonia with his following and had accepted A var suzerainty. Once
there, presumably since he was an important prince, the khagan as-
signed him to rule the territory on which these descendants of earlier
Byzantine captives lived. Thus Zlatarski concludes that, after the arri-
val of Isperikh (Asparukh) and his Bulgars in the northeast of modern
Bulgaria in the 670s, there were two Bulgar states in the Balkans, the
rulers of which were brothers: (1) Isperikh's in northeastern Bulgaria
on the Danube, extending south toward, but not beyond, the Balkan
mountains, and (2) Kuver's state in Macedonia.
The chronological pattern of the Miracle anecdotes themselves
confirms the above dating of Kuver's revolt to the 670s (i.e., sixty
years after Chatzon's attack). Book II of the Miracles, consisting of six
episodes, was compiled in the 680s and describes events occurring
between the 610s and 670s-80s. Episodes 1-2 on Chatzon and on the
Avar attack that was its aftermath clearly took place in the middle to
second half of the second decade of the seventh century; episode 3
consists of minor events that seem to have occurred around 630; epi-
sode 4 is almost certainly in the late 670s. Episodes 5 and 6 convey the
Kuver story and, other than the reference to the sixty years, contain no
specific dates or names of figures we can date from other sources. But
the fact that the preceding episodes are in chronological order with
number 4 in the 670s suggests that Kuver's revolt occurred after num-
ber 4 in the late 670s or early 680s. This gives the same result as adding
sixty years to 618.
This all seems quite clear-cut, and Barisic, Zlatarski, Dujcev, and,
most recently, Charanis have all made strong cases for this dating.
However, many scholars have not accepted the dating of ca. 680 for
Kuver; instead they have posited the revolt around 635-40. Simply
ignoring the clear link to Chatzon's revolt, they have dated the Kuver
story sixty years from the major Slav attacks mentioned by John of
Ephesus around 581-84. It was possible, these scholars have argued,
that the author of the Miracles, who is often not precise on earlier
events, might have been confused over time duration, or that he might
not have known which raid had been responsible for carrying off the
captives.
Though the source refers to Kuver "in our times" (with Book II
being composed in the 680s) some have argued that the author in the
680s was simply copying an earlier source from ca. 640 (for clearly the
author had used earlier sources when he compiled the anecdotes in
Miracles, II, 1-3) and failed to alter that phrase in his copying. It has
also been argued that the 618 date for the captives was accurate, but
the figure sixty was not only a round number but a highly inaccurate
one. Sixty years, it has been argued, is a very long time to hold cus-
toms and wish to return "home"; and though the source says the
parents had taught their children their old traditions, still their behav-
ior on returning to the empire-when they did not wish to remain near
Thessaloniki under Kuver but desired to return to their own villages-
seems more like that of first-generation people. And if it was a first
generation which was involved, then the date for these events would
be nearer 635-40.
But why this dickering in the face of all the internal evidence
given above? (1) The 630s and 640s were a time of general revolt
against the Avars; (2) Fredegar's chronicle-a late-seventh-century
Frankish source-refers to a civil war for succession within the Avar
empire in which the Bulgars had their own candidate (whose name is
not given) for the throne. This, if nothing else, shows the strength of
the Bulgars within the Avar empire (in having their own candidate for
the throne). Frede gar's Bulgar rebels were forced to flee and nine
thousand of them, together with women and children, were chased out
of Pannonia and sought refuge with Dagobert of Bavaria from whom
they asked asylum in the Frankish land. Once there Dagobert split
them up and tried to massacre them all. In the end only seven hundred
were able to escape. Fredegar dates this event 631-32.
Some scholars have assumed that this story refers to Kuver's re-
volt and have made slight of the differences in the story, noting that
Fredegar as a distant western source probably received his information
third or fourth hand. Fredegar's rebels lost in battle against the Avars
whereas Kuver won; but in both cases the rebels revolted in Pannonia
and then emigrated.
However, what is important is that they departed to entirely dif-
ferent places and met entirely different fates; for we have detailed
accounts of where Kuver and his people went and what happened to
them in Macedonia when they got there, and we have a detailed ac-
count of where the unnamed Bulgar rebel and his following went and
what happened to them in Bavaria. Thus I think it is safe to conclude
that Fredegar was speaking of an entirely different event, one which
occurred in 631-32 as he dates it but which has no bearing on the
separate Kuver revolt which has to be dated on the basis of the other
evidence we have and which evidence, as seen above, suggests it was in

the late 670s or early 680s.
Also influencing many scholars to choose the earlier date is the
Byzantine chronicles' mention of a Bulgar leader named Kovrat or
Kuvrat revolting against the Avars in ca. 635. Many scholars, influ-
enced by the similarity of the names, have concluded that Kuver was
the same man as Kovrat. They point out that, in addition to similar
names, they both revolted against the Avars. If one dates Kuver early,
then they are contemporaries. Both sent envoys to the emperor (in
Kuver's case to the unnamed emperor). Lemerle and Gregoire have
concluded that the two men are the same. However, there are serious
difficulties with this identification. In addition to the evidence that
Kuver may well be a generation later is the fact that the two revolts are
clearly described as taking place in entirely different regions. Kovrat's
revolt was in the vicinity of the Sea of Azov, while Kuver's was far
from there in Pannonia. And, according to the Byzantine historians,
Kovrat and his family, after their revolt, remained in the Steppe re-
gion. It is only much later in the 660s that two sons moved west. Thus
the two revolts took place in different places and the aftermath of the
two is different. In Kuver's case there was a migration to the region of
Thessaloniki while Kovrat, having liberated his own territory near
Azov, did not move at all.
In my opinion, these arguments make this identification impos-
sible; and though the names Kuver and Kovrat are similar, both are
foreign names (one certainly and the other probably Bulgar) ren-
dered into Greek. The Greeks were notorious for distorting foreign
names when rendering them into the Greek phonetic system, and as
cultural snobs, they never had any interest in getting barbarian
names correctly. Possibly Kovrat and Kuver in the original Turkic
were not really that similar. A later Bulgar kings' list mentions a
seventh-century ruler named Kurt whom most scholars have, I
think correctly, identified with Kovrat. Thus if Kovrat's real name
was Kurt (and this form, coming from a Bulgar source, is probably
closer to the original), then there is considerable distortion in the
Greek giving the name as Kovrat. Moreover, even if Kuver and
Kovrat are different versions of the same name, it is possible that
this was a very common Bulgar name. If Zlatarski is correct in
making Kuver Kovrat's son, it very likely was the same name, with
the son being named for his father.
Thus the Kovrat-Kuver identity does not hold up, and Kovrat
cannot be used as evidence to date Kuver in the 630s. However,
though Kovrat is not Kuver, this is not absolute proof that Kuver must
be assigned to ca. 680. But it does seem that the weight of evidence
strongly adds up to Kuver being active in the late 670s.
The Establishment of the Croatians and Serbs
There were several revolts against the Avars in the period from the
620s to about 640: Sarno's revolt in what is now Czechoslovakia in 623,
the reference to fighting between Slavs and Avars in 629, and Kovrat's
Bulgar revolt in 635. There was one other major offensive against the
Avars, that of the Croatians who liberated much of the western Bal-
kans from the Avars during the reign of Heraclius. At the same time
the Serbs arrived, and though they did not actually battle the Avars,
they did assert their authority over some Slavs who had been under
Avar suzerainty.
The major source on the arrival in the Balkans of the Croatians
and Serbs is Constantine Porphyrogenitus's De Administrando Im-
perio7 written by the emperor in the late 940s or early 950s as a foreign
policy guide for his son and heir. This is not an ideal source for these
migrations because Constantine is describing events that occurred in
the second quarter of the seventh century. However, the Byzantines
had a chancellery which kept information on barbarian tribes and
much of the information for this book evidently came from there;
furthermore the empire kept records over the centuries, for at times in
treaties references are made to former treaties from several centuries
before. Thus much of this information, if it was derived from chan-
cellery records, was probably accurate. However, this does not mean
that all of Constantine's information came from the chancellery nor is
there any guarantee that everything preserved in the chancellery was
reliable.
Constantine's discussion of what is now Yugoslavia is contained in
chapters 29 to 36. He swings back and forth in time, covering events
before the appearance of the Slavs and A vars, their arrival, the subse-
quent arrival of the Croatians and Serbs a bit later in the seventh
century, and various items from the ninth century. Chapters 29, 31-36
are a consecutive text. Chapter 30 is a later addition but still presuma-
bly dates from the time of the emperor Constantine; it was probably
written by a second author. However, chapter 30 was composed inde-
pendently of the others and contains a mixture of material contained in
the other chapters and new material not found in them. The author
seems unaware of what was said in 29 and 31. Thus the book evidently
never received its final editing, which presumably would have incorpo-
rated 30 into the other relevant chapters and would have come to some
decisions on contradictory material. This conclusion is reasonable be-

cause it is evident that the book was not completed; some of the most
important neighbors of the empire, far more important to Constan-
tine's son than the more distant Serbs and Croatians, are never dis-
cussed. For example, the Bulgarians, Khazars, and Russians never
receive specific treatment but are mentioned only in passing references
in discussions of other peoples. Presumably Constantine intended to
discuss them but never got to it.
In chapter 30, Constantine first gives a clearly legendary account
of how the Avars crossed the Danube, defeated the Romans and occu-
pied, partly by guile, much of the Roman province of Dalmatia. This
province, as noted before, was far broader than the narrow strip we
now think of as Dalmatia, and included much of western Bosnia. In
this account, Constantine makes the Avars the leading actors and does
not mention Slavs at all. However, in chapter 29 Constantine at times
speaks of Slavs and at times of Avars, and at times uses the two words
as synonyms. It has been concluded previously that this territory was
under the direct rule of the A vars and in it there were actual A var
settlements. However, there probably also was some settlement in this
territory by Slavs who were clients of the Avars. Constantine goes on
to say in chapter 30:
[And the Avars] thereafter made themselves masters of all the

country of Dalmatia and settled down in it. Only the townships on
the coast held out against them, and continued to be in the hands
of the Romans, because they obtained their livelihood from the
sea. The Avars, then seeing this land to be most fair, settled down
in it. But the Croats at this time were dwelling beyond Bavaria,
where the Belocroats [White Croats] are now. From them split off
a family of five brothers, Kloukas and Lobelos and Kosentzis and
Mouchlo and Chrobatos, and two sisters, Touga and Bouga, who
came with their folk to Dalmatia and found the Avars in posses-
sion of that land. After they had fought one another for some
years, the Croats prevailed and killed some of the Avars and the
remainder they compelled to be subject to them. And so from that
time this land was possessed by the Croats, and there are still in
Croatia some who are of A var descent and are recognized as
Avars. The rest of the Croats stayed over against Francia, and are
now called Belocroats, that is, white Croats, and have their own
prince; they are subject to Otto, the great king of Francia, or
Saxony, and are unbaptized, and intermarry and are friendly with
the Turks [i.e., the Hungarians, whom Constantine consistently
calls Turks]. From the Croats who came to Dalmatia a part split
off and possessed themselves of lllyricum and Pannonia; they too
had an independent prince, who used to maintain friendly contact,
though through envoys only, with the prince of Croatia [i.e., in
Dalmatia]. For a number of years the Croats of Dalmatia also
were subject to the Franks, as they had formerly been in their own
country [i.e., in White Croatia]; but the Franks treated them with
such brutality that ... the Croats, unable to endure such treat-
ment from the Franks, revolted from them, and slew those of
them whom they had for princes. On this, a large army from
Francia marched against them, and after they had fought one
another for seven years, at last the Croats managed to prevail and
destroyed all the Franks with their leader, who was called Kotzilis.
From that time they remained independent and autonomous, and
they requested the holy baptism from the the bishop of Rome,
and bishops were sent who baptized them in the time of Porinos
their prince. Their country was divided into 11 'zupanijas' [which
he then goes on to name].
Most of this material concerns later events and will be dealt with
in a later chapter. We shall see that there were to be two different
Croatian states, one in Dalmatia and one in Pannonia. This account
telescopes matters; the Franks did not gain control of these Croatian
regions until the 790s and the first decade of the ninth century. The
revolts against the Franks occurred in the third quarter of the ninth
century. The missionary activities from Rome also are ninth-century
events. The material about the war against the Avars shall be con-
sidered after we have examined the account given in chapter 31. Here
it is just worth noting that Constantine stresses the actual presence of
Avars (as opposed to Slavs) and notes that in Croatia in his time there
were still people recognizable as Avars. And archaeologists have found
in western Bosnia Avar artifacts which they have dated as late as the
ninth century.
In chapter 31 Constantine says:
The Croats who now live in the region of Dalmatia are de-
scended from the unbaptized Croats, also called 'white,' who live
beyond Turkey [i.e., Hungary] and next to Francia, and have for
Slav neighbours the unbaptized Serbs. 'Croats' in the Slav tongue
means 'those who occupy much territory.' [?] These same Croats
arrived to claim the protection of the emperor of the Romans
Heraclius before the Serbs claimed the protection of the same
emperor Heraclius, at that time when the Avars had fought and
expelled from those parts the Romani .... These same Romani
having been expelled by the Avars in the days of this same em-
peror of the Romans Heraclius, their countries were made deso-
late. And so, by command of the emperor Heraclius these same
Croats defeated and expelled the A vars from those parts, and by
mandate of Heraclius the emperor they settled down in that same
country of the Avars, where they now dwell. These same Croats
had at that time for prince the father of Porgas. The emperor
Heraclius sent and brought priests from Rome, and made of them
an archbishop and a bishop and elders and deacons, and baptized
the Croats; and at that time these Croats had Porgas for their
prince .... The prince of Croatia has from the beginning, that is,
ever since the reign of Heraclius the emperor, been in servitude
and submission to the emperor of the Romans, and was never
made subject to the prince of Bulgaria. Nor has the Bulgarian
ever gone to war with the Croats, except when Michael Boris,
prince of Bulgaria, went and fought them and, unable to make
any headway, concluded peace with them.
Constantine then goes on to stress the traditional friendship and gifts

exchanged between the Bulgarians and Croatians and ends his account
by noting that Great Croatia called White was still unbaptized in his
day as were the Serbs who are neighboring on it.
It is interesting to note that Constantine, in this chapter, denies
the established fact that the Croatians had once been subject to the
Franks. Moreover, he strangely mentions a minor Bulgarian-Croatian
skirmish almost a century earlier and ignores the massive conflict be-
tween the Bulgarians and Croatians in his own lifetime (in 926) when
Symeon, Byzantium's major enemy, invaded Croatia and was trounced
soundly by Tomislav, a Byzantine ally.
In chapter 32 Constantine discusses the Serbs. He also makes
them originate from some unbaptized peoples called "White." This
Serbia lay beyond Hungary, neighboring on Francia and White Cro-
atia. Two brothers, whose names are not given, took half the Serbian
folk and claimed the protection of the emperor Heraclius. The em-
peror received them and gave them land in the province of Thessalo-
niki (a province settled by many Slavs prior to that reign) at a place
called Serblia. He then gives us a folk etymology, deriving the word
Serb from the Latin servus (slave), and claims the Serbs were slaves of
the Roman emperor. After some time they decided to depart home
and the emperor sent them off but having crossed the Danube they
sought permission to return from the Byzantine military governor rep-

resenting Heraclius at Beograd. Thus all this movement happened dur-
ing that emperor's reign. They were then given land to settle on in
what is now Serbia (i.e., the region of the Lim and Piva rivers), Paga-
nia (the lower Neretva), Zahumlje, Trebinje, and Konavli, regions
which had been made desolate by the Avars.
Constantine makes no mention of Serbs fighting the Avars and
there is no evidence that the Serbs did fight them, even though the
Avars had previously directly controlled at least part of this territory.
In these territories listed as Serbian Constantine informs us that the
emperor settled the Serbs here and they were subject to the emperor
and thus imperial power was restored here. This last remark can be
taken as a convenient fiction. Once again he reports that elders came
from Rome to convert these Serbs. However, it is doubtful that they
had any success. The Serbs settled far to the south of what we now
think of as the center of Serbia. Later, when the first state of Serbia
(Raska) was established, it also was to be located in what we think of
as southern Serbia centered near modern Novi Pazar.
Thus Constantine describes the Serbs settling in southern Serbia,
Zahumlje, Trebinje, Pagania, and Konavli. This situates some of them
in the southern part of the Dalmatian coast. The Croats were settled in
Croatia, Dalmatia, and western Bosnia. The rest of Bosnia seems to
have been a territory between Serb and Croatian rule. In time, though,
Bosnia came to form a unit under a ruler calling himself Bosnian.
Constantine gives no data as to Serb settlement in Duklja (Dioclea);
however, since Serbs settled in regions along its borders, presumably
this would have been a Serb region. However, as we shall soon see,
this may be an artificial issue.
The mass of Slavs (Slaveni) who had settled over most of what is
now Yugoslavia during the preceding decades were one people. The
Serbs and Croats whom Constantine mentions were a second migration
of a different people who do not seem to have been particularly nu-
merous. In his discussion, Constantine describes which element
emerged as the ruling one over which particular territories. Thus by
the end of the seventh century Slaveni were settled over most all of
what is now Yugoslavia, except for Slovenia and Macedonia, and some
of these Slaveni were ruled by a Croatian military aristocracy and some
by a Serbian one. If few Slaveni had come into the western territories
under the Avars, probably many more did so now, in the wake of the
new conquerors.
The most controversial chapters are the two on the Croatians,
chapters 30 and 31. In them there is considerable overlap, with certain
items repeated in both. There is also a certain amount of contradiction

(e.g., there was a period of Frankish overlords hip as opposed to Croatia
being constantly under Byzantine suzerainty). Constantine never tried
to combine or reconcile the two accounts. Chapter 30 noticeably never
mentions Heraclius and contains little on Byzantium at all. It simply
describes a Croatian invasion which expels the Avars by defeating them
in battle; then it has the Croatians take over as rulers, though remaining
subjected to the Franks (a subjection which actually occurred considera-
bly later, in the 790s). This subjection lasted until they eventually liber-
ated themselves from the Franks in the mid-ninth century. Chapter 30
gives the names of the tribal leaders (five brothers and two sisters) from
the time of the migration. Chapter 31 states the Croatians arrived at the
invitation of Heraclius; there is no mention of the five brothers or tribal
origins. This chapter ascribes the establishment of the Croatians and the
missionary effort to the command and the blessing of the emperor
Heraclius. The constant reference to Heraclius and the claim that
Croatia was always under Byzantine overlordship clearly was aimed at
furthering Byzantium's claims of suzerainty.
Scholars have correctly noted that chapter 30 must be the Cro-
atian account and chapter 31 the Byzantine account. Presumably, then,
31 was at least partially based on the records of the Byzantine foreign
office; but it is impossible to say how much Constantine may have
added to the Byzantine records to strengthen imperial claims. It is also
possible that some earlier official had added this material on Heraclius
to records that Constantine used. The Croatian account naturally ig-
nores any such claims over the Croatians. The only former suzerain it
notes is the Franks (though it misdates when that suzerainty was estab-
lished) and it contains an account of the Croats' later successful
struggle to become independent of the Franks. Much of this material is
correct, but accuracy on recent events does not guarantee the accuracy
of information about events two centuries earlier, particularly since the
chapter contains errors in respect to the alleged establishment of
Frankish overlordship then. Much in the Croatian account, particularly
the five brothers and two sisters, sounds legendary and was quite likely
part of an oral tradition. Thus each story presents a view of the Cro-
atian past; both views have considerable in common, but in its variants
each presents this past as was convenient for its own (Byzantine or
Croatian) ends. How can we choose between them?
The early seventh century was a period of chaos for the empire;
the Balkans were swamped by Slavic settlement (much of it under
Avar direction). At the same time the empire was involved in an
all-out war with the Persians. Thus, if the Croatians had wanted to
move into the Balkans, there was little or nothing the empire could
have done to stop them. In addition, after they had arrived-if they
had arrived on their own-the best the empire could have done was to
try to make peace with the newcomers so as not to have them as
enemies on a second front. Byzantium could possibly then, and cer-
tainly later, have tried to represent the Croatian conquest as having
taken place with Byzantium's blessing and therefore under some sort
of Byzantine overlordship. If the early Croatian leaders received court
titles such a fiction could have had further support.
On the other hand, in the period from about 617 to the crisis of
the Avar-Persian attack of 626, the empire was in desperate straits.
The empire must have known of the existence of the Croatian state
north of the Carpathians and known that this state had hostile relations
with the Avars who lived to its southwest. It would have been logical
for Heraclius to have sought an alliance with these tribesmen against
the Avars. In this way the empire's western enemies could be taken
care of while Heraclius concentrated on the Persians in the east. Thus
it is not at all impossible that Heraclius did send envoys thither to
invite the Croatians to come. Of course, once they came they clearly
could have done as they wanted, for regardless of the Byzantine invita-
tion and any claims of Byzantine suzerainty (which might have been
included in some sort of treaty), Byzantine overlordship could have
been only nominal. Between these two choices there is no reason to
favor one over the other.
One argument used against the Byzantine account is the story of
the baptism of the Croats. Constantine here could not deny the role of
Rome, but he still tried to give the empire credit for it by having
Heraclius invite the pope to send the priests. Various scholars have felt
this was impossible and Heraclius would never have turned to Rome.
And though the definitive split between the churches had not yet oc-
curred, relations between the two religious centers were then bad be-
cause Heraclius, in trying to solve a schism in his church, had come up
with a compromise doctrine on the nature of Jesus Christ which most
popes considered heretical. Thus it has been argued that the two eccle-
siastical camps would not have been working on such a joint project
under Heraclius. However, since one pope, Honorius (625-38), did
have cordial relations with Heraclius, such an arrangement could have
taken place during his reign. It is also possible that the priests simply
were sent from Rome, and Byzantium, to increase its claims for suzer-
ainty, later invented this role for Heraclius to take some of the credit.
In any case, none of these early missions to Croatians or Serbs had any
lasting effect.
Both traditions stress that in the seventh century (after the initial
Slavic invasions) there was a second migration of Croatians and Serbs.
The Byzantine tradition dates it to the reign of Heraclius (610-41).
The Croatian tradition assigns it no date but simply has it follow the
Avar occupation; it gives no data that would disagree with a Heraclian
dating. Thus, first there was a Slavic migration into what is now Yu-
goslavia under the A vars (with a strong suggestion of A var settlement
as well) and later under Heraclius a second migration composed of
Croatians and Serbs. When the Avars were driven out, these new
people then settled in particular regions (l.nd became the rulers of the
population living in those regions; this population presumably con-
sisted of indigenous peoples and the Slavs who subsequently had set-
tled there.
Scholars, accepting Constantine's account, have then turned to the
existing data on the Croatians. First, linguists have taken the names of
the five brothers and two sisters which are given and claim that these
names are not Slavic. They find the word Croat (related to the brother
Chrobatos) also is not Slavic; most linguists believe it is similar to an
Iranian place-name, Choroathos, on the lower Don. Scholars also have
found references in various scattered sources to a White Croatia which
lay then north of the Carpathians. This state continued to exist in the
tenth century in Constantine's time even after some of its members
migrated south. It lay in the general area that Constantine says the
Croats came from. White Croatia is referred to in a variety of sources
independent of one another, such as Russian chronicles and tenth-
century Arab geographers. One Arab geographer, Al-Mas'udl, says
the White Croat chief drank fermented mare's milk, a characteristic of
Turko-Tatar nomads rather than of the Slavs. Linguists have arrived at
similar conclusions for the Serbs; confirmation in other sources is
found for the state of White Serbia. The name Serb is also not thought
to be Slavic; around the time of Christ there was an Iranian tribe on
the Don known to Greek geographers as Serbi-Serboi, and in the tenth
century an Arab geographer noted a Sarban tribe in the Caucasus.
These two tribes are clearly not Slavic.
Thus there is considerable evidence to suggest that the Serbs and
Croats who came into the Balkans in the early seventh century were
not Slavs but members of another ethnic group (probably Iranian). But
though their names probably are Iranian, it does not rule out the
possibility that some or even all the Croats and Serbs were then Slavic-
speaking. For such groups are named after their leadership. Thus
many Slavs could have participated in their armies and have migrated
to the Balkans with them. Furthermore, assimilation of the actual
Iranians could already have been taking place beyond the Carpathians.
After all, names may survive long after linguistic change. As we have
seen, the Antes, though slavicized, still bore an Iranian name. The
Croats and Serbs seem to have been relatively few in number, but as
warrior horsemen fighting against disunited small tribal groups of Slavs
on foot, they were greatly :.uperior militarily. They arrived, expelled
the Avars, and then, as tough, tightly knit groups of warriors, were
able to dominate the disorganized Slavic tribes. They were able to
provide a ruling class and be a source of unity for the different Slavic
groups. Soon the newcomers came to provide a general name for all
the people (the majority of whom were Slavs) under them. But they
did not establish a single Serbian or a single Croatian state but several
different smaller states (e.g., Zahumlje, Trebinje, Konavli, etc.);
within the Croatian area we have noted the formation of eleven fairly
autonomous zupas (counties) which eventually coalesced into two dif-
ferent states, in each of which the nobles retained great local indepen-
dence. However, since the Slavs were the vast majority, as the Serbs
and Croats intermarried with them, in time the conquerors came to
speak Slavic too, and ironically, the Slavic language they came to
speak and which had been spoken by the earlier arriving Slavs (the
Slaveni) came to be named after the Iranian newcomers. This is an
almost identical process to that exhibited by the Turkic Bulgars who
conquered the Slavs in what is now Bulgaria. They came to be slavi-
cized in time, but provided the name for the Slavic people, language,
and state established in Bulgaria.
The fact that the Serbs and Croats were not Slavic but Iranian is
not important in the long run since the Iranians were a small minority
in a population of Slavs. They quickly became assimilated by the Slavs
and the resulting society was clearly Slavic (despite the non-Slavic
name and the non-Slavic origin of its ruling class).
What must be understood is that in dealing with Constantine Por-
phyrogenitus one must accept his accounts for both Serbs and Croats
or reject both. It is beyond belief that one of these stories could be
correct and the other false, particularly when verification exists for
both a White Serbia and a White Croatia beyond the Carpathians. Yet
in this century, as nationalistic squabbles and hatreds developed be-
tween Serbs and Croats in prewar Yugoslavia, various chauvinists (in
this case particularly Croatians) have wanted to prove the Croatians
have nothing in common with the Serbs and have taken as accurate
only the Croatian material from Constantine. In general these Cro-
atians (under the influence of the Habsburgs under whose empire they
lived until the First World War and whose universities they attended)
have felt that Slavs were inferior to Iranians and have tried to assert
that Constantine was correct in providing evidence for the Iranian
origin of the Croats, but incorrect in regard to the Serbs who were
Slavs. However, one cannot pick and choose what is desirable in Con-
stantine and reject less satisfying statements with no further evidence
to back one up. Thus, if one takes him as basically accurate, then it is
evident that both the Serbs and Croats were Iranian peoples who were
close cousins and who conquered a Slavic population that was basically
a single people.
There is a second school of thought which formerly was the domi-
nant one but whose popularity has been declining over the last thirty
years or so. Espoused by the eminent philologist Vatroslav Jagic around
the turn of the century, it can be called the "Slavic" school. In general
its adherents were willing to view the Serbs and Croats as one people
but were unwilling to see the leadership in establishing the Croatian and
Serbian societies in the hands of non-Slavic peoples. This school visual-
ized one migration of Slav Serbs and Slav Croats in the late sixth and
early seventh century and believed that these same migrants later, when
the A vars grew weaker, overthrew them and eventually established
Croatian and Serbian states in what is now Yugoslavia. This school
rejected the testimony of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, stressing the
fact that the emperor was writing in the tenth century and that much in
his account was clearly legendary (e.g., the two sisters and five
brothers). They argued that the early (seventh-century) material in his
account was either legend or bits of fact so mixed up with legend that it
was now impossible to extract a true story. They, of course, stressed all
Constantine's contradictions and errors in fact. They also pointed out
that the seventh century was a period from which few Byzantine sources
survive and wondered how much material from that century was extant
when Constantine was writing.
At the beginning of this century most scholars agreed with Jagic,
one of the greatest minds in the field; and, of course, there is a great
deal of truth in all of his objections. There certainly is much to be
sceptical about in Constantine's account, for it is not an ideal source
for the seventh century. But in the last thirty years more and more
scholars have come to put more faith in the tenth-century emperor.
Much of this change in attitude is due to the discovery of other inde-
pendent sources (Russian and Arabic) which verify the existence of
White Croatia and White Serbia north of the Carpathians. This evi-
dence was not available to those late in the last century who rejected
Constantine's account.
Thus the general view now is to accept in general terms Constan-
tine Porphyrogenitus's two-migration account-first a large migration

of Slavs driven into the Balkans by the Avars and then later, probably
in the 620s, a second migration of Iranian Croats and Serbs who
moved into the Balkans, drove out the Avars, subjected the Slavs, and
in time were assimilated by them.
The Slavs in Greece
Also extremely controversial is the question of the Slavic settlement in

Greece. This controversy dates back to the 1830s when a German
scholar, J. P. Fallmerayer, wrote his history of the Morea (Peloponne-
sus). Fallmerayer was reacting to the romantic exaggeration of the
Philhellenes at the time of the Greek war against the Turks. Fallmer-
ayer wrote:
The Hellenic race in Europe is completely exterminated. The

physical beauty, the sublimity of spirit, the simplicity of customs,
the artistic creativeness, the races, cities and villages, the splen-
dor of columns and temples, even the name of the people itself,
have disappeared from the Greek continent. A double layer of
ruins and the mire of two new and different races cover the
graves of the ancient Greeks. The immortal works of the spirit of
Hellas and some ancient ruins on native Greek soil are now the
only evidence of the fact that long ago there was such a people
as the Hellenes. And were it not for these ruins, grave-hills and
mausoleums, were it not for the site and the wretched fate of its
inhabitants, upon whom the Europeans of our day in an outburst
of human emotions have poured all their tenderness, their admi-
ration, their tears, and their eloquence, we would have to say
that it was only an empty vision, a lifeless image, a being outside
the nature of things that has aroused the innermost depths of
their souls. For not a single drop of real pure Hellenic blood
flows in the veins of the Christian population of modern Greece.
A terrific hurricane has dispersed throughout the space between
the Ister and most distant corner of the Peloponnesus a new tribe
akin to the great Slavonic race. The Scythian Slavs, the Illyrian
Arnauts, children of Northern lands, the blood relation of the
Serbs, and Bulgars, the Dalmatians and Moscovites-those are
the people whom we call Greeks at present and whose geneal-
ogy, to their own surprise we have traced back to Pericles and
Philopoemen. . . . A population with Slavonic facial features
and with bow-shaped eyelashes and sharp features of Albanian
mountain shepherds, of course, did not come from the blood of

Narcissus, Alcibiades, and Antinous; and only a romantic eager
imagination can still dream of a revival in our days of the ancient
Hellenes with their Sophocleses and Platos. 8
Needless to say, this denial that there were any "pure" Greeks left
and the claim that all the modern Greeks were descendants of Slavs
and Albanians provoked a violent reaction, first from the Philhellenes
and then from the Greeks themselves. The opposition started by deny-
ing that the Slavs really penetrated into Greece at all. But the sources
clearly refuted such an extreme position and we have already seen
documentation that Slavs settled in Macedonia and Thessaly. So many
Slavs were settled around Thessaloniki that the town was described as
a Roman island in a Slavic sea by a local source. So the Greek histori-
ans have had to retreat on this point and admit large-scale Slavic
settlement in northern and central Greece, though some have deem-
phasized its significance. The controversy then came to be centered on
the Peloponnesus. Did the Slavs settle here too? Some Greeks still
refuse to admit that there was Slavic settlement here. Let us look at
the evidence on this question.
The major source on this question is the Chronicle of Monemva-
sia, which states that the Slavs came into the Peloponnesus in 587,
presumably in conjunction with the major raids of the early 580s. This
chronicle then states that the eastern Peloponnesus was almost imme-
diately recovered; Corinth was clearly recovered by ca. 600, when an
imperial governor was sent thither. But it is possible that just the
walled city remained in Byzantine possession with little-or even with-
out any-of its hinterland. The French scholar Bon feels that this was
the case, and that after further invasions from the beginning of the
seventh century, the Peloponnesus was overwhelmed and the Byzan-
tines lost control of the whole peninsula. The chronicle reports that
many Greeks emigrated to the islands, the few surviving coastal cities,
and to Sicily and southern Italy. Thus Bon concludes that all of the
Peloponnesus, except for a tiny number of walled cities like Monemva-
sia and Corinth, was in the hands of Slavs until the beginning of the
ninth century.
The American Byzantinist Charanis on the whole agrees, but he
believes that Corinth and its hinterland were recovered quickly, and
though there probably were some Slavs living there, Corinth and the
eastern part of the Peloponnesus were Byzantine through the seventh
and eighth centuries. Charanis points out that fewer Slavic place-
names are found in the eastern Peloponnesus than elsewhere on the
peninsula and he notes the evidence for the recovery of this region in
the Chronicle of Monemvasia. Corinth was Byzantine from 600 to as
late as 662, for Constans II on his way west stopped at Athens and
Corinth. This shows the two cities were imperial. Athens was clearly
still imperial in the 770s when Irene was brought from there to become
the bride of Leo IV. Byzantine coins are also found in considerable
numbers in Corinth through Constans II (641-68). Two hundred
twenty-five coins have been uncovered there for the period 582-668.
Only seventeen have been found from 668 until the reign of Nicepho-
rus I (802-11). Thus it has been suggested that Corinth fell at some
point after 662. Since Corinth is clearly Byzantine at the beginning of
the ninth century, if it did fall, it presumably was recovered in the
campaign of Staurakios in 782-83, which we shall discuss later.
Charanis, however, has argued strongly and persuasively against
the idea that after 600 Corinth might ever have ceased to be Byzan-
tine. First, the Chronicle of Monemvasia states it was Byzantine
throughout the seventh and eighth centuries. Secondly, Athens-which
remained Byzantine-on the whole exhibits a similar pattern of coins
found to that of Corinth. Thus Charanis believes the paucity of coins
from these two cities is indicative merely of a state of economic decline
in both these cities which he believes was caused more by Arab pirates
than by the Slavs. 9 This is also strong evidence for the decline of urban
life and commerce in this period. Even in Byzantine-held cities, it
seems, coins became rare.
In any case, to return to our initial question, both Bon and Chara-
nis admit that the Byzantines lost control of the western, central, and
southern parts of the Peloponnesus, that this region was heavily settled
with Slavs, and that this situation lasted from the late sixth century
until the recovery in the beginning of the ninth century. The only
difference between the views of the two scholars is the question of the
eastern Peloponnesus which Charanis would make Byzantine and Bon
would not.
The Greek Byzantinist Zakythinos, however, would greatly mod-
ify the above position. He argues that the Chronicle of Monemvasia is
not a reliable source and that it is based on oral tradition. He believes
that the Slavs came into the Peloponnesus only after 746 and since
Byzantine recovery was carried out between the 780s and early in the
ninth century, they had very little influence. Thus one cannot speak of
a slavicization of the Greek population. His view, as we shall see,
conflicts with a great deal of contrary evidence.
Charanis has convincingly shown that the Chronicle of Monemvasia
is a reliable source and though it is late-late-tenth or early-eleventh
century-it is based on earlier written sources; and Char an is finds

passages in it similar to other (albeit late) written sources. Thus he
argues that it was based on earlier (no longer surviving) written sources
and should not be discredited as being based on oral tradition. In addi-
tion, there is considerable other evidence of massive Slavic presence in
the Peloponnesus. Unfortunately, none of it is drawn from ideal
sources, but the weight of their numbers and the fact that they are
independent sources, all of which support the same conclusions, make it
plain that the Slavs did settle in large numbers in the Peloponnesus.
First, there are toponyms; Slavic place-names are found through-
out Greece. The German linguist Vasmer has listed some 429 from the
Peloponnesus alone. Certain of his specific examples might be chal-
lenged, but the fact remains that many clearly Slavic names do exist
there. Byzantine coins are common in the Peloponnesus into the sev-
enth century, become rare after the middle of the century and then
reappear early in the ninth century, becoming common from the 820s.
For example, the last coins from Olympia in the western Peloponnesus
are from the reign of Phocas (602-10). Archaeologists have found no
pre-seventh century building intact in the Peloponnesus. This numis-
matic and archaeological evidence suggests a major upheaval in the
area.
The written sources confirm this conclusion. None of the written
sources is ideal but their combined weight is significant: (1) Isidore of
Seville states that in the fifth year of Heraclius (i.e., 615) the Slavs
took Greece from the Romans. (2) Willibald, a pilgrim to Jerusalem,
states that Monemvasia (in the southern tip of the Peloponnesus) was a
Slavic territory. (3) The abbreviator of Strabo states that the Slavs
occupy all Epirus, most all of Hellas, the Peloponnesus, and Macedo-
nia. (4) The Chronicle of Monemvasia dates the Slavic settlement of
the Peloponnesus from 587. (5) The patriarch Nicholas III of Constan-
tinople, writing in the late eleventh century, states that for 218 years
from 589 (i.e., to 807) there were no Byzantine officials in the Pelo-
ponnesus. (807 was roughly the date of recovery; his statement should
be qualified for there seem to have been Byzantine officials in a few
Peloponnesian ports.) (6) Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus in De The-
matibus (his book of themes-i.e., of Byzantine military provinces)
states,
And the whole country [the Peloponnesus] was Slavonized and

became barbarous when the deadly plague ravaged the universe
and when Constantine [V] the one named after dung held the
sceptre of the Romans.
Since the plague during Constantine V's reign occurred around

744-47, this statement can be dated. This is confirmation of the Slavic
presence, though not of dating it back as far as other sources state; it is
on the basis of Constantine VII that Zakythinos dates large-scale
settlement to around 746. However, the other sources make it clear
that the Slavs were there earlier; thus, if the 740s were of any major
significance, presumably the already present Slavs took advantage of
the plague to assert their authority over certain regions that had previ-
ously not fallen and in the course of this to assert their authority over
most all the Peloponnesus.
From the above it seems clear that Slavs settled in large numbers
in the Peloponnesus; thus they settled in every region of mainland
Greece. In the Peloponnesus, as in the region of Thessaloniki, Slavs
lived in the countryside and hinterland, while Greeks held certain
fortified coastal towns (like Corinth), which remained cultural centers.
Yet it is apparent that such Greek positions could not have been in a
state of siege all the time. The Slavs, practicing agriculture in the
region of these towns, in all likelihood went to the towns to trade.
Presumably only off and on did hostility break out between the two
groups or did a particular Slavic tribe attack a town for plunder. After
the initial settlement relations were probably fairly peaceful and both
sides lived and let live.
Furthermore the Slavs surely did not occupy the whole interior or
eliminate the whole Greek population of Greece. Some Greek villages
must have remained in the countryside too; presumably there would
have been pure Greek, pure Slavic, and even mixed villages, and in
time, with intermarriage, assimilation. Probably it worked in both di-
rections, depending on which population was dominant in what area.
Quite possibly some of the assimilation or hellenization of Slavs by the
Greeks of the Peloponnesus took place in the period before Byzantine
recovery.
No real state replaced Byzantine rule; when the sources state the
Peloponnesus went to the Slavs, they just mean that Byzantine rule
disappeared and different regions remained in the hands of various
Slavic groups while others presumably were left in the hands of local
Greeks; very likely, in some places the local Greeks continued to
administer themselves, simply paying tribute to the newcomers.
At the time of Byzantine recovery in the early ninth century (to be
discussed subsequently) many Greeks from Sicily and Asia Minor were
resettled in the interior of Greece, which increased the number of
Greek-speakers. With the restoration of Byzantine administration,
which strongly supported an active church missionary program during
the ninth century, there followed the Christianization and hellenization

of many Slavs. With the tide moving in this direction in the period
after recovery, assimilation worked in favor of the Greeks with Slavs
becoming grecized. Thus by the tenth century, except for pockets here
and there, all the Peloponnesus was "Greek" again (i.e., Greek in
culture and language).
The fact that the rehellenization of Greece was successful, through
recolonization and the cultural activities of the church, suggests that
the Slavs found themselves in .the midst of many Greeks. It is doubtful
that such large numbers could have been transplanted into Greece in
the ninth century; thus there surely had been many Greeks remaining
in Greece and continuing to speak Greek throughout the period of
Slavic occupation. This success in rehellenization also suggests that the
number of Slavs in Greece was far smaller than the numbers found in
what is now Yugoslavia and Bulgaria. For Bulgaria could not be hel-
lenized when Byzantine administration was established over the Bul-
garians in 1018 to last for well over a century, until 1186.
It is evident that in this period a great deal of ethnic mixture
between Slavs and Greeks occurred; probably few pure-blooded
Greeks-if such existed prior to the Slavic invasions-were left. A few
centuries later many Albanians migrated into these regions and further
increased the ethnic mixtures. Thus there is no reason to believe that
the Greeks now are any purer-blooded than any of the other Balkan
peoples. But, of course, it is culture rather than blood lines that mat-
ters. As Charanis points out, what is important is not the fact that
Slavs were present throughout Greece but rather what their impact
was on the subsequent Greek people. And despite much genetic mix-
ture, there was no question of any permanent slavicization of Greek
territory. Though the resultant population was ethnically mixed, Greek
language and culture triumphed and, by the tenth century, most all the
population of Greece (including that of the Peloponnesus) believed
itself to be Greek and therefore can be so considered.
Byzantium and the Balkans in the Seventh Century to 658
By the middle of the seventh century the Slavs had settled throughout
the Balkans, except for a few walled cities (generally along the sea
coasts) and many Greek and Dalmatian islands and parts of Thrace
near the capital. Over most of this area, through this settlement, dif-
ferent Slavic languages came to dominate and thus were formed the
bases for the medieval and modern Slavic states in what is now Yugo-
slavia and Bulgaria. Though many Slavs settled in Greece, their num-
bers seem to have been fewer; after the Byzantine recovery in the
ninth century, the tide turned and that region was rehellenized.
Though the Byzantines had lost control of most of the Balkans in
the seventh century, the Slavs had formed no states as yet. They contin-
ued to live in small tribal units independent of one another, on occa-
sion cooperating together but not forming by themselves any lasting
larger units. At first, many of these groups were under the Avars, but
by 640 the Avar influence in the Balkans was greatly reduced.
Larger units of Slavs were first to be created by the Turkic Bulgars
who established, in the late seventh century, the first real state in the
Balkans. However, early in the seventh century, since no other state
existed, the Byzantines, even though they had lost control of the Bal-
kans, were able to retain the fiction that imperial rule continued; in
keeping with this theory, they referred to the Balkans as Sclavinias:
lands where the Slavs lived.
Roads through the Sclavinias, such as the Via Egnatia, were un-
safe. As late as the ninth century the saint's life of Gregory the De-
capolite says land traffic was paralyzed across the Balkans. Thus com-
merce with or across the Balkans greatly declined.
These conditions cut off land ties between Constantinople and the
few surviving Roman cities in Dalmatia. The sea routes between them
were also insecure because of pirates. At first the pirates were primar-
ily Slavs, but by the end of the seventh century Arab pirates had
become especially menacing. Thus Dalmatia came to have far closer
ties with Italy than with the centers of the empire of which its cities
theoretically formed a part.
Another major result of the Slavic invasions was that Constantino-
ple and Rome, which had already significantly drifted apart, were cut
off from communication with one another. They now became even
more separated culturally and politically. The people of each region
ceased studying the other's language. What remained of the Roman
Empire became more or less ignorant of Latin. Byzantine historians
make few references to western events for the whole period of the
seventh to the ninth centuries. They stop recording the names of popes
from 570 to the eighth century, and when they start mentioning them
again they make errors (e.g., popes Gregory II and III are listed as
one pope).
For a long time Byzantium was helpless to act; the Persian war
was not finally ended until 629. Then almost immediately the Arabs
began launching attacks against the empire. Once again its very exis-
tence was threatened, and eventually it lost all its eastern lands except
Anatolia. Thus in the seventh century it could make only a few small-
scale attempts at recovering its Balkan losses. After Maurice's final

campaign in 602, the Byzantines made no serious efforts to reverse the
situation in the Balkans until658. Then Heraclius's grandson Constans
II launched a large-scale campaign against the Slavs.
The chronicles state that Constans attacked "Sclavinias," many
prisoners were taken, and many Slavs were brought under his control.
Thus, it seems, some Macedonian Slavs were forced to accept Byzan-
tine suzerainty. Many of the captured Slavs were transplanted to Ana-
tolia. It was normal Byzantine policy to resettle people, both to im-
prove defenses in the new homeland (in this case against the Arabs)
and to break up concentrations of untrustworthy people where they
had been living. Many Slavs from here on served in the imperial
armies in the east; in 665 a Slav division of five thousand men deserted
to the Arabs, who then settled them in Syria. Constans's campaign was
to be the last major military effort in the Balkans until the 680s.
Migration and Establishment of the Bulgars in Bulgaria, 670s
The territory of modern Bulgaria, extending up into modern Wallachia

and down into Macedonia, had meanwhile been settled by the Bul-
garo-Macedonian Slavs. They belonged to a different linguistic group
from those who became the Serbs and Croatians. They spoke an old
form of modern Bulgarian which surely then differed less from the
language of their western neighbors than it does now. Zlatarski has
speculated that these Bulgaro-Macedonians were descended from the
Antes who were living north of the Danube in the fifth century. These
Slavs had not formed a state but were living as tribes. Since in the 670s
the sources mention "The Seven Tribes" being subjected by the Bul-
gars, it seems that different tribal groups were beginning to coalesce
and form federations which might well have been a first step toward
state formation.
Meanwhile in the Steppes and the region around the Sea of Azov
dwelled the Onogur Bulgars. They were a seminomadic, ethnically
mixed people under a Bulgar chief. According to their traditions their
ruling family, known as the House of Dulo, was descended from
Attila the Hun. Though scholars have advanced many theories, the
origin and meaning of the name Dulo remain obscure. In 635 the
Onogur chief Kovrat led a revolt against the Avars which succeeded
in driving them from his lands and putting an end to A var suzerainty
over the Onogurs. He soon united under his own rule the various
Bulgar groups living north of the Black Sea, the Sea of Azov, and the
Caucasus.
Kovrat died in about 642, leaving five sons. Some scholars have
claimed that this number and even some of the names given are legend-
ary, but an Armenian geographer from the second half of the seventh
century confirms that there were four groups of Bulgars in the east.
This then seems confirmation of the Byzantine story of the five
brothers. Possibly the Armenian missed one group, or possibly he was
writing after one brother-possibly Kuver-had already departed for
Pannonia. These Bulgar groups were attacked by another Turkic
people from further east, the Khazars, who were soon to establish a
great Steppe empire, centered on the lower Volga.
As a result of this Khazar attack, the Onogur Bulgars were scat-
tered and, according to Byzantine historians, the tribe split into five
groups, each under one son. The most important son for us, Isperikh
or Asparukh, moved through what is now Bessarabia and then settled
briefly at the mouth of the Danube. He subdued the territory north of
the Danube in modern Wallachia. Then in the 670s Isperikh's Bulgars
began crossing the Danube and set about subjecting or pushing out the
Slavic tribes living in modern Bulgaria north of the Balkan mountains.
The Byzantines had enjoyed good relations with these Bulgar
tribes as long as they stayed on the other side of the Danube; they had
had good relations with Isperikh's father Kovrat. However, the em-
peror Constantine IV was upset when these warriors began entering
the Balkans. He led an army to oppose their entry. The Bulgars,
however, defeated the imperial army and the empire was forced to sign
a treaty in 681, recognizing the Bulgar state.
This is the first state that the Byzantines recognized in the Bal-
kans; until then, though much territory had been occupied by Slavs,
leading to the disappearance of imperial control, no state had replaced
imperial rule and the empire had been able to keep up the fiction that
all the Balkans were still in theory imperial. In 681, for the first time,
the empire legally surrendered claim to some of its Balkan territory.
The Bulgar state extended south to the Balkan mountains and east
to the Black Sea. At this time its northern border was probably not
much beyond the Danube. Most of the land from the Danube up to the
Carpathians probably still remained under Avar suzerainty. Eventually,
in the beginning of the ninth century, after the fall of the A var khaga-
nate, the Bulgars acquired overlordship over this territory between the
Danube and the Carpathians. The western border of Isperikh's state is
vague. Since the Bulgars themselves were concentrated in the northeast
of their state, whatever control they had in the west was surely indirect,
with these western regions in the hands of various Slavic chiefs who
rendered tribute to them. Since which tribes actually paid them tribute
probably varied from year to year, the western border must have regu-
larly been in a state of flux.
The Bulgars themselves do not seem to have been particularly
numerous. A twelfth-century source gives their numbers as ten thou-
sand. The Bulgars were concentrated in northeastern Bulgaria, along
the Danube, particularly its right bank (though early Bulgar sites are
found on both banks) east to the Black Sea including the Dobrudja.
The Bulgars established their capital at Pliska which was a huge
walled camp, lying on a plain, encompassing some twenty-three square
kilometers. Inside were the khan's palace, the yurts of his fellow
tribesmen, warehouses, shops, and space for flocks and horses. Nearby
Madara was their religious center; it exhibits
I
a fine carved horseman
on the face of a steep cliff rising above a temple at its base. Archaeol-
ogy shows that for a while many Bulgars kept their settlements distinct
from those of the Slavs. They had a mixed pastoral and agricultural
economy. Trade was important; the ruins of Pliska show caravanserai,
warehouses, and many shops, and an early treaty with Byzantium, in
716, had commercial clauses. Most of the trade seems to have been
barter; the Bulgars had no coins and Byzantine coins are not found in
Bulgaria from the early seventh century until the mid-tenth century.
The Bulgar sites show variations in burial practices, suggesting
that the Bulgars were drawn from more than one ethnic group. The
cultural syntheses between Slavic and Bulgar practices (and Byzantine
influences) varied from region to region. 10 The pre-Slavic population
(of Thracians and Dacians), whose culture had acquired many Byzan-
tine features, seems to have had relatively little influence on the Slavs
and Bulgars. Some scholars attribute this to the fact that the indige-
nous population's numbers had already been greatly reduced-owing
to Goth and Hun raids and settlement-before the appearance of the
Slavs.
The Slavic and Bulgar migrations created a sharp cultural break.
The old populations disappear from the sources. (The Thracians are
not to be mentioned again; some Dacians found refuge in the moun-
tains and survived to reappear in sources of the eleventh century as
Vlachs.) The existing towns more or less died out. Archaeologists have
shown that the Bulgar towns were new ones rather than continuations
of earlier cities. In some cases, however, these new towns were built
near classical ones, whose ruins supplied the newcomers with building
materials. In most cases, there is a gap from the sixth to the ninth
century at the sites of classical towns. Christianity also almost entirely
disappeared and there is a hiatus in church building over the same
centuries.
The Bulgars found a variety of Slavic tribes in the regions they

occupied. Theophanes says the Bulgars became masters of the Slavs
(i.e., conquered them), the Seven Tribes were subjected, and theSe-
veri (a Slavic tribe) were made to move east to the shore of the Black
Sea. The Severi seem to have retained at least semi-independence, for
in 767 a Severite prince raided Byzantine territory; presumably they
maintained relations with the Bulgars, probably paying them tribute.
Zlatarski tries to soft-pedal the conquest aspect and idealizes the
relationship between Slavs and Bulgars. He claims the Slavs did not
resist the Bulgars but made an agreement with the Bulgars which
allowed the Slavs to keep their own rights, and the two peoples thus
formed a mutual federation against the common enemy, Byzantium.
This is far too romantic and there are no sources to support it at all.
Dujcev clearly shows that the Greek expression used by Theophanes
refers to a conquest and not an alliance.
The Slavs were settled agriculturists, chiefly living in villages.
They, with a loose tribal structure, were too weak to resist the Bulgars
who were superior militarily and organizationally. Presumably, having
been subdued, the Slavs were allowed to retain their own chiefs. Thus
Zlatarski is probably right that they were allowed to keep their own
customs; for it is unlikely that the Bulgars sent officials out to govern
them. The Slavs paid tribute in kind and provided foot soldiers to the
Bulgars. In time (and it seems in some cases quite early) mixed settle-
ments of Slavs and Bulgars appeared in some places, as archaeology
has shown. The dating of these sites is not clearly established.
Into the ninth century the Byzantine authors distinguish between
two groups in Bulgaria-Slavs and Bulgars-and the sources show that
the less numerous Turkic Bulgars retained their specific names and titles
that long. By the late ninth and early tenth centuries the more numerous
Slavs had succeeded in slavicizing the Bulgars, who came to speak
Slavic. Linguists claim that fewer than a dozen words in modern Bulgar-
ian go back to the language of the Turkic Bulgars. The overwhelming
majority of Turkish words in Bulgarian date from the Ottoman period.
The Bulgar elite, however, though a minority, was able to remain a
close-knit military leadership caste into the ninth century.
The Theme System and the Beginning of Byzantine Recovery

in the Balkans
Under Heraclius and his successors a new military system was formed
within the empire known as the theme system. The word theme meant
an army corps and soon came to refer also to the province on which
that corps was settled. The actual chronology of the system's develop-
ment as well as whether it was a piecemeal reform or a system worked
out and then imposed on the whole empire at once is a matter of
controversy which need not concern us. In any case, by the late sev-
enth century this system was in effect over the territory which the
empire actually controlled; this territory was divided up into military
provinces, called themes, under the command of a general, usually
entitled a strategos, who was military commander for the province and
also had a considerable civil role. In each province military units were
settled under the strategos' control. In time many of these soldiers
were to be locally recruited, and assigned lands to support their ser-
vice. At what point the link between land and service was established
is also controversial. But after it was established the land base for the
troops eased the burden on the treasury; it also created a hereditary
local militia able to come quickly to the defense of the province if it
was attacked. These militias could also be mobilized and sent else-
where for offensive military operations. The Slavs provided some of
the manpower for the thematic armies, both in the Balkans and in
Anatolia (where many Slavs were to be resettled).
According to the Yugoslav Byzantinist Ostrogorsky, once the sys-
tem was established, it was imposed upon all parts of the empire which
were under the actual control of Constantinople; thus by the end of the
seventh century if sources refer to a theme, then imperial administra-
tion existed there. If there were no themes listed in a region, Byzan-
tine administration did not exist there. Following this formula, an ex-
amination of theme lists shows that the Byzantines had no control over
most of the Balkans for most of the seventh century.
The First Two Balkan Themes
The gradual appearance of new themes in the Balkans over the late
seventh, late eighth, and early ninth centuries illustrates the process
and chronology of the Byzantine recovery. The first theme established
in the Balkans was the Thracian theme which was created by 687. It is
first found mentioned, as the only Balkan theme, in a list of themes
given in a letter of Justinian II in 687. The actual date of its foundation
is unknown. Constantine Porphyrogenitus's Book of Themes credits
Constantine IV (668-85) with its establishment. Most scholars believe
he created it during the 680s. This theme was located in Thrace, the
region nearest Constantinople; its actual borders are unknown. From
the name it could include all or some part of that region. This then was
the first territory recovered, and part of Thrace had remained in impe-
rial hands throughout.
At the end of the century a second theme, of the Helladikoi-of
the Greeks-was established. This theme is not mentioned in the list of
themes given in Justinian II's 687 letter. In 695 the strategos of the
Helladikoi participated in overthrowing Justinian. Thus this theme was
established at some point between 687 and 695. Again its boundaries
are in doubt. The term is derived from the word Greek. Some scholars
want it to include all of Greece; however, it is evident that most of
Greece was still not recovered. The term Greek could signify one or
both of two things, either a territory with a Greek population or a
territory on which a Greek army unit was stationed. For example, the
Armeniakoi theme in Anatolia was a theme in which Armenian troops
were stationed and had nothing to do with Armenia, which lay well to
the theme's eastern borders. All scholars, however, feel that this
theme included some Greek territory. Ostrogorsky locates it in east
central Greece, and most scholars agree it included part of Macedonia
and part of northern Greece (probably much of northern Thessaly).
Some scholars, including Ostrogorsky, have brought its boundaries as
far south as Attica to include Athens.
No more themes were to be established in the Balkans for another
hundred years until the end of the eighth century; thus after this small
initial recovery late in the seventh century little or no territory was
recovered from the Slavs for another hundred years. Thus throughout
the eighth century the bulk of the Balkans remained Slavic, or as the
Byzantines would say, Sclavinias.
Justinian II's Balkan Campaign of 688/89
In the late seventh century Byzantium carried out a new Balkan cam-
paign which presumably led to the establishment of the Helladikoi
theme. Events connected with this campaign also shed some light on the
state of Balkan politics at the time as well. In 688/89 the emperor Justin-
ian II marched through Thrace where at least enough Byzantine rule
had been restored for a theme administration to be established; as
stated above, it is not known how much of Thrace was actually under
the control of the Thracian strategos. The purpose of this campaign was
to punish the Bulgars and Slavs. Justinian successfully subdued many
Slavs (taking many captives) and reached Thessaloniki. On his return
toward Constantinople in 689 he was ambushed by the Bulgars who
wiped out most of his army. The emperor just managed to escape with
his life but he lost his booty, prisoners, and most of his soldiers. Possibly
the intervention by the Bulgars shows they had good relations with these
Slavs; they may even have exerted suzerainty over them. It is also possi-
ble they simply wanted to capture the booty won by the Byzantines.
These Bulgars are generally believed to have been those following
Isperikh. However, Isperikh, who had signed the treaty in 681, was
probably at peace with the Byzantines then. Furthermore, though
treaties could be and often were broken, Isperikh's state, lying beyond
the Balkan Mountains, was at considerable distance from Thrace. Thus
a reasonable alternative view has been advanced by Zlatarski (and
various other Bulgarian scholars including Cankova-Petkova have
adopted it) that the Bulgars who attacked Justinian were not Isperikh's
at all, but those of the second Bulgar "state" which Kuver established
shortly before (in approximately 680) in Macedonia. Whether Kuver
was still alive in 689 or whether a successor ruled his Bulgars is not
known. Although the source account is too brief to allow certainty
about which Bulgars attacked Justinian, it seems to me that attributing
the attack to Kuver is more plausible than ascribing it to Isperikh.
While nothing specific has been heard about Kuver or his people
after his attempt on Thessaloniki in ca. 680-85, the attack on Justinian
happened so soon after those events that his Bulgars could well have
still been in the area. Furthermore, hostile relations existed between
Kuver and Byzantium over the Thessaloniki events, which gave Kuver
reason to attack Justinian and Justinian reason to seek to punish these
Bulgars, the motivation given by the Byzantine source for the cam-
paign, whereas there is no known reason for Justinian to have wanted
to punish Isperikh. Isperikh's state had a treaty with Byzantium, and in
the beginning of the eighth century warm relations existed between
Justinian II and Isperikh's successor, Tervel. Tervel, in fact, was to be
instrumental in restoring Justinian to his throne in 705. He might not
have been willing to do this had Justinian been making war upon his
predecessor.
Thus I would agree with Zlatarski that Justinian was attacked by
Kuver's Bulgars who in the decades that followed were assimilated by
the more numerous Slavs and disappeared as any sort of coherent unit
or semistate.
NOTES
1. A brief persuasive summary article presenting this view is: H. Birn-

baum, "The Original Homeland of the Slavs and the Problem of Early Slavic
Linguistic Contacts," Indo-European Studies 1, no. 4 (Winter 1973):407-21.
2. F. Barisic, "Car Foka (602-610) i podunavski Avaro-Sloveni," Zbor-

nik radova Vizantoloskog lnstituta (ZRVI) (Serbian Academy of Sciences) 4
(1956):73-86.
3. J. Kovacevic, in /storija Crne Gore, vol. 1 (Titograd, 1967), pp. 282-
90.
4. I. Cremosnik, "Die Chronologien der aeltesten slavischen Funde in
Bosnien und der Herzegovina," Archaeologia Iugoslavica (Beograd) 11
(1970):99-103.
5. F. Barisic, "Proces slovenske kolonizacije istocnog Balkan a," in Sim-
pozijum predslavenski etnicki elementi na Balkanu u etnogenezi juinih Slovena,
ed. A. Benac (Sarajevo, 1969), pp. 11-27; and his remarks in the general
discussion, ibid., pp. 122-23.
6. P. Charanis, "Kouver, the Chronology of His Activities and Their
Ethnic Effect on the Regions around Thessalonica," Balkan Studies 11, no. 2
(1970):229-47.
7. Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Administrando Imperio, ed. Gy.
Moravcsik and R. Jenkins, with English translation, Dumbarton Oaks Texts,
vol. 1 (Washington, D.C., 1967). See also vol. 2 commentary, edited by R.
Jenkins (London, 1962).
8. Translation taken from A. Vasiliev, History of the Byzantine Empire,
324-1453 (Madison, 1958), p. 177.
9. P. Charanis, "The Significance of Coins as Evidence for the History
of Athens and Corinth in the Seventh and Eighth Centuries," Historia 4
(1955):163-72.
10. Regional cultural variations, which influences existed in which region
and to what extent, where Bulgars and where Slavs were settled, and where
their settlements remained separate and where they coexisted are all discussed
in detail by S. Vaklinov, Formirane na starob"lgarskata kultura (Sofija, 1977).
CHAPTER 3
The Balkans in the

Eighth Century
Bulgaria and Byzantium in the Eighth Century
Tervel and Byzantium
In 695 Justinian II was deposed. After spending nearly a decade with

the Khazars (a Turkic tribe which controlled a Steppe empire) from
whom he had acquired his wife, he arrived in Bulgaria to seek the aid
of Khan Tervel (701-18). Receiving help, Justinian appeared in 705
before the walls of Constantinople with a Bulgar-Slavic army. The
army was not equipped for a successful siege but after a few days,
Justinian II entered the city through a drainpipe, contacted supporters
in the city and engineered a successful uprising to restore himself to
the throne. Once in power again, Justinian granted Tervel the title
caesar (the second highest title in the empire) and agreed to pay a
large tribute to the Bulgars.
Despite claims by many historians, there is no evidence that
Justinian II gave Tervel any more territory. Some scholars, like
Zlatarski, state that Justinian rewarded Tervel with the territory of
Zagora, a small region just south of the Balkan Mountains near the
Black Sea shore. However, another Bulgarian scholar, Cankova-
Petkova, has shown that all references to such a grant are in sources
written after 865; no contemporary or pre-ninth century source men-
tions any territorial grant to Bulgaria. 1 Thus she reasonably concludes
that the Bulgarian-Byzantine border remained the Balkan Mountains
throughout the seventh and eighth centuries.
Friction soon followed between the two states; in 708 Justinian
grew tired of paying tribute and began preparations to invade Bul-
garia, but a Bulgarian surprise attack on Byzantine territory forestalled
this. When in 711 Justinian was again overthrown, Tervel found aveng-
ing him an excuse to ravage Thrace. Skirmishes continued until peace
74
The Balkans in the Eighth Century 75
was concluded in 716 on the eve of a major Arab offensive against

Byzantium which threatened both the empire and Bulgaria. The treaty
set the frontiers, and the amount of Byzantine tribute, provided for an
exchange of prisoners, and defined commercial relations. Thereafter
all merchandise had to be accompanied by a diploma and seal put on
by both parties. This indicates that the Bulgars had a sufficiently well
developed state organization to control and regulate the behavior of
merchants. The Bulgarians soon had an active market operating in
Constantinople.
When the Arabs appeared and laid siege to Constantinople in 717,
Tervel sent troops to the aid of the Byzantines. They played a role in
breaking the siege that led to the Arabs' withdrawal. This was one of
three major Arab offensives against Europe (the other two being one
up through the Caucasus toward the Steppes, which the Khazars
turned back in 737, and the Battle of Tours where Charles Martel
stopped the Saracens in France in 731 or 732); most scholars feel the
Byzantine victory was the most significant of the three.
Civil Wars and Anarchy in Bulgaria
In 739 the Bulgar royal house of Dulo died out. A period of civil war
followed between boyar factions. Unfortunately for scholars studying
this period, all the early sources on Bulgaria (except for one Bulgar
kings' list, which is little more than a list, and a handful of inscriptions
conveying overall a very limited amount of information) are Byzan-
tine. Thus the modern reader sees Bulgaria through Byzantine eyes
and learns about things that were of interest to the Byzantines. The
Byzantine sources describe two opposing factions, struggling for power
in Bulgaria: a pro-Byzantine party which sought peace with the empire
and was dominant in Bulgaria until 755 and an anti-Byzantine party,
the boyar aristocracy, which sought war with the empire. The Byzan-
tine writers made Bulgaria's relationship to Byzantium the key issue in
the Bulgarian struggle. These sources ignore other issues that may well
have been far more important for the Bulgarians themselves. These
descriptions could be compared to some American descriptions of
Latin American revolutions in the twentieth century which note only
the attitudes of the rival factions toward the United States and ignore
all other issues even though these frequently were the true causes of
the revolutions.
Zlatarski, probably correctly, believes that the most important
issue within Bulgaria in the eighth century (and the one that was to
have the greatest historical significance) was the relations between
Slavs and Bulgars. Zlatarski makes this issue the focal point in his
description of the civil wars; he depicts the struggle as one between the
old Bulgars (whom he calls the Hunno-Bulgars and who, he believes,
particularly wanted war with Byzantium) and those Bulgars allied to
the Slavs whom he sees as the party of peace. However, there is no
source base for any of this.
Zlatarski is correct in wanting to highlight the relationship be-
tween Slavs and Bulgars. After all, the state was composed of these
two peoples, one (the Bulgar minority) was politically dominant and
the other (the more numerous Slavs) was gradually assimilating the
Bulgars linguistically. Surely the complex and changing relations be-
tween these two peoples would have had effect on many Bulgarian
events. However, when there are no sources about these relations,
scholars should do no more than suggest that the mutual relations
between these peoples probably played some role; they are not justi-
fied in going on to create hypothetical situations. We do not know for
a fact that this issue played a major role in the dynastic struggle; we do
not know that one Bulgar side was more favorable to the Slavs than
the other. And though Slavs may well have been active on one or even
both sides in the struggle, it is also possible that the Slavs were merely
passive onlookers. Thus, Zlatarski's description of the civil war is
highly speculative and, as such, must be rejected.
Constantine V' s Wars against Bulgaria
In 756 the emperor Constantine V built a series of fortresses along the

Byzantine-Bulgarian border. Since these fortresses were in violation of
an earlier treaty's terms, the Bulgars demanded compensation. Con-
stantine refused and the Bulgars, interpreting his actions-probably
quite correctly-as hostile, invaded Byzantine territory only to be
routed by imperial troops. This was the first of nine wars between
Constantine V and the Bulgars. This defeat led to the overthrow of the
Bulgar khan. Civil war followed again, at the end of which, in 761 or
762, a certain Telec came to the throne.
With Telec's accession, according to a contemporary Byzantine
source, "two hundred eight thousand Slavs" emigrated to Byzantium
and were allowed to settle in western Asia Minor. Zlatarski, not sur-
prisingly, puts great emphasis on this and depicts Telec as the leader of
the Hunno-Bulgar party whose triumph meant that large numbers of
Slavs who had opposed him had to flee. Such a construction is not
impossible, but it cannot be proved. The two hundred eight thousand
could have been a mixed group casually labeled "Slav" by the Byzan-
tine writer; it is also possible that the emigration was motivated by

some other factor, such as a famine. However, even if the emigrants
were political opponents of Telec (who possibly had been in some
defeated army), this single case is not sufficient to demonstrate the
character of the two parties throughout some three-quarters of a cen-
tury of friction.
Telec immediately built up his army, fortified his frontier with
Byzantium, and then advanced into Thrace. Constantine V went out to
meet him and after a furious battle the Bulgars were again routed. This
defeat seems to have been the cause of the new disturbances in Bul-
garia which led to Telec's overthrow in about 764. The new khan,
Sabin, tried to make peace with Byzantium, was accused of handing
the country over to the Byzantines, and had to flee with his relatives to
Constantinople. Peace was soon made, however, by a khan named
Pagan, but the struggle for the throne continued with different figures
in and out of power. On a couple of occasions (one of which was in
766), Byzantium intervened with armies on behalf of its candidates.
When it intervened, the empire was able to impose its will upon the
Bulgarians, whose land' was in anarchy. In 767 the Byzantines kid-
napped the prince of the Slavic Severi tribe who had been making
trouble in Thrace. His activities against the empire do not coincide
with Zlatarski's depictions of the Slavs as advocates of peace with
Byzantium.
In 770 Telerig became khan; he is credited by Zlatarski with rees-
tablishing order. However, warfare resumed in 773 when Constantine
V successfully attacked the Bulgars. In the same year the Bulgars
raided as far south as Thessaly where they were stopped by the Byzan-
tines. The chronology of these two events as well as the causes are
unknown. Zlatarski makes Telerig into an able figure who was trying
to restore the authority of the khan, increase centralization, and give
the Slavs a greater role. Sources are lacking to support or refute this
characterization.
It seems that the next year, in 774, Constantine V was planning a
new attack. Telerig wrote to the emperor saying that he might have to
flee to Constantinople; whom in Bulgaria could he trust? Constantine
stupidly sent him a list of Byzantine agents in Bulgaria. Telerig seized
and executed them all. From this story we learn that Byzantine intelli-
gence agents were active and intervening in the internal affairs of
Bulgaria. Constantine V then set about planning his next expedition
against the Bulgarians; however, his death at the beginning of the
campaign put an end to the war.
In all this warfare the Byzantines proved that they were superior
militarily. Each time they were able to defeat the Bulgarians, and
frequently they were able to place their candidates on the Bulgarian
throne as well. However, despite their victories, the Byzantines were
unable to deal the final blow and either conquer Bulgaria or impose
imperial suzerainty and a lasting peace. These wars, most of which
were fought on Bulgarian soil, must have left Bulgaria partially devas-
tated with considerable manpower losses; in addition they greatly in-
creased the disorder and anarchy within Bulgaria. The wars could also
have had the effect of rallying the Slavs behind the Bulgars and of
uniting the two groups against the common Byzantine enemy. After
nine wars, the Bulgarians probably had greatly increased their dislike
of the Byzantines. Thus, the Byzantine successes were gained at the
expense of making their Balkan neighbor into a hostile one. More
hostilities were to occur in the 790s between the two peoples; though
there were no major victories, the Bulgarians were by then more suc-
cessful because they no longer were fighting the able general Constan-
tine V but his incapable grandson Constantine VI.
Collapse of the A vars
Meanwhile in the 790s the Frankish king, Charlemagne, campaigned

against the Avars. He won a major victory in 796 (in which the Panno-
nian Croatian duke Vojnomir aided Charles) and the Franks made
themselves overlords over the Croatians of northern Dalmatia, Slavo-
nia, and Pannonia; Frankish missionaries soon entered the area. A
second major blow to Avar power, but this time from the east, soon
followed under a new Bulgar khan Krum. As a result of these two
victories, the Franks and Bulgars soon came to have a common border
along the River Tisza. A second result of the A var collapse seems to
have been to allow the Bulgars to extend their overlordship over the
territory north of the Danube up to the Carpathians.
The Avars did not disappear at once. West of the Danube a
khaganate, which was vassal to the Franks and under a Christian kha-
gan, was established. Frankish sources mention envoys from it visiting
the Frankish court between 805 and 822. After that nothing more is
heard of any A var khaganate. However, Frankish troops defeated an
attack by some Avars in 863. And in 889 mention is made of the
Hungarians seizing the pastures of some free Avars in lower Pannonia.
After that sources cease mentioning the Avars; presumably the descen-
dants of those who survived the Hungarian conquest of the Hungarian
plain in the 890s were absorbed by the Hungarians.
The Byzantine Recovery of Greece
According to the sources examined earlier, there were Slavs living

throughout Greece during the seventh and eighth centuries. All of
Greece except the islands and certain coastal cities such as Corinth,
which may have retained some of its hinterland, were out of imperial
control until Byzantine offensives began to regain some territory dur-
ing the 780s.
Staurakios's Greek Campaign, 782-84
In 782-83, since things were peaceful in the east and the Bulgars were
then quiet, it became possible for the empire to launch an offensive
against the Slavs. The imperial armies, led by the eunuch general
Staurakios, first attacked the Slavs around Thessaloniki and then
marched south through Thessaly into central Greece, where they at-
tacked the Slavs there and then marched into the Peloponnesus. They
won victories in Hellas (probably meaning Thessaly) and the Pelopon-
nesus; they took many prisoners and returned to the capital in 784
where Staurakios was given a great triumph. Staurakios clearly did not
recover all the Peloponnesus. In fact, the campaign may not have
aimed at extending Byzantine control in the Peloponnesus but may
have simply been a raiding party. It is not known whether any new
territory was restored to imperial authority in the Peloponnesus on this
occasion, though it is possible some was. And though he clearly won
victories and may well have made some defeated Slavs pay homage,
the loose organization of the Slavs would have made it impossible for
him to have subdued all of them in so short a time; whatever submis-
sions he received might well have been lost after his departure.
Creation of the Macedonian Theme
No more campaigns into Greece are known until the reign of the
emperor Nicephorus I (802-11). The preceding chapter discussed the
restoration of Byzantine administration in the regions closest to the
capital, with the creation of the themes of Thrace and the Helladikoi
(probably including parts of eastern Macedonia and Thessaly) at the
end of the seventh century. No more themes were created for a cen-
tury thereafter. Between 789 and 802 the theme of Macedonia was
established. This name is misleading since the theme contained little of
geographical Macedonia. It consisted of western Thrace and its strate-
gos resided in Adrianople. Its creation probably did not reflect new
conquests. Most of its territory seems to have been taken away from
the two seventh-century themes and made into a separate theme.
Nicephorus I's Recovery of Greece
A serious and successful effort to recover the Peloponnesus was
launched by Nicephorus I (802-11). Most scholars date the establish-
ment of the Peloponnesian theme to the early ninth century, at some
time around 805, when Nicephorus's Greek campaign was in full
swing. Ostrogorsky has argued that the Peloponnesian theme dates
back to the 780s, a result of Staurakios's campaign. Let us now turn to
the source accounts of the campaigns in the Peloponnesus in the early
ninth century.
The Chronicle of Monemvasia dates the Slavic occupation of the
Peloponnesus 587-805. Charanis points out that this does not necessar-
ily mean the Slavs held the Peloponnesus to 805 but that they were inde-
pendent of any imperial authority until then. He argues, supported by
the Chronicle of Monemvasia, that some areas in the Peloponnesus, like
the northeast corner around Corinth, were Greek more or less through-
out this period. The Chronicle of Monemvasia states that the Slavs were
in occupation of the rest of the peninsula until 805 when they were de-
feated and subdued by the governor of Corinth who went to war with the
Slavs, conquered and obliterated them, and allowed the ancient inhabi-
tants to recover their own. Nicephorus was pleased and wanted to rebuild
cities and churches; he rebuilt the city of Patras, reestablished a bishop
there, and settled the town with a mixed people (including Thracians,
Armenians, and others brought from various places). Thus this chroni-
cle sees 805 as the beginning of the real recovery and implies that Patras
was recovered at that time; however, Charanis feels that Patras may
have been held by the Greeks before 805.
A second account of the Slavs in the Peloponnesus and Patras
comes from Constantine Porphyrogenitus's De Administrando Imperio.
He gives no specific date but simply states that the Slavs who were in the
Peloponnesus decided to revolt during the reign of Nicephorus (802-
11), attacked their Greek neighbors' dwellings, and then attacked the
Greek city of Patras. The Greek citizens of Patras sought the aid of the
"strategos of the theme" who resided in the fortress of Corinth. He was
slow in coming but the city was saved by the miraculous intervention of
St. Andrew, who aided the citizens in a sortie to defeat the Slavs. The
captured Slavs were made slaves of a new church dedicated to St.
Andrew in Patras; this story provides a fine example of the use made of
the church to hellenize the Slavs.
Since Constantine gives no specific date, there is a controversy
over his story. (1) Some scholars see the events he describes as a revolt
after the initial recovery and rebuilding of Patras in 805 or 806. Thus
they believe it should be seen as a second military event around Patras
taking place sometime between ca. 807 and 811 (the last year of
Nicephorus's reign). The reference to a theme and strategos signifies
that the Peloponnesian theme had already been established; this had
most probably occurred in association with the events which the Mon-
emvasia chronicle dates 805. (2) Others feel that possibly Constantine
is giving a distorted version of the initial recovery. If so, his story
should probably be dated 805. In this case the reference to a strategos
of a theme, if it is not an anachronism introduced by the mid-tenth-
century author, means that the Peloponnesian theme's establishment
precedes the events of 805. Some want to establish the theme immedi-
ately before these events; possibly the first step in the campaign was a
decision to raise the military governor of the Byzantine city of Corinth
to the rank of strategos. Others have tried to date the theme back to
the 780s and Staurakios's campaign.
Since I do not find at all odd two military engagements around
Patras at a critic.':ll time of Byzantine recovery, a recovery which would
surely stir up the opposition of some Slavs, and since Constantine
clearly has the Slavs attacking a Greek-held city, I strongly favor the
first alternative given above. This makes 805 the year that part of the
Peloponnesus including Patras was recovered and the Peloponnesian
theme established. Then, three to five years later rebel Slavs attacked
Patras and failed to capture it.
There is a third reference to these events. Theophanes, who was
very hostile to the emperor Nicephorus for his church policy, lists a
series of "wickednesses" of that emperor. One wickedness is relevant
to us. Theophanes says that Nicephorus transferred Christians from
every province of the empire to the Sclavinias, and the people wept
over the graves of their fathers and felt that the dead were more
blessed than the living. Some hanged themselves to escape their dread-
ful fate. Poor and rich alike were helpless. This forcible population
transfer was begun in September 810 and completed by Easter 811.
Such transfers were common Byzantine policy.
The term Sclavinias is vague, for it refers to any one of the numer-
ous regions throughout the Balkans where the Slavs were. The two most
likely places to transfer Greeks to in the first decade of the ninth century
would be (1) Greece, at the time being recovered in order to have in the
area larger numbers of Greeks and Christians to Christianize and rehel-
lenize the area as well as loyal Byzantines to oppose militarily any Slavic
revolts, and (2) the newly established Macedonian theme and Thrace,
which was an area threatened at the time by the warlike Bulgar khan
Krum. Such a transfer would increase the number of defenders ranged
against Krum and would dilute the Slavs who might be loyal to the
Bulgars. Possibly Greeks were sent to both places. That some were sent
to Greece is evident because the Chronicle of Monemvasia states that
under Nicephorus in 805-6 Greeks were sent to repopulate the region of
Patras. It is possible that Theophanes was referring to this very transfer
mentioned in the Chronicle of Monemvasia; if this was the case, then
this wickedness noted by Theophanes should be dated 806 and not 810.
But quite likely population transfers were a regular policy from 805 on
to the end of Nicephorus's reign.
In any case, with the restoration of Byzantine power, a theme of
the Peloponnesus was established. It appears for the first time on a
theme list of 812. Presumably its creation was the result of one of the
two imperial campaigns to recover the peninsula. Thus it would date
from the mid-780s or from around 805. I lean toward the later date.
Corinth, the chief fortress of the theme, had long been held by the
Byzantines. So presumably with increased territory after 805, the mili-
tary governor there received the increased title of strategos, and his
old territory would have been combined with the newly recovered
lands to form a new theme. However, the existence of a theme of the
Peloponnesus does not prove that all of the peninsula was recovered.
The resettlement of Greek-speakers was accompanied by the rees-
tablishment of the church organization. Besides the new metropolitan-
ate of Patras, a metropolitanate of Athens was created between 805
and 810. The resettlement of Greeks and the establishment of a metro-
politan in Patras contributed to the rehellenization of the Peloponne-
sus; and great credit for this must be given to the policy of the emperor
Nicephorus. By his campaigns and resettlement policy (made possible
by his successful campaigns), Greek-speakers who were brought into
the area came to absorb and dominate the Slavs (aided by the restored
administration and the church whose conversion of Slavs was a major
factor in their rehellenization). Even after a Slavonic liturgy was
created in the middle of the ninth century (which was supported by the
Byzantines for foreign Slavic states), the Byzantines did not permit the
Slavonic liturgy inside what were felt to be Greek territories. The Slavs
of Greece all attended Greek-language churches.
New Byzantine Themes of the Ninth Century
In the ninth century other regional themes were created. ( 1) The

theme of Kefalonia (including the Ionian Islands) is first referred to in
809 when its strategos is mentioned. (2) The theme of Nikopolis in

Epirus dates from the second half of the ninth century; there is no
reference to it in a military manual (known as the Taktikon of Uspen-
skij after its scholarly editor) which is dated from between 842 and
856, but its strategos is referred to in a protocol list (the Kletorologion
of Philotheus) from 899. (3) A small theme of Thessaloniki and its
environs is first referred to in 836. It may well have been created by
Nicephorus I (802-11). ( 4) The port of Durazzo with its environs is
referred to as a theme in the Taktikon of Uspenskij (842-56). Ferluga
persuasively argues that it dates back to the time of Nicephorus I. 2 This
is a particularly important theme for our study because Durazzo was
the main Byzantine port on the Adriatic. And later it was to be the
major center for dealing with the independent Slavic state of Duklja,
formed in the eleventh century in what is now Montenegro. (5) The
theme of Strymon included the territory between the themes of Mace-
donia and Thessaloniki and was centered in Serres. Its territory lay
between the Struma and Mesta rivers. Its strategos is not referred to in
the Taktikon of Uspenskij but is mentioned in the 899 protocol list.
From all these administrative centers, Byzantine laws and culture
flowed into the interior; thus administration complemented the work of
the actual Greek citizens and the church in hellenizing and Christianiz-
ing the people of the interior. The coastal cities (some of which had
been imperial throughout, like Corinth, or resettled as Greek centers
upon their recovery, like Patras) were particularly important for this.
Slavs surely remained in large numbers in the Greek interior, but they
were soon to be subdued and assimilated by the superior culture of the
Greeks. By the end of the ninth century most of Greece was culturally
and administratively Greek again except for a few small Slavic tribes
living in the mountains. For example, the Melingi and Ezeritae were
able to retain their independent identity up to the Ottoman conquest.
Yet these two tribes were the exception. The process of rehellen-
ization begun under Nicephorus was continued throughout the ninth
century. Surely other Greek-speakers came to Greece on their own;
some may have emigrated from northern Greece and Thrace to escape
Bulgar attacks, while others may well have fled from Sicily, which was
taken over by the Arabs. A Byzantine bishop, Arethas (writing in the
early tenth century), refers to Greeks from Calabria coming to the
Peloponnesus in the ninth century. The process, though it seems very
rapid to us, occurring in something less than a century, went on gradu-
ally throughout that century. Thus the emperor Leo VI was able to
credit his father, Basil I (867-86), with grecizing the Slavs and convert-
ing them.
The Farmer's Law
The Farmer's Law is a Byzantine code concerned with adjudicating

problems likely to arise within a village. It is a most controversial
document because it does not tell us when, by whom, and for what
communities it was written. The text is in Greek; there are several
Greek manuscripts extant-most of them clearly late copies. There are
also even later Slavic translations. In general scholars assign the text to
the late seventh century (during the reign of Justinian II) or to the first
half of the eighth century. The data they have assembled makes this
dating reasonable.
Region of Its Validity
Next comes the question, was the code valid for the whole empire or
just for a particular region? Since the document focuses on the internal
affairs of a single village, it is difficult to believe that the code had
empire-wide application. Local customs varied significantly throughout
the Byzantine Empire; therefore if the text was relevant, say, to
Thrace, it probably violated the customs of an eastern Anatolian
village and would have caused unrest if it had been forced on villagers
there. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the empire cared about
standardizing such local matters; its concern went little beyond making
certain that taxes were paid and soldiers were recruited. Disputes
about borders inside a village would not have interested the capital.
Moreover, if the empire had been issuing a code to make things uni-
form, the state could be expected to have been looking out for its own
interests (tax rates, collection of taxes, military recruitment, and the
like) and to have stressed such matters in the articles of the code.
However, the text does not treat such issues at all. Thus, most scholars
feel it had local validity and was drawn up for a particular region. If
this was the case, then, since the South Slavs later became familiar
with it and translated it, this region was probably the Balkans.
Since the text is written in Greek (and there are various Greek
texts), it is evident that the law was valid for some imperial territory;
therefore, if the dating of it to the late seventh or early eighth century
is accurate and if its validity is for a particular Balkan region, then it
must have been valid for imperial Thrace (held by the empire through-
out) and/or for the territory regained late in the seventh century and
included in the Thracian and Helladikoi themes, for no more territory
was recovered until the end of the eighth century. Thus it is safe to say
the text was valid for Thrace, parts of Macedonia, and parts of Thes-
saly or some smaller region within this large territory.
This view is similar to that reached by scholars through study of
the code itself. For example, in its eighty-five articles there are refer-
ences to vineyards and figyards but no reference to olive trees. Be-
cause olives were a major crop in much of Greece and Dalmatia, their
absence eliminates these two regions as the territory for which the
code was drawn up. However, Macedonia and the interior of Thrace
have figs and no olives (a rarity since most areas with figs also have
olives) which suggests again the code was valid for some part of this
region. One objection could be raised to this last argument; the code
does have reference to trees in general and though scholars have inter-
preted "trees" as meaning fruit trees, it is not absolutely certain that
olive trees could not have been included under that term.
Its Purpose and Authority
Virtually the entire code is devoted to relations within a village. The

code makes only a couple of references to relations between villages,
when it discusses common borders and disputes about them. There is
much about thefts, accidents, and peasant problems, and very little
about matters which would interest the government. It contains little
on taxes except insofar as it discusses who was liable for the payment
of taxes of a peasant who abandoned his property. Because the whole
village owed a set sum in taxes, the government was not concerned
with how much a particular peasant paid. The code's concern to divide
fairly the burden left by deserters reflects the interests of the peasants.
That the concerns of the law are peasant concerns (and not those of
the state), is further evidence that it was a local code. Yet evidently it
was not written by the local villagers to whom it pertained; presumably
they would have been illiterate and normally they would have settled
their disputes by customary (oral) law through their own village assem-
blies or judgments by village elders.
It seems most probable that the code was designed for a petty
provincial judge who on occasion would have heard disputes between
peasants in villages under his jurisdiction. Probably, he would have
chiefly been faced with appeals when village losers would try to go
over the heads of village justice. So we may suppose that the code was
drawn up by a Byzantine provincial official as a guide for judges under
him; at the same time it was probably not theoretical but based to a
considerable extent on local customs, though it is impossible to say to
what extent. And with a Byzantine author the code would be likely to
include customs of local Greek villages-a question we shall return to

later.
Since only one such code has been found, presumably it was not
based on an imperial order or any sort of general requirement or
reform demand, but rather was the independent act of a high local
official (possibly the strategos of a theme) for use in the territory under
his jurisdiction. Its aim would have been to guide subordinates who
might be judging village cases by providing them with local customs of
which they could well be ignorant. After all, the strategos and the
other high-ranking military officers (e.g., tourmarchs who also had a
civil judiciary role in the themes), as military types, were probably
ignorant of peasant customs; furthermore, it was usual to assign these
military leaders to provinces other than their own; thus frequently
Anatolians, who would have had little background on Balkan customs,
would have been administering Balkan courts.
Eighth-Century Village Society as Seerf in The Farmer's Law
The Farmer's Law indicates the existence of independent villages-

i.e., the farmers were not subject to a landlord; their taxes went di-
rectly to the state. They had private farm plots and if they met their
tax obligations from their new residences, were free to leave their
lands. Thus they were not bound to the soil. Besides the private plots,
the village as a unit held common land for pastures and woods. The
villagers also hired herdsmen to watch the animals of several families
at a time. The village was taxed a certain sum and the villagers were
jointly responsible for the full sum; if someone forfeited, the others
were responsible for his share; thus, the code discusses the taxes owed
by men who left. If such an absentee failed to meet his village tax
obligations, the other villagers, responsible for his taxes, might make
use of (but not take in ownership) his land to aid them in paying his
taxes.
Reference is also made to slaves; thus some farmers were prosper-
ous enough to own slaves. Since there is little mention of them, slaves
were probably not common in villages. The code also mentions hired
workers working on land. Most scholars think of them as landless
peasants. This is not necessarily so; at least in modern villages the
average man who is hired to help with particular chores lives in the
village and owns some land (often a small parcel). However, he needs
more income than his lands provide and thus he hires himself out part
time to supplement the income from his own farm. There is no sign of
large landlords in the code. This, of course, does not mean that they
did not exist elsewhere; they were just not relevant to the contents of
The Farmer's Law.
The code, then, speaks of three types of people: farmers (peas-
ants), hired workers, and slaves. The village was broken up into indi-
vidual plots and each farmer had shares or strips of each sort of land-
strips of first quality land, second quality land, a piece of vineyard, and
so on. When the owner died, each of his heirs inherited a strip of each
type of land. This, in time, if families were large, led to dwarf hold-
ings. It also meant that usually the possessions of a farmer were scat-
tered around the village instead of being a consolidated farm plot.
The type of village described, though presumably in a theme, does
not seem to be connected with the theme structure; in other words,
because the code makes no reference to military service or shares in
the support of a soldier, it did not pertain to a village supporting
thematic troops.
The code is of interest for what it shows, not only about the
internal affairs of a village, but also about the place of villages in
society. Since it concerns free villages (i.e., those not part of an estate
but which paid taxes directly to the state), it shows that free villages
existed, and presumably existed in sufficient numbers to make a gen-
eral document of this sort worthwhile. However, it proves only this.
The absence of reference to great estates does not mean, as some
claim, that there were few or no great estates. It is simply a code
legislating for (or guiding in the handling of cases about) affairs in a
free village. It makes no claim to do anything more. Great estates
could well have existed throughout the province but they would have
handled legal affairs in a different manner. After all, landlords had
authority to judge the peasants on their own estates, and it would have
been rare to find a peasant appealing to the state over the head of his
own landlord. Thus the state would rarely or never have been faced
with a dispute between two villagers living in a village that formed part
of a great estate.
Free Villages and Great Estates
Some scholars have exaggerated two trends, that toward large es-
tates in the sixth century prior to the Slavic invasions and that
toward free villages in the end of the seventh and eighth century; in
so doing they have come up with the following distorted picture,
which finds its way into some of the literature on Byzantine-Balkan
history: At the time of Justinian I, the empire was composed chiefly
of great estates under landlords who had enserfed all (almost all)
the peasants. The Slavic invasions followed, killing or driving out
the landlords (at least those in the Balkans). The Slavs settled
throughout the Balkans, setting up their own villages. Then, after
Byzantine recovery the Byzantine Balkans was found to be full of
Slavic settlers amidst whom were no great estates. This situation of
free villages remained for years thereafter, reinforced by the settling
of soldiers (thematic troops) on small holdings.
There are problems with this oversimplified picture. Although
there were many enormous estates in the sixth century and although
the trend was for their growth and for the percentage of overall land
becoming part of such great estates to increase, the whole empire (and
certainly the Balkans) did not consist just of great estates. Free villages
survived throughout this period, despite de.clining numbers and con-
stantly dwindling holdings. References to them throughout the empire
appear in saints' lives, and Justinian's edict against foreclosures on free
holdings in Thrace and Illyricum shows free holdings were widespread
enough to warrant a general law.
The Slavic invasions followed and disrupted land tenure in the
Balkans. In the Sclavinias surely the great landlords did not remain.
The former peasants on their estates in some cases disappeared, either
fleeing or being killed; others certainly remained, eking out their sub-
sistence on their former plots or on new lands as free villagers. So, in
the territory lost to imperial control which was to be regained, at the
moment of recovery no great estates existed.
Imperial Thrace around the capital and Adrianople did not fall;
because this region suffered most frequent raids, some of the local
landlords may have sold their estates and moved to Asia Minor, but
many certainly kept their lands with serfs and simply spent more time
residing inside walled cities. In fact, even in peaceful times the landed
aristocracy generally spent most of its time living in town houses in the
capitals. Thus great estates probably remained in effect in much of
imperial Thrace, though presumably their prosperity had declined as a
result of the unsettled conditions in the countryside. In this period the
number of free peasants must have risen, even in imperial Thrace;
some Slavs migrated into this area and presumably the villages they
established were free. The sources mention various captives and east-
ern peoples being settled here-often as soldiers-to bolster the area's
defenses. Such people would have been settled on free-often the-
matic-villages.
After the reconquest of Macedonia, Thessaly, and the rest of
Thrace by the empire, more people were resettled in these regions.
Most of those so settled were peasants and presumably most of them

would have been established in free villages. Furthermore, whatever
people were brought in to be thematic units would have been estab-
lished in free villages. Thus there would have been an increased num-
ber of free elements being added to the numbers of Slavs already living
in free villages in this reconquered territory. However, though at the
time of recovery no great estates were found in these regions, this
situation would not have continued.
Recovery meant added security to the church, and this was a
period of great donations to the church and the rise of monastic es-
tates. Since estates would have been of little value without labor,
peasants were certainly settled on most of these newly donated monas-
tic lands. And we noted Constantine Porphyrogenitus's mention of
Slav peasants being given as slaves to the Church of Saint Andrew in
Patras. Surely this was not a unique case. Thus we see that the church
from the moment of reconquest was acquiring lands and serfs.
Officials and wealthy citizens were also presumably buying lands
and starting to build up estates. Since commerce was looked down
upon, there was little other than land to invest one's money in. Thus in
secure, recovered areas the rich could be expected to start buying
lands immediately, and though there would have been a preponder-
ance of small holdings for a while, from the time of reconquest the
process of estate formation would have begun.
Saints' lives of the eighth and ninth centuries refer to these great
estates throughout the empire, including the Balkans. The sources
mention enormous estates in Thessaly and the Peloponnesus in the
ninth century, and by the tenth century great estates were becoming a
problem for the economy of the empire, just as they had been back in
the time of Justinian. The widow Danielis, who was patroness for Basil
the Macedonian before he became emperor, for example, had vast
estates near Patras. She not only had a great amount of land, but also
hundreds of slaves who manned a whole series of shops and other
enterprises. Particularly impressive were her textile works. She contin-
ued to favor Basil with gifts after he became emperor and a source
claims she annually gave him more than sovereigns were able to offer
one another.
Things were never static and it was never a question of there being
all one or all the other type of landholding. Free villages always coex-
isted with great estates, and it was just a question of what moment one
is thinking of as to which form predominated. The end of the seventh
century and the eighth century was a period in which there were large
numbers of free villages.
Influence of the Slavs on Rural Customs
The Slavs had a great effect on landholding; they totally disrupted the
old land tenure relationships in the areas they occupied, and probably
by their raids, which produced conditions of insecurity, they to some
extent disrupted land tenure in imperial Thrace. Before and after re-
covery they certainly provided much of the manpower for the free
villages in the Balkans-like those described in The Farmer's Law-
and also a portion of the thematic troops. In addition, because of the
increased population in the area-from the Slavs-there was less rea-
son to bind people to the soil, be it to the soil of an estate or of a
tax-paying independent village. Hence the Slavic invasions contributed
greatly to eliminating great estates, to providing the population which
made possible free villages with people not bound to the soil, and to
reviving the rural economy. The Farmer's Law depicts the society that
resulted from the Slavic invasions. This is probably the extent of the
Slavs' influence on The Farmer's Law.
Nevertheless, some Slavic scholars have wanted to go much fur-
ther. They argue that the bulk of the rural population after the inva-
sions (and even after recovery in the recovered territories) was Slavic.
Since the code was based on local customs, they maintain, it must
depict primitive Slavic institutions and customs which later received
imperial recognition as the basic rural institutions for the empire.
Some of these scholars then compare the society described in The
Farmer's Law with the Russian obscina (commune) in the seventeenth
century and claim that the obsCina was based on primitive Slavic cus-
toms; since the contents of The Farmer's Law are similar to obscina
customs, they maintain that this confirms the theory that The Farmer's
Law was based on early Slavic customs.
However, this is not valid. The obsCina customs in Russia are
shown to be of more recent origin, imposed in the sixteenth century by
the Muscovite state to facilitate its tax collection. There is no evidence
that the obscina preserves primitive Slavic customs, and we are not
justified in falling back on Marxist or other theoretical models that
posit stages through which societies must pass (and stress an early
communal one) and assume such a theoretical construct is a fact. The-
ories must be based on sources.
Some Slavic scholars, to show The Farmer's Law's Slavic char-
acter, claim that the code establishes the periodic redistribution of
land, which they claim is an old Russian (therefore Slavic) custom. But
here they are on very shaky ground. Periodic redistribution of land
would be a logical way to deal with dwarf holdings and cannot be
taken as unique for any particular society. Furthermore, it is not clear

that the code really does establish the periodic redistribution of land.
Finally, this practice also is not an old Russian institution but one that
was later imposed by the state in the sixteenth and seventeenth centu-
ries for tax purposes.
Now let us see what the code establishes. It mentions family prop-
erty and common lands. If periodic redistribution of land can exist on a
village scale, there must be some general village ownership of land that
is higher than that of individual families. For without such a concept
there would be no authority to redistribute lands. In trying to solve this
question, we must turn to the so-called right of departure. Did a man
lose his property rights if he left his land? The code states that as long
as he paid his taxes from wherever he went, he did not. If he failed to
meet his taxes, then the villagers might utilize his lands to help meet
the tax burden (for the villagers did have joint responsibility to pay
taxes) but they could not take his lands. Only if he did not return and
did not pay taxes for a period of thirty years did he lose the land. But
then he lost it for tax default and the land was taken not by the village
but by the state for reassignment to someone who would pay the taxes.
Though presumably the state would have frequently reassigned the
land to someone within the village, the fact that the state and not the
village took this land for reassignment implies that the village had no
such authority on its own.
Now, does The Farmer's Law actually speak of a periodic redistri-
bution of land? There are three references that have been taken by
scholars to refer to it, Articles 8, 32, and 82. Article 8 states, "If a
division wronged people in their lots or lands let them have license to
undo the division." This does not show periodic redistribution; this
could refer to an initial division in the establishment of a village or
more likely a division among heirs of a deceased father's estate. It
gives to the heirs a right to challenge what is seen as an unfair division
of an estate. Nothing in the article even suggests that the whole village
is faced with some sort of redivision. Scholars have argued whether the
Greek word used, merismos (division), has a specific or technical con-
notation, but it seems to many (and I feel correctly) that the Greek
word is as unspecific as to what is being divided as our word division.
Article 32 states, "If a tree is cultivated by someone in an undi-
vided place and afterwards an allotment took place and it fell to
another in his lot, let no one have possession of the tree but him who
cultivated it." Here it seems that the allotment referred to is an initial
one. Possibly the village had expanded into the common woodland
where someone had cultivated a fruit tree. Possibly it again refers to a
division of a father's estate previously undivided, now being divided

among his heirs. There is nothing here that suggests periodic redistri-
bution of land, and Article 32 could only create a chaotic situation if it
were valid for a society which practiced such redistribution.
Article 82 states, "If after the land of the district has been divided
a man finds in his own lot a place suitable for the erection of a mill and
sets about it, the farmers of the other lots are not entitled to say
anything about the mill." This again seems to be an original allotment,
possibly at the establishment of a new village. There is no suggestion
here of any second or later divisions.
One also suspects that in conditions of low population density, if a
family found its holdings too small, it would simply expand its holdings
into some neighboring woodland by chopping down trees. This prac-
tice was still being followed in nineteenth-century Serbia. Thus in
many-but not all-regions redistribution would not even have been a
necessary institution. Agricultural techniques were then primitive, so
presumably on occasion the soil became exhausted and a whole village
would have moved. But this would have entailed clearing new land and
creating an initial division rather than redistributing old lands. Possibly
this sometimes occurred and some of the divisions referred to in the
articles cited previously refer to the right to challenge a division made
in the case of initial divisions when a village moved to a new location.
We can see, therefore, that there is no evidence that periodic
redistribution of land is an old Slavic custom. It also is not clear that
The Farmer's Law even refers to it; in fact, it probably does not.
Common sense also argues against Slavic influence on the text.
The Byzantine state was primarily concerned with tax collection and
military recruitment. It had laws to cover these needs. What went on
within a village beyond these issues was of little interest to the state.
Thus Slavic villages would have been allowed to handle their quarrels
by themselves and the state would not interfere. Furthermore, there
were many Greeks throughout the parts of the Balkans which the
empire then held; many had remained during the period of Slavic
occupation and many others were resettled in recovered regions to
rehellenize the area and dilute the Slavs. Thus regions were not as
heavily populated by Slavs as some scholars might have it (though
surely in much of the territory Slavs were a majority). The extent of
the region to which The Farmer's Law was applied is not known, so it
is not known whether Slavs formed a majority of the population of that
region.
The empire, fostering its rehellenization policy, would presumably
have been concerned primarily with new Greek villages, that things
went smoothly for them, that land was broken in and farmed for the
needs of the state. Thus more government concern could be expected
for these new settlers than for the Slavs. Furthermore, Byzantine arro-
gance probably prevented the administration from giving legal sanction
to purely Slavic customs or allowing such customs general validity to
supersede customs of Greek villages in the area.
Probably each village judged its own internal matters by its own
customs and the state judges became involved inside a village only
when villagers failed to meet their tax or military obligations or when a
villager appealed to the state over the heads of local village justice.
Only in this last situation would The Farmer's Law have come into
play as a guide for the judge. Since The Farmer's Law is written in
Greek, drawn up, presumably, by Greeks, insofar as local customs had
a part, more weight surely was given to local Greek customs.
There is nothing in the code which is specifically Slavic. In fact, it
is impossible to show that particular points are Slavic because no docu-
mentation about Slavic village customs exists until centuries later.
Since by that time The Farmer's Law had already been translated into
Slavonic, Slavic customs found in later sources, instead of being primi-
tive Slavic traditions, could well have been patterns acquired from The
Farmer's Law. Most of the code, however, exemplifies commonsense
peasant reasoning and could have been drawn from the customs of any
nationality. It is likely that village legal customs between Slavic and
Greek villages were quite similar. Thus most scholars have rejected the
theory of Slavic influence on The Farmer's Law and the idea that it
depicts Slavic villages and their customs.
NOTES
1. G. Cankova-Petkova, "0 territorii bolgarskogo gosudarstva, v VII-

IX vv," Vizantijskij vremennik 17 (1960):124-43.
2. J. Ferluga, "Sur la date de la creation du Theme de Dyrrachium," in
J. Ferluga, Byzantium on the Balkans (Amsterdam, 1976), pp. 215-24.
CHAPTER 4
Bulgaria in the Ninth Century
Krum
Krum, one of Bulgaria's greatest warrior rulers, came to the Bulgarian

throne in about 803. He was originally a Bulgarian chieftain from
Pannonia. Nothing is known about his activities there nor about his
acquisition of the Bulgarian throne.
It is tempting to associate him with the old royal house, and make
him a descendant of Kovrat's son who migrated to Pannonia in the
660s. If that son were Kuver, possibly he left sons behind him when he
migrated south to Macedonia; then Krum might have been a descen-
dant of Kuver. This is idle speculation. But it is likely that the warfare
in Pannonia between the Avars and Franks caused various defeated
Avars :md their clients (who could well have included some Bulgars) to
become dislocated and move east as a compact unit. We have dis-
cussed the instability existing in the Bulgarian state, where a struggle
for the throne had been going on for decades. Possibly these immi-
grants appeared at a moment of crisis and took over.
Wars with the A vars
Shortly thereafter, in 805, Krum was at war with the Avars who had
already lost their western territories to the Franks and their Croatian
allies. Krum was successful. After a brief encounter he defeated the
Avars and united the Bulgarians of the west (Pannonia) to those of the
east and thereby created a far more powerful state. The Bulgarian
state then may have extended to the Tisza River, which was the east-
ern border of the expanding Frank state. However, Cankova-Petkova
believes Krum's western borders did not even reach the Timok River.
In the territory to the west of the original Bulgar state around the
Timok and beyond were small tribal groups. She argues that these
peoples were only subjected by Krum's son, Omurtag, in 827. 1 At
94
Bulgaria in the Ninth Century 95
whatever moment-be it under Krum or Omurtag-the Bulgars ac-

quired this territory, the Bulgars and Franks came to have a common
border for the first time. In addition, with the fall of the Avar khaga-
nate the Bulgars replaced the Avars as overlords over the Slavs and
proto-Rumanians living in the territory north of the Danube up to the
Carpathians and as far east as the Dnepr.
Wars with Byzantium
Very little is known about Krum's state until warfare broke out with
Byzantium. It seems the event that set things off was a Byzantine raid
launched against Bulgaria in 807. It is not known whether this was an
aggressive act or retaliation for some earlier Bulgar action. In any case
the raid had hardly begun when a plot against the emperor Nicephorus
was uncovered, leading to the immediate recall of the imperial army.
Krum, however, did not take this lightly. In 808 Bulgarian troops
raided into imperial territory along the Struma River and in 809
Krum's armies took Sardika (Sofija). According to Byzantine sources,
having massacred the garrison (supposedly six thousand men), he
razed the walls and returned to Bulgaria. 2 In retaliation, it seems, later
in 809, the emperor Nicephorus marched against the Bulgarian capital
of Pliska and ravaged its environs. However, time was short, forcing
him to withdraw.
At this juncture (810-11) Theophanes notes the "wickednesses"
of Nicephorus and mentions the relocation of Greeks from elsewhere
in the empire (presumably chiefly from Anatolia) to the Sclavinias.
Most studies associate these shifts of population with the wars against
Krum and conclude that these people were settled in Thrace along the
Bulgarian border. This is perfectly plausible, but the Chronicle of
Monemvasia mentions population transfers to the Patras region in 806.
Further relocations of people to recovered Greece cannot be ruled out.
Thus the new settlers could have been settled in Thrace near the
Bulgarian border and/or the regions of Greece which were being re-
covered in the first decade of the ninth century. If they were sent to
Thrace, they would have strengthened defenses against the Bulgarian
raiders and have diluted the Slavs in Thrace, some of whom may well
have had ties with Krum or with other Slavs living within his state.
Nicephorus was angry over the sack of Sardika and also believed
that various Byzantine commanders and officials had not done all that
they might have to defend the town. Word reached these people of the
emperor's displeasure and they learned that they would not be par-
doned. These people, including some engineers, fled to Krum. The
Byzantine authors report that these refugees, especially the engineers,

proved useful to Krum; in particular they helped improve his siege
machinery. While this may have been true, it might also be taken as a
typically arrogant Byzantine interpretation to believe that no barbari-
ans could develop technical improvements on their own and to thus
assign credit to the imperial brains which deserted. Such a view may
not be warranted. After all, Krum's predecessors, and presumably
former masters in Pannonia, the Avars, were masters at siege warfare
and Krum himself took Sardika seemingly with little difficulty prior to
these desertions.
In any case Nicephorus, unhappy with developments in Bulgaria,
in 811 led a massive campaign to destroy the upstart Krum. A brief
account of the campaign is given by Theophanes but a much fuller
account is preserved in a manuscript recently found by I. Dujcev in a
Vatican collection of saints' lives. According to this source, Krum was
not prepared for a major invasion and he held out offers of peace to
Nicephorus, who refused them. Seeing no chance to defend Pliska
against this massive army, Krum abandoned his capital and fled to the
mountains, leaving a small garrison behind at Pliska. The newly found
manuscript states that this garrison was composed of twelve thousand
men, but possibly this figure is exaggerated. Nicephorus took Pliska
without difficulty, penetrated the khan's residence, and massacred the
garrison. He then succeeded in wiping out a late-arriving small Bulgar-
ian force sent to aid the defenders.
Having occupied Pliska, Nicephorus plundered the city. The
anonymous manuscript reports that he divided the wealth, gold, and
wine with his soldiers. According to the strongly biased monk Theo-
phanes, who detested Nicephorus for the emperor's church policy at
home, Nicephorus put his personal seal on all the goods and refused to
allow his soldiers to receive any booty; those soldiers who touched
things had their ears and other members cut off. The anonymous
manuscript gives a brief description of the khan's palace at Pliska. It
was enormous, and had a series of terraces with alleys running through
it. Nicephorus decided he wanted to erect a new Byzantine town here
to be named for himself. To prepare the way for this he burned down
the entire town, much of which-including a major portion of Krum's
palace-was built of wood.
Then, leaving Pliska in ruins, he ordered a march in the direction
of Sardika, hoping for an engagement with Krum in order to destroy
him. Krum again sent envoys requesting peace, and once again
Nicephorus refused the offer. The anonymous author presents us
with an account of the disastrous end of the campaign. Previously,
only the results were known but not how they had come about.
Probably the story should be accepted as accurate, though it must be
noted that the tale of Nicephorus was told to illustrate his hubris and
how the sin of pride (illustrated by his ambitions to build a city
named for himself on the ruins of the Bulgarian capital) preceded a
fall. According to the story, his sin was punished almost immediately.
After a few days' march southwest from Pliska, Nicephorus began
to neglect affairs. His spirit was no longer the same; he was like a man
outside of himself; he lost his mind and suffered mental confusion and
a paralyzed will. He retired to his tent. The army camped around him
with its tents spread at some distance from one another as a precaution
against a surprise attack. Nicephorus remained in his tent constantly,
refused to see anyone, and issued no orders. His generals and officials
did not dare to force their way into his presence. Finally they per-
suaded his son Staurakios to go and reason with him in an effort to
convince him to leave this place located dangerously beneath a moun-
tain range. Nicephorus lost his temper with his son and wanted to hit
him; the army remained camped where it was. Some soldiers, seeing
what was happening, broke discipline and began pillaging the area,
burning fields, stealing animals, feasting and carousing, while other
soldiers simply deserted and went home.
The Bulgarians, camped in the mountains above the Byzantines,
watched the disintegration of the Byzantine army. Krum had already
sent embassies to neighboring Avars and Slavs for aid. This shows that
Krum had good relations with some Slavic tribes who lived outside of
his state. Most probably they were Slavs from Thrace or Macedonia.
Krum then armed his women as well as his men and ordered a dawn
surprise strike upon the Byzantine camp. As noted, the Byzantine
tents were spread widely apart; when the attackers struck word of the
attack was slow to circulate. The Bulgars immediately directed their
attack toward the imperial tent; Nicephorus was killed and his son and
heir Staurakios was mortally wounded. A massacre followed and the
Bulgars enjoyed a complete victory. Krum then in triumph had the
emperor's head carried back on a pole to Pliska where it was cleaned
out, lined with silver and made into a goblet which he allowed his
Slavic princes (archons) to drink from with him.
With the emperor dead, and his only son and heir lingering on his
deathbed for several months, the empire was in considerable chaos.
No army stood between Krum and Constantinople. However, he did
not immediately take advantage of the situation; almost a year passed
before he attacked. Then in 812 he launched his invasion against the
important fortress of Develtus near the Black Sea. After taking the
city, he destroyed it, leveling all the fortifications so that they could
not be used against him. Its inhabitants were forcibly transferred to
Bulgaria. He then sent an ultimatum for a truce to the empire.
By this time the empire had found a new ruler, Michael I Ran-
gabe, the husband of Nicephorus's daughter. Michael was incompetent
in all respects as a statesman, but since he favored the party of the
Extremist monks and listened to their advice, he receives praise from
the chronicler Theophanes. The Byzantines were slow to respond to
Krum's ultimatum, so Krum captured the important Black Sea port of
Mesembria from which he took great booty.
Meanwhile, in Constantinople the Byzantines were debating over
the treaty; in particular they were arguing over whether to accept a
clause calling for the handing over of all Bulgarian deserters who had
sought refuge in imperial territory. The Byzantine officials wanted to
agree to this clause and completely accept the proposed treaty but
Theodore of Studios and the Extremist monks convinced the emperor
Michael that he must reject this point for it would be a sin to return
the deserters. They persuaded the emperor to reject the clause by
citing John 6:37, "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and
him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out." So the clause was
rejected and Krum resumed his attack.
Zlatarski speculates that there may have been more to the clause's
rejection than Christian ethics; those who deserted to Byzantium fre-
quently included high officials and members of various political fac-
tions which had been struggling for the throne. Byzantium liked to
have such people around to use whenever an opportunity presented
itself to meddle in Bulgarian affairs. As noted, Byzantium installed its
puppets on the Bulgarian throne on occasions during the eighth cen-
tury. Thus Zlatarski may be right in thinking that there were also
political reasons to reject this clause.
In 813 Krum raided imperial territory again and an imperial army
was sent out against him. Poor Byzantine leadership and dissensions
within the army resulted in a major victory for Krum. As a result of
this defeat the emperor Michael was deposed and a general, Leo, took
the throne as Leo V. A later source accuses Leo of deliberately losing
the battle against Krum to discredit Michael and obtain the throne for
himself. After his victory, with no further imperial troops around to
oppose him, and with a change of rulers being effected in the capital,
Krum advanced on the major city of Adrianople which he besieged.
Leaving his brother to capture it, he then marched on Constantinople;
arriving with his armies, he was given an invitation and a promise of
safe conduct to meet with the new emperor. Accepting this at face
value, Krum set out unarmed for the capital with only a small escort.
Suddenly he found himself in an ambush; he wheeled around and
managed to escape. Needless to say, this treachery infuriated him and
he ravaged the countryside beyond the walls of the capital and de-
stroyed the suburbs. One source reports that he even carted off large
pillars to redecorate Pliska, which he was rebuilding after its destruc-
tion by Nicephorus.
Unable to take Constantinople, he returned to Adrianople, which
had fallen to his brother. There he captured a large number of inhabi-
tants, including the archbishop of Adrianople, Manuel. These people
were carried off beyond the Danube. As noted above, the Bulgarian
state by then occupied both sides of the Danube and extended north
up to the Carpathians. In these years many captives were taken to
Bulgaria from the empire. Probably they included Slavs as well as
Greeks; but clearly many of them were Christians (and the archbishop
has been noted). As a result, many Christians came to be found inside
of Bulgaria who soon began to sow the seeds of their religion there.
In 814 Krum assembled a huge army, which, the sources say,
included Slavs and Avars, and launched a new campaign that was
aimed at Constantinople. However, on the way he suffered a stroke
and died. Thus the empire was spared further pillaging at the hands
of this able warrior prince. Though Krum is usually depicted as a
major enemy of Byzantium, it should be noted that Byzantium seems
to have initiated the wars. In the early stages Krum sought peace but
was rebuffed by the Byzantines. He turned to a major assault against
the empire only after his great victory over Nicephorus in a war
Nicephorus forced upon him. Even after this triumph, he waited to
strike the empire and only pressed war upon it when his peace offers
were rejected.
Krum's Achievements
Krum is credited by scholars with many achievements: he united the

western Bulgars to his state and extended Bulgaria's borders to the
west where they may have reached as far as the Tisza River. He also
expanded Bulgaria's territory to the north and east. He did a great
deal to strengthen Bulgaria's armies; he won victories over the Byzan-
tines, though his greatest successes began when the emperor Nicepho-
rus had what could be called a nervous breakdown and then continued
through a disastrous two-year reign of an incompetent emperor fol-
lowed by a palace revolution. Thus the empire was not able to offer
Krum the opposition it could have at other times. But he showed
himself able in besieging and capturing cities (and he was able to take
a series of well-fortified towns). He did not try to hold all of them; at
times he just razed the walls so that they could not be used against
him. He did not permanently expand Bulgarian boundaries to the
south against Byzantium; he occupied some territory there briefly but
after his death the boundary again was to be the Balkan mountains.
Krum also issued a law code; unfortunately its text has not been
preserved and only a couple of items from it were preserved by a
tenth-century compiler who wrote under the name of Suidas. The code
prescribed the death penalty for false oaths and false accusations and
ordered the uprooting of vines; the last is usually interpreted as a
measure against drunkenness. As far as is known this was the first law
code issued for the Bulgarian state. Zlatarski believes it was valid for
everyone. If so, the code would have put an end to specific laws and
privileges for different elements in the society and would have placed
everyone under a single set of laws. Though Zlatarski's is a reasonable
hypothesis, it is not certain that the code was intended to put an end to
all local self-rule privileges, and even if this was Krum's intent, he may
not have been successful.
Sources exist to support the preceding statements about Krum's
achievements. However, Krum is also credited, with little basis, with
having achieved a variety of other things. First., historians claim that he
centralized the state and built up more of a state apparatus to put
down the individual boyars who had been governing independently in
the provinces. Such could have been the case but no sources exist to
prove it. All that can be said is that his military success suggests he was
able to obtain obedience from the boyars. However, he may have
achieved this by being a successful military leader who brought much
booty to those following his standard. Through such rewards he could
have built up a large following, by means of which he could have
forced others to obey or be subject to punitive raids. It is also possible
that he won the support of the boyars by allowing them great indepen-
dence in their provinces, and that he avoided revolts against his rule by
recognizing boyar privilege. If this second hypothesis is correct, there
would have been no reason for the boyars to oppose him, and he could
have been successful in battle without increasing the central govern-
ment's authority at all. In fact, he would have had foreign successes as
a result of not trying to centralize.
The law code might suggest an attempt at centralization; however,
since its text has not survived, its thrust and aims remain unknown.
Furthermore, even if the code gave great authority to the khan and his
servants it would not demonstrate centralization unless it could be
shown that the khan was able to enforce its articles. The fact that no
revolts against him are known might suggest that he crushed the oligar-
chy. However, if he was popular with its members, there would have
been no reason for them to revolt. Reigns of eleven years without
revolt occurred earlier without scholars suggesting centralization.
Krum's Relations with the Slavs
Krum is also credited with showing no favoritism to the Bulgar boyars

over the Slavs, and it has been said that he built his state into an
autocracy as opposed to an oligarchy by relying on the Slavic element.
This may be true but it cannot be proven. First, no evidence exists to
show that he did replace an oligarchy by an autocracy; and, secondly,
the sources report so little about his relations with the Slavs that it is
impossible to say what role they played in government. If the initial
agreements with the defeated Slavs back in the seventh century, de-
spite making them pay tribute, allowed them much local autonomy,
possibly they would not have been interested in strengthening the cen-
tral government at all. In addition, the limited sources provide no
information to show that Krum played the Slavs off against the old
Bulgar boyars or that he included many Slavs in his government. Ex-
cept for the references to Slavs in his armies or Slavs coming to aid him
on his summonses-which were occasions which had nothing to do
with internal affairs but instead involved fighting a foreign enemy-
there are only two sources that suggest any particular friendship to-
ward Slavic elements.
The first of these is a Byzantine chronicle which reports that hav-
ing made Nicephorus's skull into a goblet, Krum gave it to Slav princes
(archons) to drink from. Since the passage does not refer to Bulgars or
boyars, some scholars have suggested this shows some favored position
to the Slavs. Others have even interpreted it to mean that Slavs had
been brought into dominant positions at court and in the retinue,
forcing out the old Bulgar aristocracy (possibly even sending them off
to their own estates in the provinces) and thereby paving the way for
the khan to deprive the boyars of their hereditary role and raise him-
self up as an autocrat. This all could be true, but it is reading a great
deal into this one simple story.
An alternative explanation could be the following: the anonymous
manuscript reports that when Nicephorus was experiencing his victo-
ries, taking Pliska and then heading south in pursuit of Krum, Krum
had sent for aid to the neighboring Slavs and Avars. If the neighboring
Slavs (who evidently lived as independent tribes and were not mem-
bers of the Bulgar state, since the source calls them neighboring) had
sent aid, then very likely Krum would have invited their leaders to a
victory banquet after his triumph. If so, then the archons referred to
could well have been these foreign Slav leaders. In fact, Byzantine
sources usually used the term archon to designate a prince; it would
seem to be a very high title for this source to use if the Slavs were
simply high officials at his court.
Finally, common sense suggests that if Krum needed a force to use
against the old Bulgars (the boyars living in the northeast, in the
central part of the old state) and if he was really from Pannonia, then
he would have relied upon his own tribesmen and cohorts from the
west who had presumably come east with him as his retinue when he
obtained the throne and who very likely provided the muscle which
allowed him to obtain the throne in the first place. That this was
perhaps his policy is seen in the fact that his second in command-who
took Adrianople and who probably governed it after its conquest-was
his own brother. If Krum relied heavily on these Pannonians, this
policy could have somewhat limited the privileges and positions of the
old court boyars from the eastern part of the state.
The second source suggesting Krum's friendship toward the Slavs
simply reports that Krum sent a man named Dragomir as an ambassa-
dor to Constantinople in 812. This is clearly a Slavic name. However,
names may not have been given strictly according to nationality at this
time; after over a century of probable intermarrying much mixing
could be expected to have taken place in the society. Thus names
could have crossed ethnic lines. In fact, Krum's own grandson was to
have the Slavic name of Malamir. However, if Dragomir was really a
Slav, which is perfectly likely, it merely shows that one Slav attained a
trusted position. Though it is probable that others were in high posi-
tions as well, this one remark is by no means proof that Krum used
Slavs exclusively or even that he used more than one.
In fact, the one source that lists high officials-an inscription we
shall turn to shortly-gives the names of the three highest men in the
state; and not surprisingly all three are Bulgars. Thus it is wrong to
state-as some scholars have-that the old boyars were exiled from
court to provincial posts to be replaced by Slavs. No source exists to
suggest such an expulsion occurred and there is continued evidence of
Bulgar boyars at the top of the administration.
However, as a ruler in a multi ethnic state in the nonnationalist
Middle Ages, who would have wanted to have his whole country be-
hind him to fight a dangerous foreign enemy, Krum surely would have
tolerated all ethnic elements in his state. There is no known reason for
him to have persecuted Slavs-and ethnic persecution was a very rare

phenomenon in the medieval Balkans. Thus it would be plausible to
assume that he maintained good relations with both ethnic groups and
utilized members of each in civil and military posts. And if he did this,
it, along with the regular contacts between the two peoples living in
one society in close proximity to one another, would have contributed
to mixing the two elements. This in itself would have played a role in
limiting the old Bulgar privileges. Presumably through intermarriages,
the Bulgar minority was gradually being linguistically (and possibly
culturally) assimilated by the larger number of Slavs. This assimilation
was probably occurring under Krum, but there is no reason to think it
was happening more rapidly under him than under his predecessors.
In short, there is nothing in the sources to show that Krum relied
exclusively on the Slavs or gave them any particular or new privileges
or that he persecuted in any way or exiled from court the old boyar
aristocracy. In fact, common sense suggests he would not have perse-
cuted the boyars as a group. Such a policy would probably have led to
civil war and Krum would not have wanted to provoke internal friction
when he was involved in a major foreign war for seven of the eleven
years he reigned.
Krum's Relations with the Greeks
It is also worth noting that Krum was not always harsh to Greeks.
Theophanes mentions various Byzantine notables and malcontents de-
serting to Krum and offering him their services. There were those who
feared Nicephorus's wrath after the fall of Sardika. In 811 a high
official-a domesticus-close to Nicephorus deserted to Krum, as did
a certain Constantine Pabikos who was later to marry Krum's sister.
The sources also mention an Arab who instructed the Bulgars in the
construction of siege machinery. The presence of these Greeks and the
Arab serving Krum supports our contention that he was working to
strengthen his state and would not have played on animosities between
groups.
This policy of good relations with Greeks is also reflected in an
inscription from Hambarli in Thrace. As noted above, Krum took
various Byzantine cities in Thrace and along the Black Sea coast
which, though they soon reverted to Byzantium, seem to have re-
mained Bulgarian throughout the remainder of Krum's lifetime. The
inscription, which cannot be read in its entirety, states after an initial
lacuna that the strategos Leo is subordinate to Krum 's brother, that
from Berrhoia ... the Interior Boyar Tuk is chief of the right side
of the kingdom and beneath him are the Strategoi Bardas and
Jannis. For the left side of my [Krum's] empire, Anchialos, Devel-
tus, Sozopolis, Ranuli, are under the boyar Kavkhan Iratais, and
the Strategoi Kordylas and Gregoras are his subordinates.
This extremely important inscription describes the division of the

newly added Greek regions. No old Bulgar places are mentioned, thus
this is simply a public notice of the administration of the regions Krum
had conquered. Since the inscription was placed in Thrace and written
in Greek, it can be taken as a notice about the occupation government
to the local Greek-speaking inhabitants. What region was to be admin-
istered by Krum's brother is lost in a lacuna, but presumably it would
be the region around Adrianople because the brother conquered that. 1
The extent of Tuk's territory is lost since all that survives of the text is
the city of Berrhoia on one end.
The three major figures mentioned were all Bulgars: Krum's
brother, Tuk, and Iratais. The title kavkhan is usually taken for the
second position in Bulgaria, regent in the absence of the khan, like
the count palatine in later Hungary. This office was held by a Bulgar,
so there was clearly no replacement of Bulgars by Slavs in the very
top positions. By establishing this new administration, it is apparent
that Krum intended to retain this territory for Bulgaria; of course,
this was not to be realized since shortly after his death it reverted to
Byzantium.
Subordinate to these three leading Bulgars were Byzantines (shown
by their Christian-Greek or Armenian-names) in official positions,
called strategoi. Strategos is a Greek term for general; by this time it
usually was used for the commander of a theme. Whether some or all of
them had been strategoi earlier under Byzantium is not known. Possibly
Krum, since they were Greeks being given important administrative
roles in a Greek-speaking area, simply gave them this Greek title. It is
quite possible that the so-called strategoi were earlier deserters to
Krum, whom he trusted and decided to put over these captured areas.
In any case, Krum used Greek strategoi in each of the three occupied
regions as his seconds in command. They were under the close control
of Bulgarian superiors, but it seems that he was making a serious effort
to make Bulgarian rule more acceptable to the Greek population by
using Greek administrators.
Two of the five strategoi (Leo and Jannis) were eventually to be
executed as Christian martyrs under Krum's son and successor Omur-

tag. Two others are also mentioned later. Evidently, under Krum these
five strategoi, left in the newly occupied territory, were believed to be
trustworthy or sufficiently under Bulgar control to assure their loyalty.
However, it is evident that his successors felt it unsafe to have Greeks
in high positions on the border with Byzantium, for in 836 sources
mention some Greek peasants called Macedonians (i.e., their place of
origin earlier, a geographic rather than an ethnic term) who sent a
secret embassy to Constantinople to ask for boats to take them to
Byzantine territory. They were living on Bulgaria's northeast frontier
beyond the Danube where the Bulgars used them to defend it. This
military role was the same as that which they had earlier had in Byzan-
tium. They had served under the strategos Kordylas and his son
Bardas (who surely is the same man as the inscription's Bardas). The
Byzantines sent aid and as a result ten thousand peasants were able to
flee to Byzantine territory.
This shows that the Bulgars utilized not only Greek leaders but
whole Greek thematic units. Presumably Krum's successor immedi-
ately on Krum's death, before the Byzantines recovered the Thracian-
Macedonian territory, uprooted whole villages of thematic troops
(soldier-peasants) to utilize in their regular defensive role for Bul-
garia's benefit. Since Krum's inscription shows their leaders were still
in the south, presumably Krum felt it safe to use them-and possibly
these Greek troops under them as well-there. But then his successor,
not wantin& to return the troops to Byzantium when the territory was
given back and not wanting to leave them inside Bulgaria on a border
with the empire, removed them and sent them to the northern border
with the Steppes where they would oppose non-Greeks.
This was in keeping with Omurtag's policy which showed great
distrust of the Byzantines (in fact, he would execute two of the origi-
nal five strategoi). In the north these Greeks could not have aided
the empire but could have been useful as defenders of the dangerous
northeastern border, from which it would have been hard for them to
escape and return to Byzantium because of the distance. Further-
more, Krum and his successors left the troops under Greek com-
manders, probably expecting them to fight more loyally under their
own leaders. Thus Krum also used Byzantines in running his state.
He seems to have favored no nationality but to have aimed at admin-
istering a multinational state. This was an accepted concept of his
time; the multinational Byzantine Empire also did not favor one eth-
nic element over another.
Bulgaria, 814 to 852
Omurtag's Relations with Byzantium
After brief disorders-and possibly one or two extremely brief reigns

or perhaps regencies lasting only a few weeks-Krum's son Omurtag
(814-31) came to the throne. Local order was reestablished. Peace
soon followed with Byzantium in 816. It was a thirty-year peace which
lasted from 816 to 846. The old frontiers seem to have been more or
less restored. The Balkan Mountains became the border again and
Byzantium regained its lost Black Sea cities, several of which had had
their fortifications and walls demolished. The treaty included the
clause Krum had sought about returning deserters; they were to be
returned to both sides. To seal the treaty each side swore also by the
other's religion; it was horrifying to some Byzantines to see the new
emperor Leo V swearing by a sword and sacrificed dogs and to have
the heathen Bulgars touching and profaning the Gospels.
The Bulgars were to cross the frontier only twice before 846. The
first instance was in 822-23 when Constantinople was besieged by the
rebel Thomas the Slav and Omurtag came to the aid of Michael II. In
fact the Bulgarians played a major role in breaking the rebel's siege of
the city. Secondly, in 836/37 small skirmishes, noted previously, fol-
lowed Byzantium's aid in allowing the ten thousand former Macedo-
nians to return to the empire from Bulgaria's northern border.
Though peace was maintained with Byzantium, the hostility of the
Bulgars toward the Greeks remained, as can be seen by an inscription
from Preslav-a town founded by Omurtag which later, in 893, re-
placed Pliska as the Bulgarian capital.
The Sublime Khan Omurtag is divine ruler in the land where he

was born. Abiding in the plain of Pliska he made a palace on the
Tica [River] displaying his power to the Greeks and Slavs. And he
constructed with skill a bridge over the Tica and he set up in his
fortress four columns and between the columns he placed two
bronze lions. May God grant that the divine ruler may press down
the emperor with his foot so long as the Tica flows, that he may
procure many captives for the Bulgarians and that subduing his
foes he may in joy and happiness live for a hundred years. The
date of the foundation [of Preslav was the Bulgar year] Shegor
alem or the 15th indiction of the Greeks [821/22].
The inscription was in Greek. Since there was as yet no written Bulgar-
ian language, Greek was the official written language for the state.
Many inscriptions from the pre-Christian Bulgars survive; except for a

small number of runic ones, all are in Greek.
The inscription not only proclaims Omurtag's superiority over the
Byzantines, but also in its opening line asserts his authority over the
boyars by claiming divine origin for his rule. The inscription's references
to the newly erected bridge and palace at Preslav also reflect a major
aspect of Omurtag's reign, his building activity. He rebuilt Pliska, de-
stroyed by Nicephorus I, using massive blocks of stone and making the
city and its palace more grandiose than they had been before. He also
erected another splendid palace on the Danube. He built a variety of
shrines including a great temple at the religious center of Madara.
Omurtag's Activities to the West
Peace with Byzantium enabled Omurtag to turn to affairs on his west-
ern border. There the Slavs on the Timok River, who had been allied
to the Bulgars, broke that alliance and in 818 contacted the Franks.
However, soon they switched that allegiance and allied themselves
with Ljudevit, the Croatian zupan of Pannonian Croatia, who was then
trying to assert his independence from the Franks. Thus some of the
territory (or better to say peoples) which had been added to Bulgaria
by Krum now broke away, and Omurtag lost control over or tribute
from this region. However, Omurtag was patient and moved slowly. In
823 the Franks subdued Ljudevit, ending his secession, and now the
Timok Slavs who had been allied to Ljudevit found themselves under
the Franks whose eastern border (if borders go with the territory of
tributary peoples) had been extended considerably further and was
now encompassing territory the Bulgars thought was theirs.
The Bulgarians sent embassies to the Franks in 824 and again in
826 to request a definition of the Bulgar-Frank border. The Franks
hedged, so finally in 827 Omurtag launched an attack to the west and
penetrated into this disputed territory; it seems he pressed well into
Pannonia. He expelled the local Slavic chiefs and installed Bulgar gov-
ernors over these tribes to tighten control over them. Thus once again
after 827 Bulgaria was in control of this western territory as far as part
of Pannonia, including the cities of Beograd, Branicevo, and Sirmium
as well as most of eastern Slavonia.
Omurtag and Christianity
Omurtag was hostile to Christianity, which seems to have been spread-
ing inside Bulgaria, even though the state and most of the ruling class
were to remain pagan until Boris's conversion in 864. The spread of
the new religion was facilitated by the influence of Greek refugees and
captives who were settled in large numbers in Bulgaria. The Bulgar

boyars were hostile to Christianity because it threatened the old order
upon which their privileges were based. Each boyar clan-having its
own totem-was believed to have been divinely established. This deri-
vation entitled each family to high positions in state and society. The
boyars thus could be expected to have put pressure on Omurtag to act
against the Christian religion. Furthermore, Omurtag also seems to
have felt that Christianity (with its hierarchy based in Byzantium) was
a threat to Bulgarian independence. He presumably saw Christians as
Byzantine agents and seems to have believed that if his nation should
become Christian it would be little better than a Byzantine colony.
Thus he persecuted Christians, possibly as much because he saw them
as imperial spies as for the interests of his own religion. There were
some executions: Leo and Jannis, two of the five strategoi from the
Hambarli inscription, and various high clerics who had been captured
and taken to Bulgaria, including the bishop of Develtus and the metro-
politan of Adrianople, all died for their faith. Despite the persecution,
the religion continued to spread.
Malamir, Persian, and the 836 War with Byzantium
Omurtag died in 831. He left three sons; the eldest, Enravota, did not
succeed. He was converted to Christianity by one of his slaves and
soon was to be executed when he refused to give up that faith. It is
likely that his religious beliefs excluded him from the throne. Succes-
sion went to the youngest son, Malamir, the first khan to have a Slavic
name. How long he reigned is controversial; some scholars believe he
ruled until 852, others believe he was replaced by a certain Persian (or
Presiam), who was to rule from 836 to 852. For our purposes it is not a
major question because almost nothing is known about the period or
the two men in question-if indeed they really were different men.
There are three sources relating to this question: Constantine Por-
phyrogenitus refers to Persian attacking the Serbs at the time of the
Serb ruler Vlastimir. He gives Persian the title of archon; this title
need not be the head of state but when used by Constantine it usually
has this meaning. For example, Constantine uses the title of archon for
Khan Boris, whom he calls Persian's son. Thus the use of the title
archon suggests-but does not prove-Persian was the ruler. If Boris
was really his son, this might be further confirmation of that supposi-
tion. A much later writer, Theophylact of Ohrid (ca. 1090-1109), who
drew his information from earlier sources-though unfortunately we
do not know anything about what they were or their reliability-how-
ever, claims Boris was the son of Omurtag's third son Svenica.
There are also two inscriptions. The first states that the Greeks
violated the peace. Malamir with Kavkhan lsbul marched against them,
took several fortresses in Thrace, and then marched against Philippi
from which the Byzantines fled. The second states that Khan Persian
sent Kavkhan lsbul against the Smoljane (a Slavic tribe in Byzantine
territory near the Struma River) and gained a victory which punished
the Christians for their transgressions. Neither is dated, but since from
816 to 846 a thirty-year peace existed between Bulgaria and Byzantium
broken only by the brief skirmishes in 836 after the Byzantine rescue of
the Macedonians from Bulgaria's northern frontier, which the Bulgari-
ans saw as a violation of the treaty, most scholars have concluded these
inscriptions refer to the events of 836/7. This would explain the first
inscription's statement that the Greeks violated the peace and the sec-
ond's reference to Christian transgressions.
The close connection of the information conveyed in the two in-
scriptions can also be seen in the major role which Kavkhan Isbul had in
both campaigns. Thus the Belgian Byzantinist Gregoire has reasonably
proposed that, since only one war is known of in this general period of
peace, these must refer to the same campaign. And since it would be
odd to have the same campaign directed by two different rulers, then
presumably Malamir and Persian are two names for the same man,
possibly a Slav name and a Bulgar name. Such double names are per-
fectly common among the medieval Balkan peoples. This is a logical
proposal, which would mean that one man, Malamir-Persian. ruled
from 831 to 852. However, others argue that the two inscriptions refer
to two different campaigns in the same war, and that Malamir was
replaced by Persian in 836/7 in the course of the war at some time
between the two campaigns. Since scholars are divided on this issue,
secondary works list the rulers between 831 and 852 differently.
The inscriptions are also important for the information conveyed
about Bulgarian troop movements and successes in 836/7 and for the ref-
erences to the kavkhan lsbul, which shows that the key post of kavkhan
was still held by a man with a Bulgar name, despite whatever slaviciza-
tion had occurred. lsbul was immensely rich. Another inscription an-
nounces that he paid for an aqueduct which he donated to the khan.
Serb-Bulgar Relations
Byzantine-Bulgar relations were relatively quiet m this period. The

Serbs, however, were increasingly becoming major rivals to the Bul-
gars. Where the Bulgarian-Serbian border then ran is not known. But
as the Bulgars pressed into the region along the Morava River-where
they subdued the rebellious Timok Slavs-they became a threat to the

Serbs living there; presumably this danger proved to be a catalyst in
the uniting of various Serbian tribes to oppose it. The Byzantines also,
seeking a check to the Bulgarians, were interested in building up a
stronger Serbia in Bulgaria's rear. The Serbs, being more distant, were
then of little worry to Byzantium; as a result, Byzantine diplomats and
gold were active in encouraging Serbian unity. These actions mark the
beginnings of a Serbian state; this newfound Serbian unity caused the
Bulgars to see the Serbs as increasingly dangerous to Bulgaria. Thus
Serbian unity would have been a factor both in provoking the Bulgars
to attack and also in increasing the effectiveness of the Serbs to resist
such an attack. The immediate causes of the war are unknown as is its
actual date, but at some time between 839 and 850 the Bulgarians
invaded Serbia. The Serbs, after several years of fighting, successfully
drove them out.
The Serb ruler, Vlastimir, who defeated the Bulgars, also expand-
ed his state to the west. He married his daughter to the zupan of
Trebinje and raised his son-in-law's title to prince. Vlastimir was over-
lord of Trebinje and this relationship continued throughout the next
century, for Constantine Porphyrogenitus reports, "The princes of
Terbounia [Trebinje] have always been at the command of the prince
of Serbia." Most probably Vlastimir and his heirs were also overlords
of Konavli, for Constantine Porphyrogenitus says that Konavli was
subordinate to Trebinje. Vlastimir had three sons, among whom civil
war broke out in the 860s.
Bulgarian-Byzantine Wars: 846, 852, and Bulgarian

Expansion into Macedonia
In 846 the Bulgar peace treaty with Byzantium expired. The Bulgari-
ans invaded Macedonia along the Struma River. Possibly, as some
scholars suggest, they chose a moment when the empire was involved
in suppressing some Slavic revolts. However, there are chronological
problems about these Slavic uprisings and no major one can be shown
occurring in 846. The best-known one broke out among the Slavs of
the Peloponnesus during the reign of Theophilus (829-42). They liber-
ated themselves and ravaged the area before they were subdued by a
Byzantine commander sent thither with a large army in the early years
of Michael III's reign. It has been argued that this subjection occurred
immediately on Michael's accession, still in 842. If so, this revolt would
have been over well before the Bulgarian treaty expired in 846. The
Life of St. Gregory the Decapolite describes a Slavic revolt in the
vicinity of Thessaloniki. Though this uprising has been placed about

846 by some scholars, Dvornik, the editor of that saint's life, believes it
took place some time between 831 and 838. 4 In any case, whether in
conjunction with Slavic rebellions or not, the Bulgarians invaded impe-
rial territory in 846. A new truce followed shortly thereafter.
Many historians believe that this 846 campaign also marks the
beginning of Bulgarian expansion into Macedonia west of the Vardar.
Unfortunately, the chronology of this expansion (and which khan to
credit it to) is unknown. Boris clearly had possession of Macedonia as
far west as Ohrid by the 880s and, since there were no Bulgarian wars
against Byzantium after 860, it is evident that de facto Bulgarian pos-
session predated the 860s. Thus the Bulgarians either annexed this
territory in the 846 campaign-an annexation unrecognized by Byzan-
tium-or else annexation occurred in a later campaign-unknown to
us-by Malamir-Persian prior to 852 or by Boris subsequent to his
accession in 852.
Only one campaign by Boris against Byzantium is noted in the
sources. In an undated reference-assigned reasonably to 852 by
Cankova-Petkova5- Theophanes Continuatus states, "Boris learning a
woman reigned in the empire became more brave and he sent mes-
sengers to say that he denounced the treaties of peace and he began a
campaign against the territory of the empire." The chronicler does not
state which lands he attacked or whether he acquired territory. How-
ever, it is possible that some or all of Macedonia was acquired by Boris
at this time. A treaty, probably signed in 853, seems to have ended this
conflict and Boris remained at peace with the empire until ca. 860,
when he entered into a Frankish alliance probably chiefly aimed
against the expanding Moravian state. There is no evidence that Bul-
garia went on the offensive against Byzantium after 860. Thus we may
conclude that Bulgarian expansion into Macedonia occurred in the
course of one or both of these two campaigns-846 and 852-though
Byzantine recognition of this territory's loss came only in a 904 treaty
with Boris's son Symeon.
The above argument assumes Byzantium had restored its author-
ity over western Macedonia at some time in the ninth century. Such a
recovery, though often assumed, is not documented. Thus, possibly
western Macedonia remained Sclavinias up to Bulgaria's acquisition.
In this case, Bulgaria would simply have asserted control over various
independent tribes-an act which being unrelated to a war with Byzan-
tium, could have occurred at any time in the ninth century.
If much of this Bulgar expansion into Macedonia had occurred
around 846 it might ·be plausible to date the Serbian war to shortly
after 846 and to connect it with that expansion; for such southwesterly
expansion, which was to the south of Serbia, when taken in conjunc-
tion with Omurtag's previous gains to include the lands to Serbia's
north along the Timok and Morava rivers, would have had the effect
of putting the newly developing Serbian state into a pincer. Thus either
the Serbs, feeling threatened, could have initiated hostilities or the
Bulgars may have decided to annex the territory in the center of their
newly gained western possessions.
Boris's Accession and Early Military Activities
In 852 Persian or Malamir died and Boris (852-89) succeeded. Accord-

ing to Constantine Porphyrogenitus, he was the son of Persian; accord-
ing to Theophylact of Ohrid, he was the son of Svenica, Malamir's
other brother. The question of Boris's relationship to his predecessors
cannot be resolved without further sources.
During his first decade as ruler Boris was involved in a variety of
military campaigns. In 853 Boris formed an alliance against the Franks
with Rastislav of Moravia, whose state had expanded south into Pan-
nonia as far as the Danube. The Bulgarians seem to have been badly
defeated in battle against the Franks. At least Theophylact of Ohrid,
writing in the eleventh century on the basis of earlier but now lost
sources, states that a German cloud covered Bulgaria. This defeat
forced Boris to mend relations with the Franks and break off the
Moravian alliance. By the end of the 850s, because of this new orienta-
tion, Boris found himself threatened by Moravia. As a result Boris
went to war with the Moravians in the early 860s.
At the outset of his reign, Boris sent a Bulgarian army into Serbia,
where it was ambushed. His son and twelve leading boyars were cap-
tured and had to be ransomed. After this defeat, peace was made with
the Serbs and good relations with them followed. Early on Boris also
had an unsuccessful minor skirmish against the Croatians with whom
he shared a border. In addition, as noted, he attacked the Byzantines
in a brief campaign, probably in 852. This campaign, whose objectives
and theatres are unknown, could well have been directed into Macedo-
nia-possibly it was the initial Bulgarian expansion there or possibly it
added to what had been gained in 846.
Except for perhaps the 852 war with Byzantium, all Boris's early
military ventures were unsuccessful. However, through skillful diplo-
macy Boris suffered no territorial losses from them. His outstanding
qualities as a diplomat were to serve him well throughout his reign.
Christianization of Bulgaria
The single most important event of Boris's reign was Bulgaria's con-
version to Christianity. This religion had been gradually spreading in
Bulgaria, presumably greatly influenced by Greeks who had come
thither as captives or deserters. Both Greek and Bulgarian Christians
had been persecuted under Omurtag and Malamir. Now under Boris
the state officially became Christian; for, after his conversion, he
ordered his people to follow suit. The conversion of Bulgaria involved
a three-way struggle for control of the new Bulgarian church between
Boris, Rome (supported by some Frankish activity), and Byzantium.
Moreover, the quarrel between Byzantium and Rome over Bulgaria
took place simultaneously with a major conflict within the Byzantine
church in which the papacy sought to intervene.
The Constantine-Methodius Slavonic Mission to Moravia
The story begins with a fourth actor, Rastislav, the prince of Moravia
(846-70), a successful warrior who had expanded his state to the Dan-
ube, which gave Moravia a common border with Bulgaria. By about 860
Rastislav found himself under strong political pressure from the Franks,
who were his neighbors to the west. He was interested in accepting
Christianity but was afraid that if he supported Frankish missionaries, it
would merely contribute to Frankish domination of his country. So, in
862 he sent envoys to Constantinople to request missionaries.
Two brothers, sons of an imperial official in Thessaloniki, named
Constantine and Methodius, were chosen. They were well educated
and fluent in the dialect of Slavic spoken in the environs of Thessalo-
niki. They devised an alphabet to convey Slavic phonetics. Then they
worked out a Slavic language based on this dialect; but since this Slavic
vernacular did not contain a sufficiently subtle or comprehensive lexi-
con to convey complicated theological ideas, they imposed upon this
dialect a large number of Greek words as well as certain Greek gram-
matical forms. This composite language is what is now called Old
Church Slavonic (OCS). Next they translated the Gospels and various
other church writings into this language and set off for Moravia in 863.
Since Constantine and Methodius were able to have both language
and translations ready so promptly, they must have been at work upon
this project for some time prior to Rastislav's request. If so, presuma-
bly their efforts had been originally aimed at a future mission for
Bulgaria. This also would explain why Old Church Slavonic had a
Bulgaro-Macedonian base; this dialect was well suited as a missionary
language for Bulgaria. One would expect that if the project were an
answer to Rastislav's request the Slavic component of the language
would have been a form of contemporary Czech. In any case, Constan-
tine and Methodius appeared in Moravia in 863 and immediately set to
work educating and preaching.
The Franks complained to the pope, who summoned the two
brothers to Rome. This meeting went smoothly since the Byzantines
accepted papal jurisdiction over Moravia and recognized that any bish-
oprics founded there would be under the pope. Seeing no threat from
the Byzantine Slavonic mission, the pope gave the brothers his blessing
to continue their work in Moravia. He even approved of their use of
Slavonic. However, Constantine was taken ill in Rome; he became a
monk, taking the name of Cyril (from which the present alphabet of
the Russians, Serbs, Bulgarians, and Macedonians takes its name of
Cyrillic), and died in February 869. His brother Methodius, however,
returned to Moravia to continue his work.
The following year, during the winter of 869-70, Rastislav was
overthrown by a member of a pro-Frank party in Moravia and soon
Frankish priests, using Latin, were invited in; the Slavonic mission was
expelled. Subsequent popes supported the Frankish clerics in their hos-
tility to Slavic as a church language. Various late-ninth-century popes
condemned the Slavonic liturgy and declared that since there were only
three holy languages-Greek, Latin, and Hebrew-it was wrong to
translate the word of God into any other tongue. As a result the
Slavonic liturgy died out in Moravia. It was to become extremely impor-
tant, however, in the Slavic lands under Byzantine jurisdiction-Russia,
Bulgaria, Serbia-for the Byzantine church did not oppose the liturgy in
the vernacular in foreign territory. This Byzantine tolerance of local
languages for the liturgy eventually became a major difference between
the eastern and western branches of the church.
Extremist-Moderate Feud in the Byzantine Church
For years an extremist faction within the Byzantine church had been
feuding with a moderate one. The quarrel began in the late eighth
century when the first period of banning icons (Iconoclasm) was de-
clared ended. The Iconodules (proicon people) then split over what
the church should do with the repentant ex-Iconoclasts. The Extrem-
ists felt they should undergo stiff penalties and that bishops who had
accepted iconoclasm should be removed. The Moderates wanted to
forgive and forget and allow repentant ex-Iconoclasts to remain in
church offices and communion. The state officials, seeking peace,
wanted everyone back in communion and an end to quarrels; thus the

state tended to support the Moderate view. However, many monks,
who had throughout been faithful to images and had suffered persecu-
tions, disagreed with this Moderate policy. Wanting revenge on their
former persecutors, they demanded long penances from them.
As time went on, other differences emerged. The Extremists
took church canons literally and would not authorize exceptions; the
Moderates tended to be willing to stretch church law at times, par-
ticularly for imperial needs. Thus the Moderates allowed the emperor
Constantine VI in 795 to divorce his wife and marry another woman.
The Extremists called those who allowed this "adulterers," and that
term was to be used for the next seventy years by Extremists for the
Moderates.
This particular phase of the conflict died down in 815 when icons
were again banned. This put both factions of Iconodules back into the
same camp to battle on behalf of icons. However, in 843, when the
empress Theodora-regent for her young son Michael III-again re-
stored the icons, the old issue returned-what should be done about
the 843 vintage repentant ex-Iconoclasts? Thus the Byzantine church in
the mid-ninth century was split into two warring camps. In 847 the
empress Theodora had installed as patriarch a man named Ignatius,
who was the castrated son of the deposed emperor Michael I Rangabe
(811-13). To avoid the quarrels and bitter friction that would have
taken place at a synod, Theodora had dispensed with the canonically
required synod and had simply appointed Ignatius. Once in power, he
became closely associated with the Extremists, though he seems to
have been more their tool than their leader.
In 855 a palace coup ousted Theodora as regent for her minor son
Michael III; she was replaced by her brother Bardas who had little
love for the Extremists. Various plots which the Extremists and Igna-
tius were accused of supporting were formed to restore Theodora.
Because of his alleged political role, Bardas wanted to depose Ignatius.
It was possible to do this with relative ease since Ignatius's appoint-
ment (by just the empress) was not canonical. Ignatius was incensed by
the thought of removal from office but Bardas succeeded in 858 in
procuring a resignation from him. Bardas then selected as patriarch
Photius, a layman who had suffered for icons, who was one of the most
learned men of his time, and who had had up to this time little or no
involvement with either party. Photius was put through all the church
ranks in a week and became patriarch. The pope was simply informed
of the change. The details were not supplied to the pope because the
Byzantines felt it a matter of internal discipline.
Pope Nicholas I Enters the Byzantine Quarrel
Pope Nicholas I (858-67) wrote back that the whole matter sounded
most irregular. He demanded a new hearing with the final decision
belonging to Rome. He sent legates east who were expected to carry
out this arrogant order. The emperor Michael and Photius informed
the legates that the case was closed. For the sake of good relations,
however, they would let the legates examine the matter. But the leg-
ates must reach a verdict themselves. Because of the slow communica-
tions between Rome and Constantinople, the Byzantines could not
afford to wait six months to a year without a head to their church until
news of a papal decision could reach them. The legates were distressed
because these terms violated their instructions, which stipulated that
the pope should judge in person. They decided, however, that their
being allowed to judge the case would be a precedent for Roman
primacy-Rome's right to settle matters within the eastern diocese-
and agreed to these conditions. At the hearing the legates recognized
Ignatius's deposition. Since his original election was irregular, they
concluded that he had never rightfully been patriarch.
When word reached the pope, he was at first satisfied. In allowing
the legates to hold the hearing, the Byzantines, in the pope's mind,
had recognized papal primacy. Moreover, he still felt he had a weapon
to use against Constantinople to satisfy another ambition. For though
the legates had recognized that Ignatius was deposed, they had not
accepted Photius as patriarch. So Pope Nicholas decided to make his
recognition of Photius conditional on Byzantium's restoring to papal
jurisdiction the province of lllyricum (which included more or less the
whole Balkans except Greece, Dalmatia, and Thrace ).
In 731 the iconoclastic emperor Leo III, angry at Rome for con-
demning him and iconoclasm as heretical, had removed Illyricum,
Sicily, and Calabria from the jurisdiction of the pope and transferred
them to that of the Constantinopolitan patriarch. In the eighth century
Illyricum, settled with pagans, was not of much importance. In the
mid-ninth century it was becoming more significant because the But-
gars were about to accept Christianity. Rome wanted to have Bulgaria
under its jurisdiction. The Byzantines could not accept this. The Bul-
garians, poised right on their borders, were frequently dangerous en-
emies. Thus the empire hoped to have the future Bulgarian church
under the Greek patriarch as a conduit for influence on Bulgarian
politics. Furthermore the Byzantines could not allow Bulgaria to be-
come a military tool of the pope which could be used to attack Byzan-
tium to enforce papal wishes.
When the Byzantines refused the papal demand, Nicholas de-

clared that the legates had not had the authority to judge Ignatius. He
demanded that the case be reopened. The two legates were defrocked
and excommunicated. The lgnatian party meanwhile sent envoys to
Rome who were received warmly by the pope; they began to fill his
ears with all sorts of wild stories about Photius. Nicholas made it clear
to these Ignatian envoys that he would acquit Ignatius on condition
that Ignatius, upon his restoration as patriarch, accept Rome's rights
over Bulgaria.
The emperor Michael, hearing of Ignatian agitation in Rome,
wrote an angry letter in 863 to the pope, demanding that the pope send
the agitators home. Michael stated that he had made a great conces-
sion to the pope, for the sake of good will, by letting the legates
reopen a closed case. The issue was one of discipline and none of
Rome's business. In the course of the letter he referred to Latin as a
barbaric and Scythian language-a clear indication of the great dis-
tance that had grown between East and West.
The pope replied that no patriarch could be deposed without a
trial by a higher court (i.e., the pope). He then remarked that if Latin
was a barbaric tongue, why did the emperor call himself the Emperor
of the Romans; and noted that most of the Byzantine emperors since
the seventh century had been heretics anyway (i.e., iconoclasts). He
concluded by ordering both Photius and Ignatius to appear before him
in person for him to decide the case. Since the Byzantine emperor
could not yield on such an important issue, the correspondence for a
time ceased.
Boris of Bulgaria's Conversion
At virtually the same time-863-Boris had decided to accept Chris-

tianity. Since no sources speak of his aims, the reasons behind this
decision are unknown. He probably had both religious and political
motivations for his conversion. His sister was already a Christian and
another relative whom he was to use as an envoy to Rome was clearly
already one as well, since he was named Peter. Boris may well have
been convinced of the truth of Christianity; his later abdication to
enter a monastery in 889 signifies that by then he had become a deeply
religious man. It is not possible to ascertain when he acquired such
religious fervor, but it is not impossible that he was beginning to do so
back in the 860s.
There were also many political goals that could be realized
through the new religion. How many of them could have been fore-
seen by Boris and to what extent any of them were factors in his
decision to adopt Christianity are unknown. However, as shall be seen,
Christianity was a means to crush the religious and ideological basis of
boyar privileges, and advance Boris's position as an autocrat. The new
religion allowed him to stand high above the boyars and, in imitation
of the Christian emperor, be prince "by Grace of God" and God's
representative on earth. Moreover Christianity was a way to equalize
both his nationalities (Slavs and Bulgars), and the possession of a
common religion was a force to unite them into a single people.
Having made his decision to convert to Christianity, Boris in 863
sought a mission from the Franks. He had been allied with them since
about 860 as both states were alarmed at the growing power of Mora-
via. Furthermore, from their distant homeland, the Franks were not in
a position to interfere extensively in the development of the Bulgarian
church; for what Boris seems especially to have been seeking was a
church under his own control, modeled probably on the Byzantine
system with a patriarch of a domestic church seated beside and ap-
pointed by the ruler.
The Byzantines seemed a far less satisfactory source for a Chris-
tian mission. As a neighbor, Byzantium clearly would interfere more in
Bulgarian church matters than would the Franks. He also realized that
Byzantium might well utilize the church for its own political ends-a
fear that seems to have existed in Bulgaria throughout the century and
to have been one of the causes for the persecution of Christians previ-
ously. So, just as Rastislav turned to a distant power (Byzantium)
rather than to his strong neighbor (the Franks) for Christian missionar-
ies, Boris requested the more distant Franks to send a mission.
However, the Byzantines, flushed with triumph from a major vic-
tory over the Arabs in 863, were not about to let this happen. They
quickly sent a fleet into the Black Sea and launched an army toward
Bulgaria. Boris was not prepared for this; at the time his armies were
in the northwest campaigning against Moravia. So, when the Byzantine
forces appeared on his borders in late 863, he yielded immediately. He
promised to break the Frankish alliance, to accept Christianity from
Byzantium, and to allow the entry into Bulgaria of Greek clergy. As a
concession he was allowed to annex a strip of territory just southeast of
the Balkan mountains between Sider and Develtus known as Zagora.
Presumably he held this territory already, for it is unlikely that the
Byzantines, operating from a position of strength, would voluntarily
have surrendered it. Whether this territory had been acquired in the
846 or 852 campaigns or even earlier is not known. Boris was then
baptized, with the emperor Michael III as his sponsor, sometime in
864. As a result, he took the name of Michael after his sponsor, and
some modern works and sources so refer to Boris after this date.
Various other leading Bulgarians accepted Christianity at the
same time. Many pagan temples were ordered destroyed while others
were converted into Christian churches. Greek priests entered and
began establishing a church organization and converting the populace.
These first Greek priests preached and held services in Greek. Further
adding to the confusion of the newly converted Bulgarians was the
presence of other missionaries. Some were Christians-Franks and Ar-
menians-who had various practices which differed from those of the
Greeks. But the sources report that there were also some Islamic
missionaries preaching in Bulgaria as well. These Moslems left no
lasting mark on Bulgaria.
The Boyars and Boris
In 866 a group of boyars revolted against the new religion and the new
legal order. The latter may have been equally galling to them, because
Boris wanted to create a new legal basis for his state modeled more on
Byzantium than on the old Bulgar customs, based on their paganism,
which supported privileges to the old Bulgar families. Boris had ob-
tained Byzantine legal texts, and their influence is already seen in 866
in some of the questions on legal practice which he directed at Pope
Nicholas I. Thus, the boyars' position, long guaranteed through belief
in divinely established clans, was threatened. Furthermore Boris no
longer claimed to be first among equal clan leaders but prince by grace
of God. Finally, many of the· boyars had long resented Byzantium;
they surely considered the entering Byzantine mission a threat to Bul-
garian independence.
The boyars marched on Pliska and Boris suppressed the revolt.
Our only source about this event, a western one, Hincmar, attributes
his victory to miracles. Boris executed fifty-two leading boyars and
their families, while he pardoned the lesser rebels. This weakened the
old aristocracy and probably enabled him to advance some of his own
people into positions of power, thus possibly laying a basis for a service
nobility and to some degree strengthening his central administration.
But though Boris's suppression of the boyar rebellion surely weakened
the boyars, it did not, as some scholars have claimed, have the effect
of smashing the boyar class. This class continued to exist, with some
boyars continuing to oppose Christianity; for in the early 890s boyars
supported (or even dominated) Boris's eldest son Vladimir when he
tried to restore paganism.
On the basis of our limited sources, it is very difficult to determine

the position of the boyars in Boris's state. Bulgaria was then divided
into ten regions, each under a great nobleman. In the First Bulgarian
State (681-1018)-except for the governors sent out to the Timok
region by Omurtag-it is not known whether regional governors were
local magnates or appointees of the prince. Under Boris many of the
important old boyar families were liquidated and some scholars have
assumed that they were replaced by a service nobility dependent not
on birth but on the prince. Though plausible, this view cannot be
proven owing to the meager details supplied by the sources. Some
boyars evidently remained influential under Boris, for popes wrote to
individual boyars, urging them to exert influence on Boris. In Boris's
period we hear of "greater" and "lesser" boyars. In the tenth century,
Constantine Porphyrogenitus refers to "inner" and "outer" boyars.
Most probably the outer boyars were those living out in the provinces
with their own local power bases and the inner ones were those based
at court and presumably dependent on the prince. It would be interest-
ing to know to what extent the prince succeeded in appointing inner
boyars to positions of provincial authority. But references to outer
boyars in the tenth century suggests that Boris, despite eliminating
certain powerful families, did not break the power of provincial boyars
as a class.
Boris Turns to Rome
Like the boyars, Boris worried about the large number of Greek
priests active in Bulgaria and the increasing Byzantine influence in his
state being exercised through the church organization. An independent
Bulgarian church would lessen this danger to Bulgarian independence.
So he asked Photius to allow Bulgaria to have its own patriarch. Be-
sides seeking permission to more or less run his own church, he posed
various questions to Photius about matters of correct practice. Photius
ignored his request for a patriarch and instead of responding to the
specific questions Boris asked him, wrote a long and pompous treatise
on the duties of a Christian prince, as well as a detailed history of the
church (focusing on doctrine, esoteric theological disputes, and church
councils from centuries past). On receiving this, Boris, not surpris-
ingly, felt rebuffed.
As a result of this rebuff by Byzantium, Boris decided to turn to
Rome. This was probably a popular move at court and was more in
keeping with Boris's initial intent of obtaining a mission from the
Franks. Furthermore, since many of the boyars seemed to oppose Chris-
tianity, partly from fear of Byzantine penetration of Bulgaria, this act

could well have diffused opposition in that quarter. It is likely that boyar
opposition still was smouldering after Boris's suppression of the 866
revolt. On 29 August 866, an embassy headed by Boris's relative, the
kavkhan Peter, arrived unexpectedly at the papal court, bearing a letter
from Boris. In the missive the khan requested a patriarch for his realm,
secular and canon law texts, and answers to a series of questions on
church practices. The pope, thrilled at the opportunity to obtain from
the Bulgarians what he had been seeking, immediately dispatched to
Bulgaria legates, led by Formosus, an Italian bishop. This papal mission
arrived in Bulgaria in November, 866, and Formosus immediately took
over the direction of the Bulgarian church. He condemned various
Greek customs which had been taught in Bulgaria, such as the marriage
of priests and hands crossed on the chest for prayer.
Furthermore, when Boris had sent his envoys to Rome, he had
directed a second embassy to the Franks. As a result a Frankish em-
bassy arrived in Bulgaria in 867. It too included a contingent of mis-
sionaries. They and the legates sent by Nicholas seem to have gained
the support of the anti-Byzantine party at court.
Formosus also brought Pope Nicholas's answers to all of Boris's
115 questions. The text of Nicholas's answer which survives is a major
source on Bulgarian popular customs at the time. It depicts the confu-
sion found among these people at the moment they were accepting
Christianity. The pope's answers were moderate and sensible. He per-
mitted the Bulgarians to continue to follow various old customs and,
when he wanted to abolish one, he explained why its abolition was
necessary. Not surprisingly, all of Boris's questions related to matters
of practice (fasts, dress, rites) rather than doctrine. Nicholas informed
Boris that, though Bulgaria, having been so recently converted, was
not ready to have its own patriarch, he would give Boris bishops and
maybe soon an archbishop, which was almost the same as a patriarch.
Boris was now in a position to deal with western Christians. The
war in the northwest by then was over; his armies were ready if Byzan-
tium should decide to invade again.
Not surprisingly, Photius was upset by this change. In retaliation
he made a new papal embassy to Byzantium wait forty days on the
Byzantine border. Meanwhile the Greek missionaries whom Boris had
expelled from Bulgaria returned to Constantinople where they re-
ported on various strange customs of the Franks: e.g., that it was
permissible to eat milk and cheese in Lent, that priests were forbidden
to marry. These Franks were even advancing a heresy, for they had
added to the Nicene Creed. Instead of saying that the Holy Spirit
descended from the Father, they said from the Father and the Son
(Filioque). Photius wrote to the papal legates condemning these prac-
tices. He then convened early in 867 a small church council, composed
only of the clergy of the city of Constantinople and its immediate
environs, which also condemned these items. He then sent Boris a
letter stating that the Roman priests were teaching him a false Chris-
tianity by which the Bulgarians could not be saved. This was exactly
the sort of thing which would have alarmed a new convert and in-
creased his feelings of insecurity. Photius then planned a large synod
on the same issue which was to include all the eastern bishops.
The pope meanwhile received from Boris the results of the local
Constantinopolitan synod. Its purpose had not been to cause an East-
West break but to condemn certain practices and to frighten Boris into
returning to Byzantine jurisdiction. Its decisions did not condemn the
pope or the western church or even the Frankish church, but only
certain practices of Frankish missionaries taught in Bulgaria. It was
therefore aimed solely at Bulgaria. Nowhere did it state that the heresy
and these practices were to be found in the Frankish empire itself,
though of course they were.
The pope, for his part, was alarmed by Photius's activities. In ad-
dition to the issue of Bulgaria, he was afraid of a Byzantine-Prankish
alliance against him in Italy (for despite the Byzantine attack on the
Frankish Bulgarian mission, relations between the two empires were
fairly good; they had a common policy and some degree of coopera-
tion against the Arabs in Italy). In order to drum up more support
and prevent the Franks from siding with Byzantium, the pope gener-
alized the specific accusations and claimed that the Byzantine synod
had made a general attack on the western church (Rome and the
Frankish empire).
Photius next held a major synod in the summer of 867; it again
condemned these practices and Filioque. This time, the synod attended
by the other eastern bishops excommunicated and declared deposed
Pope Nicholas I. At the same time it recognized Emperor Louis of the
Franks. This recognition clearly signified that Byzantium had nothing
against Louis and aimed to maintain good relations with his state; the
Byzantine quarrel was just with the pope. Possibly Photius even hoped
that Louis would carry out the sentence and unseat Nicholas, but in
November, 867, Nicholas died before news of his sentence reached
him; he was succeeded by Hadrian II.
Meanwhile, in September, 867, in Constantinople, Basil the
Macedonian (formerly a groom in the imperial stables) murdered
Michael III; since Michael had drawn his support from the Moderates,
the new emperor Basil turned for allies to the Extremists. They were
willing to support Basil only if he accepted their program, which at
first he did. He reversed Michael's major church policies: he removed
Photius, restored Ignatius, and attempted to pacify Rome by declaring
Photius's synod of 867 invalid. Pope Hadrian II, who was infuriated
with the impudence of a patriarch of Constantinople trying to excom-
municate a pope, was in no mood to compromise with the East. When
he received word of Photius's deposition and Ignatius's restoration, he
believed this demonstrated that Nicholas had been right all along.
Thus a strict policy toward the East was thought to be the only correct
one.
Meanwhile, in Bulgaria, the papal legate, Formosus, had won
Boris's confidence; so in the fall of 867 Boris requested Nicholas to
grant him the promised archbishop and to allow Formosus to fill that
post. Pope Nicholas, sensible up to this point in his dealings with
Boris, recoiled; it seems he did not like the idea of a prince (particu-
larly a newly converted one) telling him whom to appoint as a bishop.
Clearly this was an appropriate moment for diplomacy, because Bul-
garia's permanent status was still undecided. Furthermore the man
Boris had requested was one trusted by Rome, the pope's own legate.
Yet Nicholas refused; moreover he recalled Formosus on the pretext
that he was needed at his own see in Italy. Hadrian continued this
policy; for he, believing the new Byzantine emperor Basil to be pro-
Roman, felt the papacy was free to do what it wanted in Bulgaria.
Thus Hadrian denied Boris's request in February, 868, that Deacon
Marin, another papal legate, be made the Bulgarian archbishop. These
papal rebuffs alienated Boris, who, regardless of the state of direct
Byzantine-papal relations, was an independent actor making his own
decisions.
In the meantime Hadrian decided to take advantage of the
changed situation in Constantinople to assert Roman control over the
Byzantine church. He convoked a council in Rome in 869 which con-
demned Photius and declared that all bishops appointed by Photius
were deposed. This affected a large number of prelates because Pho-
tius had been patriarch for nine years. Then Hadrian sent two legates
to Constantinople to convoke a synod there to implement the decisions
of the Roman council. This, of course, was a much more stringent
policy than Basil had wanted; for though he had accepted Ignatius, he
wanted peace in his church.
The two legates arrived with orders not to discuss matters nor to
negotiate but to execute the decisions of the 869 Council of Rome.
Aware of the excommunication of the two legates, sent by Nicholas,
who had not carried out Nicholas's exact instructions, they were not
about to repeat the mistake of their predecessors. Thus, they insisted
that every bishop in the Byzantine Empire, to retain his see, must
come to the council and sign a libellus which condemned Photius and
recognized papal primacy. Bishops ordained by Photius could only
receive lay communion henceforth, and Ignatians who had accepted
him were to suffer long penances. No discussion was to be allowed.
When the synod was convened in October, 869, Ignatius and
Basil, though shocked, signed the libellus; but a mere twelve bishops
signed it during the first session. By the ninth session only 103-a small
minority of eastern bishops-had signed. Rome clearly had misunder-
stood the situation in the East; otherwise the pope could not have been
so uncompromising. The majority of the eastern bishops were Moder-
ates. Moreover, the way papal policy was carried out insulted every-
one, including Ignatius and the Extremists. Photius refused to sign his
own excommunication and went into exile.
However, despite tensions, relations between the two churches
were never broken at any point in this quarrel. (Photius's excommuni-
cation of Nicholas was annulled by Basil before word of it reached
Rome.) It was in the midst of this quarrel that the Byzantine brothers,
Constantine and Methodius, were summoned to Rome where they
were well received, and given papal blessing for their work. In fact,
Hadrian appointed Methodius bishop of Sirmium, a newly revamped
see combining considerable territory in Pannonia and subject to Rome.
Bulgaria Returns to Byzantine Church Jurisdiction
Boris, unhappy with the two popes' refusals to appoint the bishops he
wanted, sent delegates again led by his relative Kavkhan Peter early in
870 to the council in Constantinople which the two papal legates had
convened in 869. These envoys were instructed to ask the council
whether Bulgaria belonged to Rome or to Constantinople. The coun-
cil, whose membership was overwhelmingly from the East, declared
for Constantinople. Ignatius then appointed an archbishop for Bulgaria
who was promised considerable autonomy. He stood over at least five
dioceses. Byzantium then resumed sending Greek priests to Bulgaria.
Thus Ignatius and Basil, despite their attempts to have good
relations with Rome, could not sacrifice imperial interests to the ex-
tent of giving up Bulgaria. Furthermore both Moderates and Extrem-
ists shared the same ambitions regarding Bulgaria. Ignatius and many
of the Extremists (some of whom never did sign the libellus) must
also have been so exasperated by Roman behavior and arrogance by
870 that they would have wanted to thwart Rome in any way they
could. In any event, from this time there began a gradual reconcilia-
tion between Photius and Ignatius as well as between members of the
two Byzantine factions.
Boris was satisfied with the council's decision which gave him a
semiautonomous archbishop. The extent of this prelate's independence
is not known. However, it has been plausibly argued that the role of
Byzantium in the Bulgarian church was limited to appointing the arch-
bishop; once in Bulgaria he had complete autonomy. 6 If Boris had in
fact obtained so independent a prelate, his reasons for satisfaction with
his renewed ties with the Byzantine church are obvious. He again
admitted Greek priests and began expelling Latin ones. Thereafter
(excluding a brief period, to be discussed later, when Bulgaria may
have nominally belonged to Rome but during which Rome had no
actual influence on Bulgarian church policy), Bulgaria was to remain
under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Constantinople and part of the
Orthodox world. Such a connection suited the interests of Bulgaria's
rulers. It removed a major cause of tensions between Bulgaria and its
neighbor, Byzantium. Furthermore, excluding the period from the
1030s to 1186, when Bulgaria, annexed by Byzantium, had lost its
independence, the head of the Bulgarian church maintained this au-
tonomous position. The degree of autonomy allowed by Constantino-
ple was far greater than Bulgaria could have obtained from the pope.
The pope vehemently protested the council's decision on Bulgaria;
Hadrian claimed that Ignatius's reinstatement was based on his recog-
nition of Rome's rights in Bulgaria. A papal letter written in 874 by
John VIII makes this clear.
If Ignatius ever undertook anything against the apostolic rights in

connection with Bulgaria, which not even Photius dared to at-
tempt, he would, despite his acquittal, remain under sentence of
his previous condemnation .... therefore he (Ignatius] stands ac-
quitted if he respects the rights of the apostolic see on the Bulgar-
ian question. If he does not, he falls back under the previous ban. 7
Byzantium could not succumb to these demands; its foreign policy

interests were too important. At the same time secular and church
leaders of both parties were losing patience with papal behavior. This
meant there was less and less to be gained by making concessions to
Rome. So Basil wrote Hadrian asking him to reduce the sentences on
Photius's supporters. When the pope refused in 872, Basil saw no
further reason to follow the pro-Roman policy which had produced a
situation offensive to all Byzantines. Instead Basil made peace with the
Moderates. Photius returned from exile and was appointed tutor to
Basil's children.
It was also important for Byzantine policy to restore the Moder-
ates to favor because they included educated people (like Photius,
Constantine, Methodius) who would be valuable to the state. Basil
then succeeded in mediating the differences between the two sides; he
made peace between Ignatius and Photius, leaving Ignatius in office
with it understood that when he died Photius would succeed him. The
pope continued to write to Ignatius to withdraw his priests from Bul-
garia and to Boris to expel them, but these letters were ignored.
Ignatius died in 877 and Photius was again named patriarch. At
that time Basil convened a council, the purpose of which was to recon-
cile the last remnants of the feuding factions. Some legates from Pope
John VIII arrived in Constantinople at this moment. Unaware of Igna-
tius's death, they had no instructions on how to handle the new situa-
tion; Basil suggested they write the pope and delayed the council until
his reply arrived. John wrote back that Photius must apologize for his
past behavior and Byzantium must give up Bulgaria in order to gain his
recognition of Photius. When Photius refused to apologize, the legates
saw that schism would follow over this petty issue. So they agreed to
drop that point if Byzantium agreed to surrender Bulgaria to Rome.
Photius now expressed his willingness to subject Bulgaria to
Rome. He knew that, after the Byzantines' establishment of a Bulgar-
ian archbishopric with considerable autonomy and almost a decade of
Byzantine missionary effort, Boris was content. He saw that, regard-
less of what the council should decide, Boris, as an independent ruler,
would do precisely what he wanted. But in consenting, Photius said
that the actual decision would have to be left up to the emperor. The
legates, having learned that the emperor Basil would agree to give
Bulgaria to Rome, agreed to this condition. Thus a precedent was set
that the emperor should decide matters of church jurisdiction. Over
the next few years Bulgaria was not included in lists of sees subject to
the patriarch of Constantinople. However, Greek priests remained
there and it is evident that the Byzantine rulers did not care who sent
the pallium, the symbol of office, to the Bulgarian archbishop so long
as Byzantine priests ran the Bulgarian church. Moreover, as Photius
had anticipated, the council's decision had no practical effect, because
Boris refused to pay any attention to it. He did not reply to papal
letters about his church and it is almost certain that no Bulgarian
archbishop received the pallium from Rome. Thus the onus fell on
Boris.
The Slavonic Mission in Bulgaria
Until this time, the Greek priests in Bulgaria had been Greeks preach-
ing in Greek and using Greek texts. How many of them knew Slavic is
not known. Methodius's mission had been in Moravia. The papacy had
briefly supported his use of Slavonic there, and had made him bishop
of Sirmium. But after Rastislav was overthrown in 870, Methodius was
arrested. The Moravian state entered a period of close relations with
the Franks, which led to a ban upon the Slavonic liturgy. Pope John
VIII (872-82) procured Methodius's release from prison, but he sup-
ported the ban upon the Slavonic liturgy in Moravia. The papacy was
to maintain this position from then on. Methodius tried to ignore the
order; but soon, in April, 885, he died and his disciples were then
expelled from Moravia. This signalled the end of the Slavonic liturgy in
central Europe.
In 886 some of the Slavonic liturgists expelled from Moravia ar-
rived in Bulgaria, where they were welcomed by Boris. They began to
preach in Bulgaria; further they brought with them religious texts in
Slavonic and began to translate other texts. Thus the work of the
Slavonic mission was saved and Bulgaria acquired church services and
a literature in the vernacular (for Old Church Slavonic, the language of
the mission, was based on Bulgaro-Macedonian Slavic).
Over the following years more Slavonic liturgists came to Bulgaria
from Byzantium where many of them had been trained as missionaries
at the Patriarchal School. Thus two groups of clerics, one Slavic-
speaking, the other Greek-speaking, both from Byzantium, were ac-
tive in Bulgaria.
At first many of the Slavonic priests were sent into regions which
were heavily Slavic, in particular to Macedonia. Zlatarski has observed
that by the conquest of Macedonia Persian and/or Boris had united in
one state almost all the Bulgaro-Macedonian Slavs. But though these
tribes were all inside Bulgaria's borders, they were not yet sufficiently
united to guarantee the permanence of the state. Still lacking were
both a strong state organization and a common culture to bind them
together with each other and with the Bulgarian state. Surely their
loyalties and sense of identity were chiefly to tribe or region rather
than to any state. Thus there was a Bulgarian state but as yet there
were many people in it who did not have a sense of being Bulgarian.
The Slavonic mission was to be a major means of making these Slavs in
Macedonia-and other Slavs within the Bulgarian state as well-into
Bulgarians.
A religious educational center was established on Lake Ohrid in
Macedonia by Saint Clement. At this center some translations were

carried out and various religious literary works written. Most impor-
tantly, a school was established there where, according to the Life of
Saint Clement, some thirty-five hundred were educated between 886
and 907. Possibly the figure is somewhat exaggerated. Saint Clement's
closest associate, Saint Naum, briefly worked in the vicinity of Pliska,
then he too was sent off to Ohrid.
The use of Slavonic-liturgy priests was useful in winning Slavic
converts. Furthermore, the creation of a Slavic clergy was a first step
toward liberating the Bulgarians from the Greek clergy (who were
heavily under Byzantine influence). By the next generation, a large
percentage of the Slavonic-liturgy clergy was to be of Slavic (rather
than of Byzantine) origin, men trained by Clement and Naum. In this
way the Slavonic liturgy enabled the Bulgarian church to utilize as its
clerics native Bulgarians.
Boris furthered this process by making Clement-established at
Ohrid-independent of the Greek who was archbishop of Bulgaria
and based in Pliska. This action too increased the prestige of the
Slavonic mission and of the Slavic language. These actions suggest that
Boris was making a major effort to acquire Slavic support. Clement's
vita states that Clement was the khan's representative among these
Slavic subjects. This implies that Clement was also given a political
administrative role over the Macedonians.
At the same time the Slavonic mission's activities contributed to
an intensification of the slavicization of the Bulgars. By this time, after
some two hundred years of living together, the more numerous Slavs
seem to have been well on their way to assimilating the Bulgars. The
process had been gradual, but the final stages seem to have occurred
under Boris. It may be partially attributed to his liquidating many
leading Bulgar families after their revolt. Christianity also dealt a
crushing blow to their customs and privileged position in the state.
Furthermore, many Bulgarians of Bulgar origin presumably were by
then speaking Slavic. The Bulgars had always been a relatively small
group and the number of people still speaking Bulgar would not have
justified either a mission preaching in Bulgar or translations into that
language. As far as we know, nothing was ever carried out along these
lines. Thus after the official conversion the prestige of Slavic rose as it
became a sacred-text language while that of Bulgar declined, being
irrelevant to the new religion. But though Slavic was triumphing as the
state language, the Bulgars could still be drawn into and identify with
the national culture because this culture was not Slavic. For Boris
made it national policy to use a new doctrine (Christianity), neither
Slavic nor Bulgar in origin, as cement to bind the two peoples into a
single culture. Until now there had been a Bulgarian state, in which
lived Slavs and Bulgars, but there were no Bulgarian people. This
Boris's policies created. By the end of the ninth century, with Chris-
tianity making a strong contribution, the Bulgarians had become a
basically Slavic nation with an ethnic awareness that was to survive
through triumph and tragedy (including nearly two hundred years of
Byzantine rule from 1018 to 1186) to the present.
After Boris's reign, the sources no longer distinguish between
Bulgars and Slavs. Instead they refer to Bulgarians. This name, despite
its origins, came to signify the ethnically mixed population of Bulgaria
among whom the Slavic language triumphed. The Bulgar tongue died
out and modern Bulgarian retains less than a dozen words from it.
Presumably the use of the Slavic language, the employment of a
Slavic clergy, and Boris's policies which raised the Slavs to full mem-
bership in society did much to win the Slavs' loyalty to the khan and to
his state and thus to make it a state with popular backing. Over two
centuries an enormous change is visible; in the 680s the Bulgar khan
had been a warrior chief leading bands of horsemen and nomads pri-
marily seeking grazing grounds and booty. By the 880s he had become
a Christian, Slavic prince presiding over a settled state with defined
territorial boundaries (on the whole) and having a nascent system of
law and administration.
Throughout his reign Boris concerned himself with legal matters.
His letter to Pope Nicholas in 866 sought legal texts, secular as well as
religious. Subsequently under him, the text of Zakon sudnyi ljud'm
(Court Law for the People) based heavily on the Byzantine Jaw code
(The Ecloga), but adapted for Bulgarian conditions, appeared in Bul-
garia. Whether it was compiled in Bulgaria or brought there from
Moravia is heatedly debated among scholars but need not concern us.
The Court Law for the People deals with such matters as penalties
for paganism, testimony of witnesses, distribution of war booty, sexual
morality, marital relations, arson, theft, illegal enslavement, responsi-
bility of a master for the behavior of his slave, and offenses involving
horses and livestock. It imposed penalties for violations of its norms.
The code has been characterized as combining "elements of canon Jaw,
military law, civil law, and criminal law, private and public law, sub-
stantive norms and procedural guidelines. "K
Boris erected many churches including seven cathedrals in differ-
ent dioceses of Bulgaria. The most spectacular was the great basilica
built at his capital of Pliska, the seat of the archbishop. At ninety-nine
meters in length, roughly the length of a football field, it was the
longest church in Europe of its day. During this time many pagan
temples were converted into churches. Boris also encouraged the de-
velopment of monasticism. Various monasteries were built, some, as
noted, becoming intellectual centers. They began to acquire tracts of
land through donations.
Thus Boris Christianized his state, laid the basis for a Slavic liter-
ary culture (which, based on translations from Byzantine texts, meant
bringing to Bulgaria elements of the rich Byzantine culture), presided
over the final phase in the slavicization of the Bulgars, and reduced to
some extent the position of the old boyars. Furthermore, after the
series of unsuccessful military conflicts in the first decade of his reign,
he kept Bulgaria at peace during the final twenty-five years he ruled.
Considering Bulgaria's neighbors and the tensions existing between
them and Bulgaria at the time, this too was a remarkable achievement.
Vladimir (889-93) Reverses Boris's Policies
Having seen his country through this great revolution, Boris fell seri-
ously ill. Apparently genuinely religious, he abdicated in 889 and re-
tired to a monastery. His eldest son Vladimir succeeded. Vladimir fell
under the influence of the old boyars, many of whom had remained
anti-Christian and anti-Byzantine. He attempted to restore the former
Frankish alliance and also to reestablish paganism. The Bulgarian
archbishop was martyred and many churches, including Boris's great
basilica at Pliska, were seriously defaced or destroyed.
The Overthrow of Vladimir and the Preslav Council, 893
Afraid that his life's work might be undone, Boris left his monastery in
893 to lead a coup that overthrew his son Vladimir, who was deposed
and blinded. After this triumph, Boris convoked that same year a large
council, not at Pliska (the capital and long the Bulgar center) but at
Preslav, which, though in the same general area, seems to have been
chiefly a Slavic town and a Christian center. Near it was located the
royal monastery of Tica where Boris's second son Symeon and probably
Boris were resident. The council recognized Vladimir's deposition. It
then released Symeon from his monastic vows and proclaimed him the
new ruler. Next it declared Christianity the religion of state. And, if a
later Russian chronicle is accurate, Slavonic was proclaimed the official
language of church and state. Finally it decreed that henceforth Preslav
should be the capital of Bulgaria. Then Boris, having restored matters
to what he felt were a more satisfactory state, returned to the nearby
Tica monastery from which he presumably kept an eye on things.
Thus Pliska, the Bulgar center where boyar influence still seems
to have been strong, was abandoned as an administrative center and
the capital was established in a Slavic and Christian town. Probably
behind this decision also was Preslav's proximity to the monastery in
which Boris was resident. If Preslav was the capital, Boris could be
much more closely in touch with events and have more impact upon
them. This shift of capitals was to further diminish the influence of
the old boyars and encourage further slavicization of the already well-
slavicized state. Furthermore in Preslav the influence of Christianity
was stronger than that of paganism.
Certain scholars have claimed that state councils, like the Preslav
gathering, were regular institutions. However, there is danger in trying
to overformalize the institutional structure of a relatively primitive
state. Such gatherings may have been common on a clan or tribal level,
but no evidence exists that they were regular on a state level. This
council is the first one known and it clearly was called to meet an
extraordinary situation.
NOTES
1. G. Cankova-Petkova, "0 territorii bolgarskogo gosudarstva v VII-

IX vv," Vizantijskij vremennik 17 (1960):124-43.
2. The Byzantine description of Krum's actions suggests that he did not
plan to retain Sardika. However, recently Bulgarian archaeologists have raised
doubts about the accuracy of the Byzantine account. Their excavations suggest
that the walls had not been destroyed. In any event, Sardika and environs
seem to have remained in Bulgarian hands. The city itself probably was more
or less abandoned after the events of 809. Gradually a Slavic town grew up
near the fortress.
3. I. Venedikov, "La population byzantine en Bulgarie au debut du IXc
siecle," Byzantinobulgarica 1 (1962):265-66.
4. F. Dvornik, "Deux inscriptions Greco-Bulgares de Philippes," Bulle-
tin de Correspondance Hellenique 52 (1928):140-43.
5. G. Cankova-Petkova, "Contribution au sujet de Ia conversion des
Bulgares au Christianisme," Byzantinobulgarica 4 (1973):21-39.
6. V. Swoboda, "L'origine de !'organisation de l'eglise en Bulgarie et
ses rapports avec le patriarcat de Constantinople (870-919)," Byzantinobulgar-
ica 2 (1966):67-81.
7. F. Dvornik, The Photian Schism in History and Legend (Cambridge,
1948), p. 156. This section on Photius's activities and Byzantine-papal relations
is heavily indebted to this outstanding study.
8. H. W. Dewey and A. M. Kleimola, Zakon sudnyi ljudem (Court Law
for the People), Michigan Slavic Materials, no. 14 (Ann Arbor, Mich., 1977),
p. vi. This volume contains both a short and expanded version of the code;
both are given in the original Slavonic and in English translation.
CHAPTER 5
Bulgaria under Symeon, 893-927
Symeon's Background and Character
Symeon (893-927) was the most colorful ruler in Bulgarian, if not

medieval Balkan, history. After Boris had designated Symeon's elder
brother Vladimir heir to the throne, Symeon had been trained for a
religious career; Boris may have intended him to become the Bulgar-
ian archbishop (whose rank he hoped would be raised to patriarch).
Symeon had been born about the time of Boris's conversion, and thus
had been a Christian all his life. He was sent to Constantinople when
he was about thirteen or fourteen. There he became a novice in a
monastery, taking the name Symeon by which he was to be known
for the rest of his life. He spent almost a decade there studying (ca.
878-888).
Much has been written about those whom Symeon might have
studied with (e.g., Photius), but since no source tells us anything about
his teachers, such speculations are fruitless. However, presumably as a
foreign prince for whose education the emperor Basil was responsible,
he would have had excellent tutors. During his decade there, he clearly
learned Greek well; he is even called "the half-Greek" in Byzantine
sources. One hostile oration delivered after Symeon met with the em-
peror Romanus in 923 says he spoke much [Greek] in a barbarous
accent and made many errors in grammar; but as this source was out to
mock Symeon, its criticisms may not be accurate.
In approximately 888 he returned to Bulgaria where he estab-
lished himself at the new royal monastery of Tica at Preslav. He was
accompanied by various students from the Slavonic school in Constan-
tinople. Symeon quickly became the leader of a massive translation
project (Greek to Slavonic) at this monastery. After he left the monas-
tery to become ruler, he seems to have remained interested in litera-
ture and sponsored many translations. These included both legal texts
and religious works (in particular liturgical texts and the writings of
132
Bulgaria under ~ymeon, 893-927 133
Greek church fathers). In addition, Byzantine historical chronicles

were now translated. Symeon was associated with a major collection
(sbornik), probably the translation of a popular Byzantine encyclope-
dia; this compilation is usually named after a Kievan prince Svjatoslav
( 1073-76) because the text survived in his copy. Under Symeon the
first original Bulgarian works appeared: the treatise of Hrabr, the first
saints' lives, and the writings of John the Exarch, which in addition to
their religious content shed light on social and religious conditions in
Bulgaria. John's major work is the Sestodnev (The Six Days), an ac-
count of the creation, which is quite heavily derived from the Hexaem-
eron of Saint Basil. Its preface is a panegyric addressed to Symeon
which also praises the town of Preslav.
Symeon encouraged monasticism; at least eight monasteries ex-
isted in and around his new capital of Preslav. That city grew under
Symeon's supervision. Its palace was renovated, new churches were
built, and its commercial quarter had active shops in which artisans
specialized in ceramics, stone, glass, wood, and metals (in particular
gold and silver). Exquisite examples of these craftsmen's skills are now
displayed in the National Historical Museum in Sofija. Bulgarian tile
work (in the "Preslav style") was particularly famous. Beautiful ex-
amples of these tiles have survived. Because Bulgarian tiles achieved a
higher quality than Byzantine, they were imported by Byzantium and
Russia.
Though little is known about Symeon as a man, a few details do
slip through in the letters written to him by the Byzantine patriarch
Nicholas Mysticus in the second decade of the tenth century. In these
letters, Nicholas, who was seeking peace in the midst of the Bulgaro-
Byzantine wars of that time, was clearly trying to flatter Symeon;
however, his statements could not have been effective if the flattery
was entirely fictitious. In one Nicholas says the following:
For who could ever have anticipated that Symeon, who for his
great wisdom, for the favor shown him by heaven, has led the
Bulgarian nation to a height of glory, who more than any man
detests knavery, who honors justice, who abominates injustice,
who is above sensual pleasures, who stints his belly like a hermit
on the mountains, who tastes no wine .... 1
In another letter Nicholas refers to Symeon's interest in ancient his-

tory. Presumably his historical interests and dietary asceticism can be
accepted as facts.
The Slavonic Rite and Hrabr's Defense of Slavonic
As noted earlier, Boris had made Clement, who headed the Slavonic
mission at Ohrid, independent of the Greek who was archbishop of
Bulgaria. In 894 Symeon raised Clement to the rank of bishop and
placed him over a newly established see (generally thought to include
all of Macedonia as far east as Skopje) in a purely Slavic region. He
was the first Slavonic-rite bishop in Bulgaria, a position he held until
his death in July 916. Soon the rest of Bulgaria (the older core area in
the northeast) received a Slavic bishop too. This bishop, named Con-
stantine, resided at the important Tica monastery. Thus, following the
council of 893, the Slavonic rite triumphed completely.
These acts marked the end of the Greek liturgy in Bulgaria, and
Greek-speaking priests began to leave. They were replaced by the new
generation of actual Bulgarians, who had been taught by the Slavonic
missionaries. Bulgaria thus was well on its way to having its own en-
tirely independent church staffed by Bulgarians rather than Greeks.
Generally it has been stated that there was no Byzantine protest
over either Symeon's appointments or his ousting of the Greek-
language clerics. This would have been in keeping with Byzantine policy
because the language of the liturgy for peoples beyond the imperial
borders was not an important issue for the Greeks. But though there is
no sign of any official Byzantine protest or of any Byzantine political
acts against Bulgaria, it seems that some objections were made-quite
likely by the individual clerics who were being expelled. From Symeon's
time the following defense of the Slavic language and letters written by a
monk, Hrabr (the Brave One), has survived. Presumably it was written
in response to some Greek protests.
The Slavs at first had no books, but, being pagans, they read
and divined by means of lines and notches. When they became
Christians they had to write the Slavic tongue with unadapted
Roman and Greek letters. But how can one write well with Greek
letters BOrn or JKHBOTn or C'BJIO or U:PbRBbl .... And
so it was for many years.
Then, God who loves man and who takes care of everything
and does not leave mankind senseless but leads all to reason and
salvation, took mercy upon the Slavic race and sent it St. Constan-
tine the Philosopher, called Cyril. . . . He devised for them 38
letters, some modeled on the Greek letters, others to fit the Slavic
speech. He started from the Greek alphabet: they say "alpha" and
he says "az." Both alphabets thus begin with "a." Just as the
Bulgaria under Symeon, 893-927 135
Greeks made their letters imitating the Jewish, he modeled his on

the Greek ....
Some say: "Why did he devise 38 letters when fewer would be
enough, just as the Greeks write with 24 letters?" However, they
do not know how many letters the Greeks use. They have indeed
24 letters, but there are also 11 diphthongs and 3 for the numbers
6, 90, and 900. They add up to 38. Similarly and in the same
manner St. Cyril devised 38 letters.
Then others say: "Why should there be Slavic books? They
have not been created by God or by the angels, and they are not
original like the Jewish, Latin, and Greek books which go back to
the beginning and are accepted by God?" Still others think that
God himself created the letters. They do not know, wretched
souls, what they are talking about, and they think that God has
ordered books to be written in three languages because it is writ-
ten in the Gospel: "And there was a board with writing in Heb-
rew, Latin, and Greek." Since the Slavic language was not there,
the Slavic books are not God-given. What can we say to that and
what can we reply to such fools? Let us answer as we have been
taught from the holy texts, that all comes in its turn from God and
from no one else. God did not first create the Hebrew or the
Greek language, but the Syrian which Adam spoke and was
spoken from Adam to the Deluge, and from the Deluge to God's
creation of the languages in the Tower of Babel, or the "Confu-
sion of Tongues," as it is written.
Before then the Greeks had no alphabet of their own but wrote
their speech with Phoenician letters. And so it was for many
years. Then came Palamedes who started with alpha and beta and
devised only 16 letters for the Greeks. Cadmos of Miletus added 3
letters .... Thus many men over many years barely managed to
assemble 38 letters. Then, after many years, by God's will 70 men
were found to translate [the Old Testament] from Hebrew into
Greek. The Slavic books, however, were translated, and the let-
ters were invented, by Cyril alone in a few years, whereas many
men-seven-invented over many years the Greek letters and
seventy made the translation. For this reason the Slavic letters are
holier and more respectable because they were devised by a saint
whereas the Greek letters were devised by pagan Greeks.
If you ask the Greek bookmen, "Who invented your letters and
translated the books and when," few of them know. If you ask,
however, the Slavic bookmen, "Who invented your letters and
translated the books," they all know and will reply, "St. Constan-
tine the Philosopher; he and his brother, Methodius, invented our

letters and translated the books," because there are still men alive
who saw them. And if you ask them at what time, they know and
will say that it was in the time of the Byzantine Emperor Michael
and the Bulgarian Prince Boris .... There are other answers
which we will give elsewhere, for there is no time now. Thus,
brothers, God has enlightened the Slavs. 2
It seems clear that Hrabr's text is a defense of Slavonic written in

response to Greek criticisms. This view has many defenders among
scholars. Others, however, noting the similarity between Greek letters
and Cyrillic, have seen Hrabr's text as a defense of the Glagolitic
Slavic alphabet against Cyrillic.
Originally Old Church Slavonic had been written in Glagolitic,
which bore little resemblance to any other alphabet. The missionaries
who came to Bulgaria from Moravia brought texts in this alphabet
and began teaching it to Bulgarians. Soon, however, Slavonic came
also to be written in a second alphabet known as Cyrillic, named for
Methodius's brother Saint Cyril. This alphabet was modeled on
Greek letters, though written somewhat differently. Furthermore,
original letters were created for sounds not existing in Greek. Prob-
ably Cyrillic first came into use during Symeon's reign. Dujcev gives
Clement much credit for its introduction. In the decades that fol-
lowed, Cyrillic gradually replaced Glagolitic as the Slavic alphabet
used in Bulgaria. Eventually it came to be the alphabet used in all
Orthodox Slavic lands. Today Bulgarian, Macedonian, Russian, and
Serbian are written in versions of Cyrillic. On the whole these lan-
guages utilize the same letters, but each is distinguished from the
others by the presence of certain specific letters that convey specific
local sounds. Each of these alphabets has undergone various ortho-
graphic reforms in the modern era which have eliminated certain
medieval letters.
Hrabr's own text makes it clear that he is defending Slavic letters
against Greek rather than one Slavic alphabet against another. On the
subject of the alphabet he is defending Hrabr states, "Some letters are
modelled on Greek letters." Since Cyrillic alone resembles the Greek
alphabet, clearly Hrabr was speaking about Cyrillic. Moreover, he
states that the Slavic alphabet has thirty-eight letters; this statement
would not make a contrast between the two Slavic alphabets which
both had the same number of letters but makes a contrast with the
twenty-four Greek letters. He also is evidently speaking of a Slavic
alphabet when he defends the idea of the Gospels in Slavonic against
the idea that there are only three holy languages. This argument would
be irrelevant if one were differentiating between two Slavic alphabets.
Linguists have often assumed that, before Cyrillic triumphed over
the earlier Glagolitic alphabet, some sort of conflict occurred between
proponents of the two Slavic alphabets. However, in our sources there
is no sign of any conflict between proponents of one against the other.
As Cyrillic triumphed, there is no evidence of a resistance movement
by defenders of Glagolitic.
The 894-97 War with Byzantium
Shortly after Symeon's accession a quarrel developed between Byzan-

tium and Bulgaria. Most of the treaties concluded previously between
Byzantium and Bulgaria had commercial clauses regulating on a most-
favored-nation basis trade between the two nations. Bulgarian mer-
chants were allowed to reside in Constantinople where they lived in
their own colony and paid favorable tariffs. In 894, however, the posi-
tion of these merchants was threatened. Under the emperor Leo VI
(886-912), Stylianus Zautzes, the father of the emperor's mistress and
later wife, gained tremendous influence, and granted all sorts of favors
to his cronies. Stylianus persuaded Leo to move the Bulgarian market
from Constantinople to Thessaloniki. This had the effect of expelling
the Bulgarian merchants from the capital and meant that they could
not buy eastern goods directly but had to buy them through Byzantine
middlemen (i.e., the two cronies of Zautzes). Furthermore these
goods, because of additional shipping costs, became more expensive.
Possibly more important, the relocation of the market from the capital
diminished imperial control over the duties being collected, allowing
Zautzes's two friends to enrich themselves by increasing tariffs.
Symeon protested this change. Although Byzantium was then in-
volved in a war on the eastern front and thus in no position to fight
Bulgaria, Leo ignored Symeon's protests. Symeon then mobilized his
troops and invaded imperial territory, ravaging the countryside.
Various scholars claim that Symeon already had great ambitions
and had been waiting for an excuse for war; thus this commercial issue
was the pretext he was looking for. However, there is danger in pro-
jecting his later behavior back some twenty years. Who knows what
Symeon's ambitions were in the 890s? Because Symeon was at war
with Byzantium from 913 to 927 is no reason to conclude he sought an
excuse for a war in 894. When this first war was ended in 897, a period
of sixteen years of peace until 913 followed; this long peace also belies
that interpretation.
A small Byzantine force was sent out against the Bulgarians (still in
894) but was defeated. Captured members of the imperial guard had
their noses cut off and were then sent home. After this failure, the
Byzantines decided they needed outside aid and called on the Magyars
(or Hungarians), then living between the Dnepr and the Danube, to
attack Bulgaria in the rear from the north. After crossing the Danube on
Byzantine ships, the Magyars ravaged Bulgarian territory and Symeon
had to seek refuge in the fortress of Silistria while the Magyars ran riot;
they even sacked Preslav. This was the first Hungarian intervention in
European affairs.
Simultaneously, Byzantine armies attacked Bulgaria from the
south, and the imperial fleet blockaded the mouth of the Danube.
Symeon had no choice but to send envoys to Byzantium to seek peace.
However, at the same time he sent off a second embassy to a Turkic
tribe known as the Pechenegs (or Patzinaks) who lived in the Steppes
to the east of the Magyars and who could strike at them in the rear.
The Pechenegs agreed to help.
The Byzantines responded to Symeon's request for a truce by
sending to him an envoy named Leo Choerosphaktes. Annoyed by the
whole situation, Symeon pitched the envoy in jail and carried on all his
negotiations with him there. Needless to say, the Byzantines were not
pleased with the treatment of their envoy. A truce was arranged but
the two sides continued bickering as to the terms of the treaty that was
to follow; a point of contention was the exchange of prisoners.
Symeon clearly was in no hurry, for he burned for revenge on the
Byzantines for calling in a non-Christian people (the Hungarians)
against Christian Bulgaria. Thus he did not want a real treaty but rather
wanted to mark time until the Pechenegs sent aid which would free his
own armies to punish the Byzantines. Therefore Symeon continued to
stall over the negotiations and showed constant suspicion over the word-
ing of Byzantine notes; however, the worries he expressed may not have
only been intended to stall, for Byzantine behavior was rarely above
suspicion and probably Symeon really expected the empire to try to
trick him. He constantly sought further clarifications and exact mean-
ings of words. When the Byzantines grew impatient, Symeon replied to
the envoy:
The eclipse of the sun, and its date, not only to the month, week,
or day, but to the hour and second, your emperor prophesied to
us the year before last in the most marvellous fashion. And he
also explained how long the eclipse of the moon will last. And
they say he knows many other things about the movements of
heavenly bodies. If this is true, he must also know about the

prisoners; and if he knows, he will have told you whether I am
going to release them or keep them. So prophesy one thing or the
other, and if you know my intentions, you shall get the prisoners
as reward for your prophecy and your embassy, by God!
Greetings! 3
While these negotiations dragged on, the Pechenegs attacked and

occupied the Magyars' homeland. This forced the Magyars to withdraw
from Bulgaria. However, the stronger Pechenegs prevented them from
returning to their former lands. The Magyars were thus forced to
migrate to new pastures, which they found in the plains of present-day
Hungary. In this way a new people was established in Europe. Soon
they created a major state which has existed to the present.
The Hungarians' arrival led to the collapse of the state of Moravia
by 906. The Hungarians also seem to have occupied some Bulgarian
territory north of the Danube. The extent of Bulgarian territorial
losses in what is now Rumania is not known. Moreover, the arrival of
the Hungarians drove a non-Slavic wedge between the West Slavs and
South Slavs and eliminated the possibility that Slavonic language or
literature would have long-term influence on the West Slavs; this was a
factor (though not the major one) contributing to the triumph of Latin
over Slavic among the West Slavs (Czechs, Slovaks, Poles). Finally,
the arrival of the Pechenegs in Bessarabia split the Magyars from the
Khazars with whom they had close ties. This had the effect of greatly
weakening the Khazars as a Steppe power; eventually in 965 they were
destroyed by Svjatoslav of Kiev.
With the Magyars out of Bulgaria, Symeon rebuilt his shattered
army and demanded that Leo immediately return all Bulgarian cap-
tives. Leo, faced with the Arab danger in the east, agreed. Symeon
seems to have seen this as a sign of weakness. A few months later,
claiming that all the Bulgarian prisoners had not been restored, he
invaded Thrace and marched on Constantinople. Byzantine troops
were sent out to meet him. The two armies met at Bulgarophygon and
the Bulgarians won an overwhelming triumph. Leo was in such a panic
that he even considered arming his Arab prisoners and sending them
out against the Bulgarians, though in the end he thought better of this
wild idea. Further negotiations followed.
Finally the Byzantines agreed to Bulgarian terms and a treaty was
signed in 897. In this treaty the Byzantines agreed to pay the Bulgarians
tribute; Bulgaria regained its most-favored-nation commercial status, all
commercial restrictions were abolished, and its market was restored to
Constantinople; there was a rectification of the frontier with some gains

for Symeon along the frontier (unfortunately, it is not known where the
boundaries established by this treaty lay); and in exchange Symeon
restored some occupied Byzantine cities in Thrace. This peace remained
in force from 897 to 913 with one brief break in 904.
Despite official delimitations in treaties the boundaries between the
two nations were not and could not be absolutely clear; these regions
were settled to a large extent by semi-independent Slavic tribes. In
much of this territory there were neither Byzantine nor Bulgar officials
and whatever the two states might decide, the Slavs might choose to
ignore. Tribal boundaries (often not permanent) could well overlap
state boundaries. Very likely some Slavs in what was theoretically
Byzantine territory were loyal to-and possibly even paying tribute to-
the Bulgars. Thus the loyalty of tribes may not have coincided with the
state boundaries within which they lived. In short, certain borders might
have been more theoretical than real.
The 904 Bulgarian-Byzantine Treaty
In the beginning of the tenth century, as noted above, the Arabs had
completed the conquest of Sicily and Arab pirates terrorized the Ae-
gean. In 902 they laid waste to the coast of Thessaly and the Pelopon-
nesus. Then in 904 they captured Thessaloniki. After carrying out a
bloodbath, the Arabs withdrew with many prisoners and a tremendous
amount of booty. This was the first time in centuries that that great,
and often threatened, city had been taken. After the Arabs had de-
parted, Symeon's armies appeared in the vicinity; Thessaloniki lay
open to them. Symeon capitalized on the situation to open negotia-
tions with Byzantium. In exchange for not taking Thessaloniki Symeon
received great territorial compensation-some new territory and recog-
nition of other territories long held but never recognized as Bulgarian
by the empire. He extended his borders up to Nea Philadelphia
(Nares) some twenty-two kilometers north of Thessaloniki. He also
acquired some Thracian territory. In addition the Byzantines finally
recognized Bulgarian possession of most of Macedonia. Most or all of
this Macedonian territory had been held by the Bulgarian state since
the middle of the ninth century. During that time the Bulgarians had
consolidated their actual hold over it. Now, with their possession re-
cognized, the Bulgarians completed their annexation of the Bulgaro-
Macedonian Slavic tribes to the west of the original Bulgarian state.
Whether Symeon would have been wiser to have grabbed, refortified,
and tried to hold Thessaloniki is a matter of debate.
Serbia in the Second Half of the Ninth Century
Serbia meanwhile had been-and soon was to be even more so-a

pawn in the Byzantine-Bulgarian struggle. In the middle of the ninth
century Serbia had achieved some sort of statehood as various Serbian
tribes, faced with the Bulgarian threat, united under a prince named
Vlastimir. He became the knez (prince) and through the marriage of
his daughter extended his overlordship over Trebinje and Konavli. He
died leaving his state divided among three sons-Mutimir, Strojimir,
and Gojnik. Among the Slavs it was not unusual to divide one's terri-
tory among one's heirs rather than to leave everything to the eldest
son. In roughly 853 or 854 Boris of Bulgaria, as noted previously, sent
an army led by his son Vladimir against the Serbs. The Serbs defeated
this force and captured Vladimir and twelve leading boyars. This cap-
ture brought about a peace treaty, and an alliance was arranged be-
tween the two Slavic states.
Shortly thereafter Mutimir seized the Serbian throne and exiled
his two brothers to the Bulgarian court. Gojnik's son, Peter, fled to
Croatia. Mutimir ruled in Serbia until about 890 or 891 when he died
leaving the throne to his sons, led by the eldest, Prvoslav. Prvoslav's
reign lasted less than a year before Gojnik's son, Peter (whose name
shows that he had converted to Christianity), reappeared from Cro-
atia and after a battle ousted Prvoslav and took over in Serbia. This
occurred in approximately 892. Prvoslav fled to Croatia and shortly
thereafter his son Zaharije appeared in Constantinople, where he
remained for many years before reappearing in Serbia. After the
failure of a couple of more attempts by other relatives to capture the
throne, including one supported by Bulgaria, Symeon agreed to rec-
ognize Peter's rule and Peter placed himself under Symeon's protec-
tion. This resulted in a twenty-year peace inside of Serbia and a
Serbian-Bulgarian alliance, 897-917. Peter probably was not alto-
gether happy with his subordinate position and may have dreamed of
reasserting his independence. His situation as well as the feud be-
tween the three branches of Vlastimir's children's descendants-the
MutimiroviCi, StrojimiroviCi, and GojnikoviCi-should be kept in
mind because Peter's allegiances and this feud were to play a part in
the major Bulgarian-Byzantine war to come.
Christianity presumably was spreading gradually at this time in
Serbia. Unfortunately almost no sources touch on this process. What-
ever missions and subsequent conversions may have followed Herac-
lius's alleged acceptance of the Serbian presence in the Balkans proba-
bly had little long-term effect. The Serbs in the ninth century seem to
have been chiefly pagans. However, Peter's name shows him to have
been a Christian; possibly during his long reign he encouraged the
spread of that religion. Also since Serbia bordered on Bulgaria presu-
mably Christian influences and perhaps missionaries came from there.
Such contacts may well have increased during the twenty-year peace
and alliance which existed between the two nations from 897 to 917.
War Breaks Out between Bulgaria and Byzantium, 913
The emperor Leo VI died on the eleventh of May, 912. His brother,
Alexander, is depicted as hardly being able to wait to seize the throne.
He came to the deathbed and Leo's last recorded utterance supposedly
was "here comes the man of thirteen months." This, according to
Jenkins, meant that the brother was an evil omen like the intercalary
year which added an extra month to square the solar and the lunar
cycles; but when Alexander died after thirteen months this was seen as
prophetic and added to Leo's reputation as a wizard.
Almost all the sources are hostile to Alexander and thus he has for
a long time been depicted by scholars as one of the worst of all the
Byzantine emperors. Recently, however, Karlin-Hayter has turned out
a fine study, demonstrating the bias of all the sources as well as their
inconsistencies, and suggesting that perhaps Alexander was really not
the incompetent debauched drunkard that the sources make him seem. 4
Unfortunately, sources are lacking to prove the point, but at least we
should pause before accepting all the statements made against him.
In any case Alexander set about reversing various of Leo's poli-
cies, removing Leo's advisors and officers and bringing in other
people, some of whom clearly were his own cronies. Among the
people he put into power was Nicholas Mysticus. Nicholas had been
patriarch under Leo but had been deposed when he refused to allow
Leo's uncanonical fourth marriage. Leo had then ousted Nicholas and
replaced him with a monk named Euthymius. Alexander clearly had
little to gain by recognizing the fourth marriage since by it was legiti-
mized the heir to the throne, Leo's sickly and minor son Constantine
Porphyrogenitus, the future emperor and author, whose writings pro-
vide one of our most valuable collections of sources. Thus it probably
made sense to restore to power the former patriarch who did not
recognize the boy's legitimacy. Nicholas was to remain in office and be
a major figure in subsequent relations with Bulgaria. The partisans of
Euthymius, whom Alexander deposed, needless to say had little love
for either Alexander or Nicholas. Since one of our major sources is a
life of Euthymius, it perhaps is not surprising that Alexander has been
treated so harshly by scholars.
Other than his appointments, Alexander carried out only one

known significant political act. When Bulgarian envoys came to collect
their tribute (according to the terms of the 897 treaty), Alexander not
only refused to pay it but insulted the envoys. Alexander's behavior
has been blamed for setting off the war that followed. It is evident that
he did refuse the tribute though it is not certain that he did it as
insultingly as the sources, hostile to him, say. However, an oration
known as "On the Bulgarian Peace" states that Symeon had long been
seeking a pretext for war and making claims on the imperial title. The
oration claims that only Leo's diplomacy had held him in check. That
Symeon wanted war is confirmed by the speed with which he launched
his troops; they were already active in Thrace in the spring of 913.
Clearly Symeon wanted war by then; possibly there was nothing Alex-
ander or anyone else could have done to keep it from breaking out,
particularly if we take into consideration the unstable situation in Con-
stantinople, where an unpopular, inexperienced, ill, and possibly alco-
holic emperor sat on the throne and where the heir was a sickly small
boy considered by many to be illegitimate.
While the Bulgarians prepared for war, the situation in Constanti-
nople was becoming more unstable.
Meanwhile the miserable Alexander sank from bad to worse. His

excesses enfeebled his body. He indulged in a whole series of
cruelties and follies. Once he became convinced that a bronze
boar in the Hippodrome was his fetch and supplied it with a new
set of teeth and generative organs by way of mending his own
deficiencies in those departments. He led pagan processions in
which sacred vestments were misused. The only good thing about
him was that he could not possibly last long. On 4 June 913 he got
drunk and went to play a ball game. A cerebral haemorrhage
followed. He was picked up dying, and ended his life two days
afterwards, leaving the Patriarch Nicholas, with a council chiefly
composed of Slavs [sic, only two of seven], to govern as regents
for his seven-year-old nephew Constantine Porphyrogenitus. Such
was the end of the thirteen-months man. He was forty-two years
old. 5
This was an ideal time for Symeon to attack Byzantium. The child
emperor was in the hands of a regent who considered him illegitimate
and the boy's mother, Zoe, had been exiled against her will to a
monastery, from where she was presumably plotting her return. In the
midst of this chaos in August 913 Symeon appeared before the walls of
Constantinople with an army; he was not seeking plunder, Symeon

wanted nothing less than the crown. He had been educated in Con-
stantinople and had swallowed hook, line, and sinker imperial ideol-
ogy; he did not seek a Bulgarian "empire" existing side by side with
Byzantium, as Boris had. Boris had visualized himself as emperor of
Bulgaria, having his own patriarch to preside over an independent
Bulgarian church. Symeon, in the Byzantine tradition, understood
there could be only one empire on earth, that of the Romans. He
wanted to gain Constantinople so that he could become the emperor
and rule over a joint Greek-Bulgarian state called the Roman Empire.
Thus the threat from Symeon was different from that posed by Krum
and other barbarian raiders. Symeon did not primarily seek plunder
and new territories to add to a second state, he sought to take over the
existing state and rule over it as the Roman emperor. But like previous
invaders, Symeon found the walls impenetrable. He began negotiating
via envoys with the regent, the patriarch Nicholas Mysticus. r,
Nicholas had been in Constantinople when Symeon had been a
student. Both seem to have studied at the Patriarchal School, though
not necessarily at the same time. It is sometimes claimed by scholars
that the two knew each other well. However, the sources mention only
two meetings between them (one in 913 and a second meeting in 923).
I doubt the two had known one another from Symeon 's student days in
the capital, since Nicholas wrote Symeon soon after the 913 meeting:
"I know the greatness of your wisdom, not by rumor but by personal
experience: for that time when we came together in mutual conversa-
tion, short though it was, yet gave me sufficient knowledge of your
most perfect wisdom" [italics added]. 7
Symeon's Coronation
Negotiations led to a meeting between the patriarch-regent Nicholas

and Symeon. What happened at that meeting-though often presented
in straightforward fashion in our secondary works-is in fact a tantaliz-
ing riddle. Symeon had demanded a meeting with the emperor and
patriarch. The Logothete's chronicle reports that Symeon's two sons
were received inside Constantinople but the patriarch Nicholas "went
out" to meet Symeon. Thus Symeon met the patriarch outside the
walls, presumably the meeting taking place in the midst of Symeon's
entourage. Symeon prostrated himself before the patriarch who, after
reciting some prayers, placed upon his head instead of a crown
(stemma) his own patriarchal headpiece (epirrhiptarion). Honored with
many gifts, Symeon returned home.
In addition, it seems, from two other and later sources, Nicholas

agreed that Symeon's daughter should be betrothed to the boy em-
peror, Constantine. This would have made Symeon, when the mar-
riage took place, the father-in-law of the emperor, which, as will be
seen, could be a quick route to becoming coemperor.
Now let us turn to the sticky questions surrounding Symeon's
"coronation." Did Nicholas crown him emperor (probably of the Bul-
garians) or caesar (then the second title in the empire)? This question
immediately leads to a second one: was the coronation-be it as em-
peror or as caesar-a serious one or a sham? The chronicle account of
the Logothete-which was then repeated in a series of other chroni-
cles-clearly depicted it as a sham, stating that Nicholas crowned
Symeon with a crown made from a church headdress (not a real
crown); therefore, it is to be understood, the ceremony had no mean-
ing. A court orator, to be discussed subsequently, also depicts the
ceremony as a sham. But these two authors were writing later to
defend Nicholas against the charge of knuckling under to the barbar-
ian; consequently their words should not necessarily be taken as fact.
Though there has been considerable controversy among scholars
as to whether Nicholas crowned Symeon caesar or emperor, recent
scholarship has demonstrated that Symeon was almost certainly
crowned emperor (basileus) of the Bulgarians.
First, Ostrogorsky noticed that the Byzantine chronicle account by
the Logothete in referring to the coronation calls the crown that should
have been placed upon Symeon's head a stemma. Ostrogorsky then
traces this term through Byzantine sources and shows that, excluding
one eleventh-century exception, it is always used to refer to the em-
peror's crown. The crown (or, more correctly, wreath) placed upon the
head of a caesar was consistently called stefanos. 8 Since the Byzantines
were clearly intent on denying Symeon's claims, it is inconceivable that
a Byzantine source could make an error here and inflate the value of
Symeon's crown. Had the source said stefanos, one might have argued
that the author had substituted that term for stemma to suggest the
coronation was for a lower title. But the error could not be the other
way around. The Byzantines were sticklers for ceremony and protocol.
The Logothete who wrote the chronicle was a high court official who
clearly was aware of such distinctions. Thus if he said stemma he meant
stemma, and therefore Symeon was crowned emperor. But though
crowned emperor, one still may argue that the coronation was a sham.
This possibility will be discussed below.
A second source supporting an "emperor's" coronation is a court
oration from about 927, thus a contemporary source but one written
some fourteen years after the 913 "coronation." I shall quote the text,
inserting in brackets various words of explanation; the identification of
individuals referred to in the text was made by the source's editor,
Romilly Jenkins, whose translation I use: 9
For at once the torrent of vainglory, the whirlwind of ambition,

the rainstorm and snowstorm swept into the heart of the archon
[the normal title used by Byzantines for designating Bulgarian
rulers up to this time, hence a reference to Symeon] .... Then
followed insurrection or rather apostasy for the proclamation [of
some title for Symeon] came and the other titles with which he
profaned his seals and the evil was born and he [Symeon] appro-
priated the fruits of his father. [The father means the Byzantine
emperor according to the Byzantine concept of the family of
princes, thus here Constantine VII.]
But he [Patriarch Nicholas] after enquiring of what he already
knew excluded for that time [the 913 "coronation" meeting] the
lords of the senate out of reverence for the Imperial office and
him who gave it.
Thus Symeon insisted on a coronation, presumably with an imperial

crown, and Nicholas, though feeling compelled to comply, wanted to
make it as unofficial as possible, while still making it acceptable to
Symeon. Thus he arranged the meeting outside the city, as the Logo-
thete informs us, and avoided a major part of the coronation cere-
mony, the obeisance from the senate, by not having the senators pre-
sent. To continue with our text:
But he [Symeon] hidden beneath his helmet of darkness [Jen-

kins says this phrase refers to the patriarchal headpiece, the epir-
rhiptarion] called for his fellow celebrants and proposed the con-
firmation of the covenant [i.e., the necessary obeisance which
Nicholas had foreseen). But he [Nicholas] opposed this and said
straight out that it was abominable for Romans to do obeisance to
an emperor unless he was a Roman [and in any case the senate
had been excluded). "Rather" (says he) "wear your makeshift
diadem for a little and let your fellow celebrants do you obeis-
ance" [i.e., receive obeisance from your fellow Bulgarians who
presumably were in attendance since the meeting "outside the
city" probably took place near or at the Bulgarian camp].
Quite clearly Nicholas did not say the words attributed to him
since Symeon would have been furious at the very least and nothing
would have been achieved by the meeting and ceremony. The ravaging
of the environs of the capital would have begun again. Thus this must
be taken as the orator's explanation of what happened and what
Nicholas's ceremony meant, but presented by the orator in an amusing
way for the benefit of the court audience listening to him in 927.
Who could number the devices, the expedients, the impositions

of that man [Nicholas]? ... But it is impossible to tell the devices
whereby without force he [Nicholas] cunningly maintained and
restrained Symeon throughout his life. So [in 913] he [Symeon]
accepted the honorary peace and as yet honored by it, quietly
took rule over a quiet folk and the Imperial brother [italics added]
went off by the same way that he had come, leaving the sceptre to
the child [Constantine VII].
The italicized phrase Imperial brother is the vital point here; it

seems to signify that Symeon had received the title of emperor (pre-
sumably of the Bulgarians); for if he had received the title of caesar
(or any other lesser title) he would have been the Imperial son. In
Jenkins's opinion, that phrase absolutely settles matters; Symeon was
crowned emperor, for certainly no court oration, hostile to Symeon,
would have suggested that he was given a title higher than he actually
received.
This oration, then, clearly implies that Symeon was given the title
of basileus. But it also represents the whole ceremony as a sham.
Ostrogorsky, however, argues that Symeon was too bright and also too
experienced, having been in Constantinople ten years, to have fallen
for a sham. He could not have fallen for a fake headgear, and thus
Ostrogorsky believes all of the oration's contents were invented later
to cover up a perfectly valid (according to the proper ceremony) coro-
nation. Jenkins believes that even though Symeon had been ten years
in Constantinople he had very likely never seen a real coronation. In
the whole period during which Symeon had probably been in Constan-
tinople, there had been only one, Leo VI's in 886, and Symeon may
not have attended it. Thus, Jenkins feels, possibly Symeon could have
been fooled by a sham ceremony.
There is no doubt that the orator depicts the whole ceremony as a
sham. Thus either it was really more or less this way (for the orator
was speaking before an in-group who knew the truth) or else the sham
story had previously been created and propagated as a cover-up and
the official Byzantine version, and the in-group audience, knowing the
whole story, would have been amused at the presentation and not have
been looking for accuracy. In any case, regardless of how serious the
ceremony was, Jenkins believes that Symeon left it believing that he
had been crowned basileus of the Bulgarians.
It seems safe to conclude that Symeon did not think he had been
made a fool of. He evidently did leave the meeting thinking he had
been crowned in a real ceremony with the title that he expected. Thus
he felt that he had achieved his aims and was able to return to Bul-
garia, vowing peace with Byzantium. Clearly he was satisfied; other-
wise, and particularly if he felt the Byzantines were making fun of him,
he would have resumed the war.
War with Byzantium, 913-27
However, once again the situation was quickly altered by a rna jor
change in Constantinople. Constantine VII's mother, Zoe, entered the
scene. She had been chafing at the bit because of her incarceration in a
convent and her desire for political power. Moreover she was furious
at Nicholas's total capitulation to Symeon and at the idea that her son
should marry a Bulgarian princess. The capitulation also seems to have
been unpopular with the populace of the capital. So Zoe led a palace
coup and ousted Nicholas as regent. She had long hated him for his
attacks on her, the fourth wife whose marriage to Leo he would not
accept. However, Nicholas was allowed to remain as patriarch and a
hostile source states that he was now free to return to the church, for,
as regent, even though he had been patriarch, he had not entered a
church in eight months. Zoe, as regent, repudiated the title granted to
Symeon and nullified the marriage plans made for her son by Nicholas.
This provoked Symeon into war again; he ravaged Thrace and
conquered (though he did not try to retain) Adrianople. Over the
next decade he carried out a continuing war to conquer the Byzantine
Empire.
Byzantium, hard pressed, had no choice but to look for allies;
the empire sent envoys to the Magyars, Pechenegs, and Serbs. The
results of the discussions with the Magyars are not known (the Mag-
yars remained idle in any case). The Pechenegs promised to help.
The Serbs were then ruled by Peter Gojnikovic, since 897 theoreti-
cally a Bulgarian vassal, though not necessarily a willing one. Peter
was now offered money and a chance for greater independence by
the strategos of Durazzo. With these inducements it seems Peter
agreed to join the coalition against Bulgaria. However, during the
previous years he had been expanding his state to the west, defeating
Tisemir of Bosnia, annexing the valley of the River Bosna and then
expanding along the Neretva, where he seems to have come into

some sort of territorial conflict with Michael of Zahumlje (who also
ruled Trebinje and most of Duklja [modern Montenegro]). Michael,
who was a loyal ally of Symeon, warned him of the alliance that
Peter was making with Byzantium.
Some scholars feel that Symeon immediately (early in 917) at-
tacked Serbia and eliminated Peter and then turned to face the major
Byzantine attack. If the chronology of events went this way, then it
explains why there is no sign of Serbian activity at the Byzantine-
Bulgarian battle in August 917. However, most scholars accept Con-
stantine Porphyrogenitus's version, which places the battle against By-
zantium prior to the Bulgaro-Serbian war-a war which no source
dates any more precisely than the year 917. Here I shall follow the
majority view-supported by the contemporary author Constantine-
and describe first the Byzantine war and then the Serbian war.
Byzantium, regardless of the results of its negotiations with the
Serbs, did obtain the Pechenegs as allies and planned a massive attack
on Bulgaria in 917. The Byzantine army was to be led by Leo Phocas
and the fleet was to be commanded by an Armenian peasant who had
risen to the rank of admiral, Romanus Lecapenus. The two military
leaders were jealous of each other; furthermore each was ambitious to
become regent. As a result each was out to discredit the other as well
as Zoe's regency. The Pechenegs, realizing that the situation did not
bode well for their survival in the coming battle and having already
been richly paid, simply withdrew on the eve of the battle.
A Byzantine ex post facto justification and explanation for the
empire's attack on Bulgaria states that the Bulgarians had been negoti-
ating with the Pechenegs. Perhaps the Pecheneg withdrawal was the
result of such negotiations. However, the truth of the Byzantine charge
is not known: was it an excuse invented for attacking Bulgaria, was it
based on false rumors circulating, or had the Bulgarians really been
trying to create an alliance with the Pechenegs?
In any case the invasion was set for Anchialos on the Black Sea
coast, where the army was to be landed. The Bulgarians with a huge
army waited in the mountains overlooking the landing spot. On 20
August 917 Symeon surprised this uncoordinated venture with little
difficulty and massacred the bulk of the Byzantine army. A Byzantine
chronicle written a hundred years later refers to the site of the battle as
still piled high with bones. Following the battle there were no imperial
troops left between Symeon and the walls of Constantinople.
As the head of the church, Nicholas Mysticus was called on by the
government to do something to restrain Symeon; the patriarch wrote
the Bulgarian ruler to plead for peace and mercy. His letter presents
the Byzantine side. It explains why the empire attacked Bulgaria or at
least gives the reasons the empire issued for public consumption.
Nicholas admits that the empire had been wrong to attack Symeon and
claims that he had opposed the attack all along but had been unable to
influence the planners, who were upset by Bulgarian raids on Byzan-
tine Thrace and Symeon's negotiations with the Pechenegs. The pur-
pose of the attack, he claims, had been to force Symeon to evacuate
the regions around Thessaloniki and Durazzo; but though this was the
reason, Nicholas admits this was still no excuse for the invasion.
Nicholas exhorts Symeon to be a good Christian and forgive his fellow
Christian Byzantines. Symeon's victory resulted from the will of God
as punishment for the sins of the Byzantines; let not Symeon become
overconfident or haughty lest God strike his armies down, particularly
if he should wickedly invade the empire now. 111
After Anchialos, and still in 917, Symeon invaded Serbia and
deposed Peter whom he took back to Bulgaria and imprisoned. Peter
died in jail within the year. Then Symeon placed Mutimir's grandson
Pavel (the son of Bran Mutimirovic who had led an unsuccessful rebel-
lion against Peter in 894) on the Serbian throne. Pavel had long been
living in Bulgaria. If in fact this Serbian war occurred after Anchialos,
then the making of Serbia into a puppet state, a situation which would
last until the conflict in 921, was a second result of that great victory
over the Byzantines. In any case by the end of 917 Pavel, the Bulgar-
ian candidate, was on the Serbian throne.
It seems that in 918 or 919 Symeon launched a major raid on
Greece with his troops reaching the Gulf of Corinth. Why did he do
this now rather than direct an attack against Constantinople? Did he
hope to divert Byzantine troops thither away from the defense of the
capital? Did he need booty to support his army? His motives are not
known.
In any case, the empire was in desperate straits. The population
seems to have believed that Zoe was incompetent to do anything and
that it was necessary to have a man, and presumably a military leader,
as emperor. This gave Romanus Lecapenus, the admiral, the opportu-
nity to seize power in 919. Symeon's involvement in Greece certainly
made it easier for Romanus to act freely in the capital without fear of
outside interference. In May 919 Romanus married Constantine VII to
his own daughter Helena, thus thwarting Symeon's ambition and mak-
ing himself father-in-law to the emperor. What Constantine at the time
thought of these events is unknown but as Jenkins nicely put it: "Con-
stantine may be accounted lucky to have lived in the tenth rather than
in the ninth century. He was neither murdered nor mutilated, only

married. " 11 Romanus soon took the title of caesar in September 920.
Then in December 920 he had himself crowned coemperor, thus realiz-
ing Symeon's ambitions. Though Constantine's name stood first on
protocol lists, Romanus was the real ruler. Nevertheless, he had to
tolerate the boy, for the populace of the capital loved him.
Symeon's Relations with Romanus
The patriarch Nicholas tried desperately to mediate between the en-

raged Symeon and Romanus (who to Symeon was nothing but a
usurper of his own promised position). Only the patriarch's side of the
correspondence survives but it conveys the flavor of Symeon's letters
to which Nicholas is replying: "But you my son-have written in deri-
sion of my old age that you are not demanding the impossible since
you are not demanding the resurrection of the Bulgarian dead; you are
only asking for those things which can be brought to pass," namely,
that Romanus abdicate. This of course was impossible and Nicholas
offered Symeon money, clothing, and "perhaps even a portion of terri-
tory." But these offers had no effect and the angry Symeon refused
any discussions until Romanus was deposed; he even refused to re-
spond to Romanus's letters. Nicholas, writing Symeon, reports,
For when you received a letter from those appointed by God to be

emperors of the Roman people [i.e., the Lecapeni and Constan-
tine VII] you wrote back, not to them, but to the council; which is
strange conduct to hear of, and unseemly and exposing you to
censure. For who on earth, if he receives a letter from a prince,
ever ignores the prince and writes back to the prince's underlings?
Symeon remained firm in his resolve. When Romanus offered one

of his children to marry one of Symeon's, Symeon did not deign to
reply. Instead he ravaged Thrace. But though Symeon could destroy
the countryside and the Byzantine Balkan towns, he could not pene-
trate the walls of Constantinople. The capital was able to survive with
the products of Anatolia, untouched by this warfare. Behind his walls,
in spite of Symeon's activities in the Balkans, Romanus remained the
emperor.
Serbia between Byzantium and Bulgaria
Meanwhile the Byzantines were unhappy with the turn of events in

Serbia where the man whom they supported, Peter, had been ousted
for Symeon's candidate, Pavel. The Byzantines now turned to Zaharije

(the son of Prvoslav, who was discussed earlier) who had long been
in Constantinople. He was sent off for Serbia in about 920 (Zlatarski
says 921). He never made it, but was captured by Symeon on the way
and spirited off to Bulgaria. After this failure the Byzantines began
sending envoys to woo Pavel over to their side while the Bulgarians
started indoctrinating Zaharije. The Byzantines seem to have lavished
much gold on Pavel in an effort to win him over. Presumably they
also played on the dangers that a strong Bulgaria must pose for
Serbia.
Since at this time (921), Bulgarian troops were again besieging
Adrianople and thus were concentrated in Thrace, Pavel allowed him-
self to be won over by the Byzantines. He began to prepare for a
surprise attack on Bulgaria while its armies were thus involved; how-
ever, once again Symeon was warned. He spared a few troops and sent
them west taking Zaharije along, having offered him the Serbian
throne if he defeated his cousin Pavel. This intervention was successful
and Zaharije's Bulgarian forces gained control of Serbia. Zlatarski
places this campaign in 922; other scholars give varying dates that fall
between 921 and 923. Once again the Bulgarian candidate was in
power in Serbia.
But this situation was not to last, for Zaharije had long lived in
Constantinople where he had been heavily influenced by the Byzan-
tines; he also probably resented being captured by the Bulgarians and
very likely was not truly won over. After all, it was natural for a Serb
to be pro-Byzantine and anti-Bulgarian, because the former, a distant
state, was offering Serbia greater independence from the latter, a pow-
erful interfering neighbor. In any case, Zaharije stirred up various
Slavic tribes along their common border to rebel against Bulgaria.
Symeon sent an insufficient number of troops to quell these distur-
bances. Some Bulgarian generals were killed and their heads and weap-
ons were sent on to Constantinople. This conflict probably occurred in
923.
Meanwhile (roughly 922 or 923) Symeon came to the realization
that he could never capture Constantinople without a fleet. Not pos-
sessing one himself, he sought an alliance that would procure him one.
He sent an embassy via Zahumlje (the state of his ally Michael) to the
Fatimids in North Africa. While awaiting the return of this mission he
refused to treat with the Byzantines or to answer Nicholas's letters. In
addition he took Adrianople again and carried off a great number of
captives. The Fatimids accepted his proposal but on the way home the
envoys were captured by the Byzantines who imprisoned them and
then quickly sent their own embassy to North Africa to outbid Sym-
eon. The Arabs then agreed, for a price, not to aid Symeon. Symeon
meanwhile spent a long period in ignorance of these developments,
killing time by pillaging Thrace. When word finally reached him of
what had happened, he responded by jailing a Byzantine embassy
which he kept imprisoned in Preslav.
After his failure to obtain a fleet and the defeat of his small army
at the hands of Zaharije in Serbia, Symeon finally decided to meet
with the emperor Romanus. Possibly he saw this meeting as a means of
establishing a truce to secure his eastern border so that he could attack
the Serbs. At least, that is what was to happen; however, the result
may not have been his initial intent. In any case, in September 923 he
appeared before the walls of Constantinople with his army, which
pillaged the suburbs of the capital and burned a church of the Virgin of
great age. Symeon demanded an interview with the emperor and a
meeting was arranged.
Symeon appeared on a magnificent horse surrounded by armed
soldiers shouting in Greek "Glory to Symeon, the Emperor (Basil-
eus)." This was presumably intended to be insulting. It is not evidence.
as some have claimed, that the Bulgarian soldiers knew Greek. They
could easily have learned one phrase in a foreign tongue. The insult
was lessened by the fact that Constantine, the people of the capital's
real emperor, was not there.
After the two rulers had kissed, the emperor Romanus asked
Symeon to stop shedding Christian blood; he offered Symeon all the
wealth he could dream of if he would make peace and directed a small
sermon at Symeon about his mortality. How could Symeon face God
with all that blood on his hands? According to the Byzantine sources,
Symeon had no reply for these stirring words. But if he had no replies
for the emperor-which is quite doubtful-he certainly had plenty to
say to the patriarch, for in a subsequent letter, Nicholas complains to
him:
But I now proceed to speak to you of the accusations and insults

which you implied against me in the presence of our God-crowned
Emperor, in derision, as it were, of my Wretchedness. You said,
with a sarcasm against me, that you were riding the horse which in
battle received the cut meant for you; and you added, with a sneer
at me, that this had been the result of my prayer! And when I
protested that I knew of no such thing, had never countenanced
the war, and had made no such prayer, you answered that, as I sat
on the patriarchal throne, it was in my power to forbid the war.
or, at all events, temporarily to expel from the Church those who
refused to obey my exhortations. 12
After the interview Symeon rode away. At the same moment, the
chronicler reports, two eagles were seen flying high in the air over the
assemblage. Then they parted with one flying over the city, while the
other winged its way northwards into Thrace. This was seen as an
omen representing the fates of the two rulers. However, though a
peace was discussed, Symeon quickly left before signing and swearing
to any terms. Presumably he had no intention of making peace with
Byzantium, but expressed such a desire to keep the Greeks at peace so
he could settle Serbian affairs to his liking.
In 924 Symeon sent a large army against Zaharije in Serbia. The
army was accompanied by Caslav (the son of Klonimir Strojimirovic
whom Symeon had unsuccessfully supported against Peter back in
896). Caslav had long been a hostage in Bulgaria. The Bulgarian
armies ravaged a good part of Serbia and forced Zaharije to flee to
Croatia. Symeon then summoned the Serbian zupans (county lords) to
pay homage to Caslav. When they came, he took them all prisoner and
arrested Caslav as well and sent them all back to Bulgaria as captives.
Symeon thus annexed Serbia directly, a necessary move since the Serbs
had proved to be unreliable allies. This annexation considerably ex-
panded Symeon's state, which came to border directly on that of his
ally, Michael of Zahumlje, and on Croatia (where Zaharije had sought
refuge). Croatia was then under the greatest of its medieval rulers,
King Tomislav, who also had gpod relations with Byzantium. This was
a dangerous neighbor.
In the fall of 924, after his successful Serbian venture, Symeon's
armies reoccupied various imperial towns in Thrace. After the death of
Nicholas Mysticus in May 925, Symeon wrote to Romanus; unfortu-
nately once again only Romanus's reply survives (preserved in a twelfth-
century manuscript). In this reply Romanus objects to Symeon's styling
himself "emperor of the Bulgarians and Romans," stating that he per-
sonally does not care what Symeon calls himself; he could call himself
the caliph of Baghdad for all he cares. Important only is the power
sanctioned by God. Neither force nor the shedding of blood gives one
the right to rule. Symeon's conquest of provinces had been the fruit of
rapine and does not give him legitimate sovereignity over the conquered
provinces. How can he call himself emperor of the Bulgarians when
twenty thousand of his own people had sought refuge in the Byzantine
Empire? (This figure is possibly exaggerated, and Zlatarski reasonably
wonders, since this was written in 925, the year after the annexation of
Serbia, whether these "Bulgarians" to whom Romanus refers might not

really be Serbs unhappy at being incorporated into the Bulgarian state.)
As for emperor of the Romans: What Romans? Those who are captives
in Bulgaria or does he have in mind those of Constantinople? Finally
Romanus demanded the restoration of the fortresses in Thrace con-
quered by Symeon.
Symeon's Title
Emperor Romanus's letter states that Symeon was using the title "em-
peror of the Bulgarians and Romans." However, there is reason to
raise the question: did Symeon really call himself by this title? After all
it is preserved in a hostile Byzantine source. Furthermore, another
source exists which gives Symeon another title. A seal used by Symeon
renders his title simply "Emperor of the Romans"; Bulgaria is not
mentioned on it. This title is certainly more reasonable for a man-like
Symeon-acquainted with imperial theory, according to which there
could only be one emperor on earth, the emperor of the Romans. The
seal seems to indicate that at some time he simply took that title. And
if his title included Romans, there would be no reason to add anything
else (i.e., Bulgarians) for Romans was a universal title that encom-
passed the world.
When Symeon took the Roman imperial title is unknown, though
many scholars give one of two dates-918119 or 925-as a fact. Symeon
had been crowned emperor of the Bulgarians by Patriarch Nicholas
Mysticus in 913. Unless this coronation was in fact a sham which
Symeon had come to realize, he would not have needed a second
coronation for that title, despite Zoe's repudiation of it. To have had a
second ceremony for it would have recognized that repudiation. By
925, when he wrote Romanus, Symeon had either added "and Ro-
mans" to "of the Bulgarians" or what is more likely replaced the
phrase "of the Bulgarians" by the phrase "of the Romans." Since
Symeon, as much if not more than most other medieval rulers, had a
strong sense of theatre, we can assume this titular change emerged
from a ceremony, one held in his Bulgaria. Many scholars have given
925 as its date. However, this date is based simply on Romanus's 925
letter objecting to his use of the title and shows only that the ceremony
had occurred by 925.
The other date given is 918/19. It was advanced so positively by
Zlatarski that many subsequent scholars have taken it as fact. Zlatar-
ski, it should be noted, however, believed that Nicholas had crowned
Symeon caesar. Thus he argued for two Bulgarian coronations: 918 as

emperor of the Bulgarians and 925 as emperor of the Bulgarians and
Romans. Zlatarski states:
A convocation of all the Bulgarian bishops first proclaimed the

Bulgarian Church autocephalous and consecrated from its midst a
patriarch, or at least the Bulgarian archbishop, who according to a
Bulgarian Synodik [1211] was Leontius, was raised to the rank of
patriarch. This event occurred in 918. That same year Symeon was
triumphantly crowned by the hands of the new patriarch and in
this way was fully legitimized his new title: Tsar (Emperor) and
Autocrat of all the Bulgarians. u
Despite being given with no qualifications, this statement is en-

tirely hypothetical. Though having a synod of the Bulgarian church
raise the Bulgarian archbishop to patriarch and then having him
crown Symeon is a likely scenario, no source
I
mentions either event.
"Patriarch Leontius" is mentioned only in a fifteenth-century copy
of the decisions of a thirteenth-century Bulgarian church council,
and that document simply has him listed as the first in a series of
four Preslav patriarchs, none of whom is provided with dates at all.
That this series, if the later church council was accurate about its
existence, began under Symeon is a reasonable theory. After all
Symeon almost certainly would have seen a patriarch as a necessary
accompaniment to his being emperor; and if he dared call himself
"emperor of the Romans," which his seal shows he did, he probably
would not have hesitated to create his own patriarch. However, it
must be emphasized, no source from the period mentions a Bulgar-
ian patriarch existing before 927. Thus we can take Zlatarski's sce-
nario only as a likely theory about the process of coronation. More-
over, it should be modified in two ways. First, since Symeon almost
certainly from 913 was recognized at home as tsar of all the Bulgari-
ans, the Bulgarian ceremony would have given him not that title but
crowned him emperor of the Romans. Second, 918 as its date is
only a guess; the ceremony could have occurred at any time be-
tween 914 and 925.
Finally it should be noted that regardless of what Symeon called
himself and his chief prelate, the Byzantines-as is seen in Nicholas's
and Romanus's letters-never recognized them with any higher titles.
Symeon was always addressed as "prince" (archon) and the prelate
continued to be referred to as an archbishop.
Symeon's Invasion of Croatia, 926
After Symeon's annexation of Serbia, the Bulgarian state bordered on

the powerful Croatian kingdom, under its greatest medieval ruler,
Tomislav (ca. 910-28), who was a Byzantine ally. Clearly Symeon saw
Croatia, harboring his enemies and allied to the empire, as a threat.
What was there to prevent Croatia, on Byzantine orders, from striking
his rear, as Zaharije had done, when Symeon was directing his armies
to the east against Byzantium? Therefore in 926 he sent a large army
to invade Croatia. These forces met a disastrous defeat. Peace was
then made between Tomislav and Symeon, with papal legates as me-
diators. Symeon then began planning a new campaign against Byzan-
tium. He seems to have felt secure that Tomislav would honor the
peace and not attack his rear. Since he was planning a new attack on
Byzantium for 927 it is evident that he did not lose the bulk of his
forces in Croatia as most scholars have claimed. He had probably sent
only part of his army on that campaign and those forces had suffered
heavy losses; but his overall army (having lost only a portion) was still
a strong enough force to carry out a major invasion of Byzantium.
Death of Symeon, 927
In the spring of 927 Symeon once again led his armies on the route
toward Constantinople, but this time, like his great predecessor Krum,
he died en route. Symeon was about sixty-three. The cause of his
death is given in a wide assortment of Byzantine sources.
In May 927 an astrologer named John discovered in the forum of
Constantinople the double of the tsar Symeon. It was a statue which
looked toward the west. The astrologer hastened to reveal his discov-
ery to the emperor Romanus. "Your majesty," he said, "if you but
strike that statue on the head, Symeon that instant will cease to live."
The emperor ordered the destruction of the marble statue in which
the shades of the Bulgarian sovereign resided. At the same hour that
the statue was smashed, the heart of the old tsar weakened and he
died.
NOTES
1. The Letters of Nicholas I, Patriarch of Constantinople, ed. and trans.

R. Jenkins and L. G. Westerink, Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 6,
Dumbarton Oaks Texts, Vol. 2 (Washington, D.C., 1973), p. 95.
2. Translation taken from M. Pundeff, "National Consciousness in

Medieval Bulgaria," Sudost-Forschungen 27 (1968):19-20.
3. G. Kolias, Leon Choerosphactes (Athens, 1939), pp. 76-77.
4. P. Karlin-Hayter, "The Emperor Alexander's Bad Name," Speculum
44, no. 4 (1969):585-96.
5. R. Jenkins, Byzantium: The Imperial Centuries A.D. 610-1071 (New
York, 1966), pp. 229-30. Jenkins bases his account on the exaggerated and
hostile life of Euthymius.
6. The war between Symeon and Byzantium continued from 913 to 927.
Nicholas Mysticus lived through most of it, as patriarch, dying in 925. His
letters to Symeon are preserved and are a major source for these events. See
The Letters of Nicholas I.
7. Ibid., p. 187.
8. G. Ostrogorski, "Avtokrator i samodrzac," in the volume of his col-
lected works entitled, Vizantija i Sloveni (Beograd, 1970), pp. 303-17.
9. R. Jenkins, "The Peace with Bulgaria (927) Celebrated by Theodore
Daphnopates," Polychronion, Winter, 1966, pp. 291, 295.
10. The Letters of Nicholas I, pp. 58-63.
11. Jenkins, Byzantium: The Imperial Centuries, p. 239.
12. The Letters of Nicholas I, p. 209.
13. V. Zlatarski, "Politiceskijat zivot na B"lgarite pri car Simeona 893-
927," in B"lgarija 1000 godini 927-1927 (Sofija, 1930), p. 21. See also his
general Istorija na b"lgarskata d"riava prez srednite vekove (Sofija, 1938), val.
1, pt. 2, pp. 389-91.
CHAPTER 6
Bulgaria after Symeon, 927-1018
Bulgaria and the Serb Lands, 927-65
Serbia Regains Independence under Caslav
Serbia almost at once after Symeon's death asserted its independence

from Bulgaria. Bulgarian rule had not been popular and many Serbs
had fled to Croatia (including the previous ruler Zaharije who soon
died there) or to Byzantium. After Symeon's death Caslav escaped to
Serbia. Ostrogorsky dates his escape reasonably to 927 or 928, though
Constantine Porphyrogenitus states that it occurred seven years after
his capture, which would place this event in 931. Caslav found popular
support and restored a Serbian state. Many exiles quickly returned.
He submitted at once to Byzantine overlordship and gained Byz-
antine financial and diplomatic support for his efforts. Throughout his
long reign, which lasted until about 960, Caslav maintained close ties
with Byzantium.
Most scholars feel that during Caslav's reign Byzantine influence
(including in particular that of the Byzantine church) greatly increased
in Serbia. Orthodox influences in Slavonic were surely penetrating
Serbia from Bulgaria during this period as well. This was a critical
period in both the Christianization of Serbia and also in its becoming
part of the Orthodox, rather than the Latin, church. Of course, as of
yet the two branches of the one church had not split, but the ties
formed in this period were to have great impact on how the different
Slavic churches were to line up later when they did split. Many schol-
ars have felt that, since the Serbs lived more or less in the middle
between the regions under Roman jurisdiction and those under Byzan-
tine jurisdiction, they could have gone either way. Speculations are, of
course, interesting but it is unfortunate that so little is known about
Serbia and the history of Christianity there in this key period.
The borders of Caslav's state are unknown, though eventually he
159
extended them well into Bosnia. Caslav was killed in about 960, fight-
ing the Hungarians in that region.
Michael of Zahumlje's Position in Balkan Politics
The other Serbian state of this period was that of Michael of Za-
humlje, Symeon's loyal ally. It is generally believed that he remained
loyal to Symeon until Symeon 's death in 927, after which, lacking the
Bulgarian prop, he made peace with the empire and accepted the court
ranks of proconsul and patrician. Some scholars have argued that since
he participated in a church council in Split in 925 along with a Byzan-
tine client, Tomislav, whom Symeon was to attack the following year,
he must have broken off with Symeon. However, this is poor reason-
ing; this church council decided on matters that affected churches all
along Dalmatia, both in Croatia and Zahumlje. Both rulers, regardless
of other alliances, were under papal jurisdiction. It was both their duty
and in their interests to participate in this council. Thus there is no
reason to see Michael's participation in the 925 council as evidence
that he had abandoned his alliance with Symeon for one with Byzan-
tium. Nor does his presence at the council with Tomislav show that he
was allied with him. Furthermore Michael could have maintained good
relations simultaneously with both Balkan rulers-despite the hostili-
ties between them-and as far as we know Michael was neutral and did
not participate in the 926 Bulgar-Croatian war. In any case, after
Symeon's death, Michael patched up his relations with the empire,
while maintaining good relations with the papacy. He remained as
ruler of Zahumlje into the 940s.
Peter of Bulgaria's Reign to 965
Symeon had had two marriages; by the first he had a son, Michael
(who became a monk), and by the second three sons (Peter, John, and
Benjamin [Bajan]). His second wife was the sister of a prominent
boyar, George Sursuvul. On Symeon's death Peter, the eldest son of
the second marriage, succeeded. Why Michael had been ousted from
succession is not known; possibly he lacked ability, possibly it was the
result of the influence of the second wife and her family. Supporting
the second possibility is the fact that on Symeon's death George Sursu-
vul was at first more or less a regent for Peter, illustrating his great
influence at court.
Immediately after Symeon's death Peter and his uncle George
Sursuvul renewed the war with Byzantium and raided Thrace to show
Bulgaria after Symeon, 927-1018 161
that Bulgaria was still militarily strong. Then from a position of

strength-as a result of this attack-they sent envoys with conditions
for a peace to Byzantium. Since these conditions were brought by a
secret mission, many scholars have felt that a segment of the Bulgar
aristocracy was opposed to peace, wanting to pursue the war presuma-
bly for the booty it brought. By the early fall-late September, early
October-of 927 Peter concluded peace with Byzantium. The Byzan-
tine sources say the cause for his wanting peace was his fear that all his
neighbors-the Hungarians, Byzantines, and Croatians-would take
advantage of Symeon's death to attack Bulgaria. In addition Bulgaria
had a major domestic problem, a severe famine resulting from an
attack by locusts.
The peace was confirmed by Peter's marrying Maria Lecapena
(the daughter of Christopher Lecapenus and the granddaughter of the
emperor Roman us). The treaty restored the borders to those estab-
lished by the 897 and 904 treaties (thus recognizing Bulgaria's posses-
sion of Macedonia). Thereafter the imperial frontier remained peace-
ful until war broke out in 965. Peter's title of tsar (emperor) of the
Bulgarians was recognized, as was his autocephalous church under its
own patriarch. A prisoner exchange was agreed upon. In addition the
Byzantines were to pay the Bulgarians annual tribute. (Later, when
objecting to its payment after Maria's death, the emperor Nicephorus
Phocas was to claim that this was not tribute but money for the Byzan-
tine princess's upkeep. This interpretation, however, may have been
Nicephorus's and not that of the original treaty.)
Thus Peter succeeded in obtaining immediately all of Symeon's
goals except for the Byzantine Empire itself. With Symeon dead the
Byzantines could feel safer in making concessions. At the same time
the empire may well have feared that if it did not make these conces-
sions the pope would recognize the titles of tsar and patriarch, which
would increase papal influence in Bulgaria. Considering Bulgaria's
proximity, this would have been a distinct danger to the empire. The
Bulgarians had been in communication with the papacy from late in
926 when the pope had mediated a conclusion to the Bulgarian-
Croatian war. It seems that Symeon had also been seeking papal rec-
ognition for his titles, and Rome would have had little to lose by being
generous. However, it should be noted that, though the empire rec-
ognized Peter's title of emperor, in its letters it called him "son" and
not "brother." Thus he was recognized as an emperor, but one with a
definitely inferior status. Symeon would surely have protested this
slight, but there is no evidence that Peter did.
Along with Peter's wife a large Byzantine entourage came to
Preslav; most scholars speak about great Byzantine influence ensuing

in Bulgaria. This is probably exaggerated and grounds exist to speak
about Byzantine influence only at court, which presumably was consid-
erable; now Bulgarian court officials began bearing Byzantine titles
like logothete and protovestijar. Whether the Bulgarian bearers of
these titles performed the same duties as their Byzantine namesakes is
not known; in many cases they probably did not, for Bulgaria lacked
the highly developed court and bureaucracy found in Constantinople.
Since no evidence exists that this Byzantine influence-other than cul-
tural influences in church art, architecture, music, and literature-
associated with Maria's arrival extended into the society itself, scepti-
cism should be shown to the claims, frequently seen in the historical
literature, that such influence caused Bulgarian peasants to join heret-
ical movements or drove Bulgarians into opposition to their tsar.
In 928 a revolt on behalf of Peter's brother, John, and supported
by "Symeon's nobles" broke out in Preslav. It was easily suppressed.
John underwent corporal punishment and a brief imprisonment before
he was tonsured as a monk. His cohorts were tortured. Then John was
sent off to Constantinople, probably to remove him as a potential
focus for future plots. In Constantinople John shed his monkish garb,
married an Armenian girl, and received lands, gifts, and high rank
from the emperor Romanus. After this, John disappears from history.
This exile shows the close ties between Peter and Byzantium at the
time. The Byzantines were also presumably happy to have him, if
needed, as a threat to hold over Peter's head. Zlatarski thinks John's
revolt had been supported by the war party of old boyars opposed to
peace and that is the reason the source spoke of "Symeon's nobles."
This is a plausible suggestion, but, of course, further evidence is
needed to prove it.
A more dangerous revolt followed. In 930 Symeon's eldest son (by
wife number one), Michael, left his monastery and seized a fortress in
the Struma region; here the population ceased to recognize Peter and
accepted Michael. Operating from outside of Preslav, the capital,
Michael was able to organize better and to build up a greater following
than John had, making this revolt which led to the loss of some terri-
tory far more serious than John's. But when Michael died suddenly,
his leading followers fled to Byzantium for asylum and the revolt fiz-
zled out.
Zlatarski suggests their flight shows the Byzantines supported
Michael's revolt; they wanted to cause chaos and weaken Bulgaria.
Since the Byzantines regularly gave asylum to all sorts of rebels-pro-
Byzantine or otherwise-the defeated rebels' flight thither can prove
nothing. Since Peter was married to a Byzantine princess and was

enjoying good relations with the empire, I doubt the Byzantines had
any part in this particular uprising. Others have used the revolt to
show Peter's unpopularity or boyar opposition to him. However, we
know nothing about the motivations behind the revolt, about the ideol-
ogy (if any) of the revolt or about why Michael obtained the support
he did. Both of these revolts could well have been chiefly prompted by
the two brothers' desires for the throne, supported by others counting
on various rewards in wealth or position if the rebellions succeeded.
But with sources so meager it is pointless to speculate on the aims,
ideology, or composition of these rebellions.
The fourth son, Benjamin (or Bajan) had his own private form of
revolt. According to Liutprand (a western imperial envoy to Constanti-
nople in the second half of the tenth century), Bajan studied magic and
possessed the power to transform himself suddenly into a wolf or other
strange animal. Unfortunately nothing further is known about this tal-
ented young man; the reference just noted contains all the information
about him preserved in our sources. Lycanthropy seems to have been a
not uncommon form of mental illness in the Middle Ages-described
as such by both Arab and Italian doctors who could not agree whether
it was a form of mania or melancholy. Whether Bajan was struck with
this form of insanity or achieved his transformations, as our source
states, through magic practices, possibly through hallucinogens (a
means which can be documented for seventeenth-century European
werewolves), is unknown.
Other than four Magyar raids that passed through Bulgaria to hit
Byzantine territory and the rise of the Bogomil heresy-to be dis-
cussed later-nothing else is known about Peter's reign until war broke
out with Byzantium in 965. This is important to point out because
normally Peter's reign has been depicted as one of decline and misery
for Bulgaria. However, it should be emphasized that no sources show
this and elsewhere I have presented an alternative hypothesis of peace
and relative prosperity for Bulgaria for the bulk of Peter's reign until
the warfare at the very end. 1
Though the sources are lacking to prove either view, it should be
stressed that evidence does not exist to support the bleak view univer-
sally presented in scholarship about Peter. There is no evidence that
Bulgaria made peace with Byzantium because it was too weak to fight;
a close look at the gains of the peace treaty show that Bulgaria came
out very well by that treaty and there was no reason to fight further.
There is no evidence that Bulgaria's manpower had been wiped out in
Symeon's wars or that he had exhausted the state's economic re-
sources. And, if he did not exhaust them, then there is no reason to

postulate an economic decline as is usually done. In fact, peace with
Byzantium meant increased trade, and a passage to be cited later
shows the importance and wealth of Bulgaria as a trade center (par-
ticularly the city of Perejaslavec on the Danube) in the 960s. There is
no evidence that the nobility opposed Peter, or that they asserted
greater independence from the center than they had had previously, or
that Byzantine influences, unpopular with this or that group, depend-
ing on which scholar is writing, spread throughout the society.
From the end of Michael's revolt in 930 Bulgaria under Peter
enjoyed peace-excluding the four known Magyar raids that passed
through Bulgaria and which may well have caused destruction along
their route-until 965. Peter has also regularly been called weak, lack-
ing in ability, and under his wife's thumb. Once again no sources show
any of this. Peter has been one of the most maligned figures in Bulgar-
ian history. But unlike some other historical figures depicted as incom-
petent, behind whose condemnation lie various sources, Peter has
been unanimously denigrated without a single source speaking out
against him.
Bulgarian Society and Administration
Before continuing the discussion of Bulgaria's political history and

foreign affairs from the 960s and before examining the Bogomil heresy
which arose under Peter, let us pause and examine to the very limited
extent possible what Bulgarian society and administration were like.
We have discussed the gradual slavicization of the ruling group-
both the increased number of Slavs rising to the top and the slaviciza-
tion of the Bulgars themselves. By Peter's time the Bulgars retained
few, if any, privileges. They seem to have merged into the mass of
Slavs and become slavicized in language and Christianized. Other
than Bulgar last names, no signs of Bulgar identity are found in
tenth-century sources. Presumably many of the most important
people, men like George Sursuvul, still were descendants of the old
Bulgar aristocracy. But Sursuvul was a Christian-as his first name of
George indicates-and loyally supported the crown (held by his
nephew Peter) against the rebellious activities of Peter's brothers.
After Boris eliminated Vladimir in 893, Bulgaria experienced no
more boyar revolts. There were none under Symeon and except for
the possibility of some boyar support for one of Peter's brothers in
928, there were none under Peter either. Furthermore, that some of
Symeon's nobles plotted with John against Peter need not reflect any
ideological opposition to Peter by the boyars as a group. Their mo-

tives for joining John could simply have been that John promised
these particular nobles great rewards.
Thus by Peter's reign the Bulgar and Slavic elements had merged
to form a Slavic-speaking society of Bulgarians with a common na-
tional identity. The society was also Christian; the fact that the peas-
ants in many cases were only nominally so, preserving many old pagan
rites, need not militate against this. For there were no longer revolts or
movements to restore paganism.
At the top of the society stood the boyars who by now were
mostly-or entirely-Slavic-speaking Christians. Boris in a letter to
Pope Nicholas I in the 860s spoke of two types of boyars-major and
minor. This presumably just differentiated between those of greater
and lesser wealth, with the wealthier ones holding greater estates,
power, and influence. Later Constantine Porphyrogenitus refers to in-
ner and outer boyars. There have been arguments as to what these two
terms meant. Dujcev has argued convincingly that Constantine's termi-
nology is not a translation of any Bulgarian titles but simply the Byzan-
tine emperor using Byzantine terms to make Bulgarian reality intelligi-
ble to Greek readers. In this case inner boyars were those based at
court; outer boyars were the provincial landlords, based on their own
lands in the provinces.
Some scholars familiar with Byzantium have assumed Bulgaria
duplicated the Byzantine situation, where there were two groups of
nobles, the urban nobility of Constantinople closely tied to the court
and the provincial landlords generally tied to the military. Because
these two groups were great rivals in Byzantium, scholars have sug-
gested that a similar rivalry existed in Bulgaria. However, we must
pause at once. Surely Constantine was being loose in applying Byzan-
tine terminology to Bulgaria. His terms were approximations to make
it clear that there were some nobles based at court and others in the
provinces. Neither group need be identical with its Byzantine
parallel-and in fact, considering the different levels of development
between the two societies, it would be strange if they were identical.
Obviously the inner boyars at Preslav bore little resemblance to the
educated urban nobles of Constantinople. Thus it cannot be assumed
that rivalry existed between the inner and outer boyars or that the
Bulgarian land owners were absorbing state lands and free villages in
the same way that the Byzantine magnates were.
In the ninth century Bulgaria was divided into ten provinces, each
under a Bulgarian noble. But, sadly, it is not known whether these ten
provincial governors were appointees sent out from the capital to
serve-and if so, for how long they served-or whether the ten were
great local magnates holding lands in these provinces-having their
own local power bases-who were recognized as rulers of their own
counties by the ruler. To know which of these alternatives existed
would tell us a great deal about the strength of the central government:
whether it to some degree controlled the provinces with its administra-
tion or whether it relied on a loose federation of local autonomous
counties which ran themselves, simply providing military service and
taxes to the state on specified occasions.
The only two cases of provinces clearly being governed by out-
siders appointed by the ruler were exceptional ones. Krum appointed
three high Bulgars to govern the territory in Thrace which he had
wrested from the Byzantines. And here, it may be noted, he had
Greeks in the positions just beneath these Bulgars. Second, Omurtag
sent Bulgar governors to rule over the Timok Slavs after he suppressed
their rebellion. Since both these regions had just been conquered and
considerable opposition to Bulgar rule might have been expected, it is
impossible to draw conclusions from them about how the central Bul-
garian lands were governed.
The prestige of the monarchy had increased through the success of
various great war leaders and through the concept of the prince ruling
by the grace of God. But poor communications and the lack of any
sort of bureaucracy operating in the provinces indicate that central
control of the provinces must have been weak. Either great power
would have been left in the hands of local figures or a small number of
men would have been sent out from the center who, lacking any sort of
staff other than possibly a small garrison of troops, would have had to
carry out their functions with local support. In these provinces presum-
ably the nobles more or less ran their own lands, jointly took care of
local problems and had little dealings with the state other than provid-
ing the military service required of them and paying whatever tribute
or taxes were demanded. At times they surely tried to evade these two
obligations. On such an occasion, if the ruler's representatives could
not coax or threaten them to meet their obligation, the ruler would
have had to bring them to obedience by a punitive action.
Thus one can assume that the state received loyalty and obedience
through the carrot or the stick. That is, if a ruler-like Krum or
Symeon-was a great warrior whose campaigns brought in great
booty, then he would have obedience by the carrot of reward. If the
carrot did not work, then he had to force obedience by a punitive raid,
using sufficient loyal forces to bring the recalcitrant provincial to heel.
The great landlords were also probably the great military com-
manders. If the state had tried to thwart them, it risked turning them
against itself. Other than particular state actions against disobedient
individuals (executions and confiscations for particular crimes), the
ruler probably left the land-owning aristocrats in possession of their
privileges as a class. There was surely considerable brigandage and
insecurity on the roads and this frequently may have been carried out
by the nobles themselves (as well as by outlaw bands). In fact, it is
often hard to distinguish between a noble warrior and a brigand chief.
Besides the normal administration whose authority presumably
declined in direct proportion to the distance from the capital, extraor-
dinary institutions could be convoked at critical moments to rally sup-
port for an important policy, such as councils which might be either
secular or ecclesiastical. These had their roots in the earlier tribal
councils where the clan or tribe was summoned to discuss important
issues. Originally such a council would have been held in an open
place, like a market; later it probably tended to be held at a church. In
addition to small-scale (tribal or local) meetings which probably were
held relatively often, though not on any kind of regularly scheduled
basis, large national councils occurred (such as the Preslav council of
893). But though there were examples of national councils, there is no
evidence that they were convened regularly. They seem to have been
convoked for extraordinary situations like that in 893. Since they were
not regular institutions, though some scholars have tried to make them
so, it is meaningless to argue about whether they legislated policy or
were only advisory. How decisive the vote of a council was would not
have been based on any sort of constitution or defined set of rules, but
rather, according to the balance of power between the different ele-
ments at a particular council. Since the ruler seems to have convoked
them, presumably he would have done so only when he wanted to rally
support for a particular policy and when he was sure his viewpoint
would triumph.
In addition to council decisions and edicts by the ruler, which
would be implemented throughout the country to the extent his repre-
sentatives were able to enforce them, laws existed. Originally these
probably consisted simply of charters and treaties. A subjected tribe
accepted Bulgarian suzerainty which entailed a certain number of obli-
gations. As long as these were met the tribe continued to administer
itself by its own customs. From their early days in the Balkans the
great boyars presumably also had agreements with the khan on mutual
obligations. Eventually such obligations would have become recorded
in individual charters of privilege. In addition to these charters, which
were individual privileges or laws, the state, to maintain order, circu-
lated specific commands to the general population. Presumably the

khans from the start issued commands or edicts to raise troops or to
meet crises.
The first coherent law code seems to have been issued by Krum.
Unfortunately only a few excerpted articles of its text have survived.
Thus we cannot speak of its tenor or determine the extent of control
over the state by the central government. It also is not known whether
Krum was able to enforce his code, or whether any of his sucessors
even tried. When Boris turned to Christianity he requested and re-
ceived Byzantine legal texts, some of which he seems to have tried to
enforce, and whose contents seem to have troubled the old boyars-
presumably overturning some of their established privileges; for the
source on the 866 boyar revolt states that they revolted against the new
laws. This suggests that more than paganism against Christianity had
been at stake and that some of them were upset by new (and presuma-
bly secular rather than canon) laws coming in from Byzantium. That
Boris continued his interest in acquiring secular law is seen in his
correspondence with the pope. Thus Boris was clearly interested in
revising Bulgaria's laws and was acquiring Byzantine laws to guide
him.
Symeon had various Byzantine law codes translated into Slavic.
He probably hoped that some of them might become standards for his
state, particularly if he was to succeed in conquering the empire. He
might well have hoped to have one code for the whole empire and may
have planned to bring his people into line with imperial law. However,
he may also have had the texts translated as handbooks for his offi-
cials. For it cannot be proven that these codes, though translated, had
the power of law in Bulgaria. They may well have been given it; but
even so their actual binding authority may have extended only to the
capital and its environs and particular other places under tight control.
In many regions of Bulgaria, local lords would have been ignorant of
these codes and new laws and would simply have gone on living by and
judging in the traditional manner.
After the conversion to Christianity various Christian institutions
appeared, such as monasteries. Since it was traditional in the empire
for them to be supported by large estates, this custom was carried over
to Bulgaria and both the rulers and Christian nobles assigned large
tracts of land to the monasteries. Thus the monasteries quickly became
large landholders with large populations of peasants on their estates.
The abbots judged the peasants on their estates-and also the monks
under them-just as presumably the secular landlords judged peasants
on theirs.
Under Peter, monasticism developed further accompanied by the

increasing growth of monastery estates. At Rila, John of Rila estab-
lished the greatest monastic center in medieval Bulgaria. Born in about
880 in a village near Sardika (Sofija), John, after a period as a monk in
an established monastery, became a hermit in a forest cave. He gained
a great reputation as a holy man. Disciples flocked to join him and a
little community grew up at Rila. Eventually, feeling community re-
sponsibilities detracted from his asceticism, in 941 John abandoned his
growing monastery for a mountain retreat. He left behind a Spiritual
Testament which contained a rigorous monastic rule, combining indi-
vidual asceticism with community life. He stressed the value of manual
labor and urged the monks to live in harmony, following the Christian
faith taught by the church fathers, never aspiring to riches or power.
The monks were urged to have nothing to do with the princes of this
world, and the story has it that John refused to receive Tsar Peter
when Peter came to his retreat.
The bulk of society was rural and peasant, whether free or bound
to estates. Presumably land was held by a family and was inherited
equally by all sons-though probably particular authority went to one
son as elder. In general scholars believe that in the course of the ninth
and tenth centuries more peasants were becoming bound to estates,
landlords were increasing their holdings, and the number of free
villages was declining. It should be stated that this is all hypothetical;
such a trend was then occurring in Byzantium but no sources exist to
prove a similar trend was occurring in Bulgaria. All that can reasona-
bly be projected is the growth of monastic estates and an increased
number of peasants under the control of monasteries. As far as secular
landholding goes, nothing is known about the balance between estates
and free villages, or whether this balance had changed from the eighth
to the tenth century. I am not denying that Bulgaria was undergoing
this process, I am simply saying no sources exist to demonstrate
whether it was or not.
Bulgaria's small urban population included various foreign ele-
ments, particularly Greeks and Armenians. Many of these foreigners,
along with some Bulgarians, were involved in trade. Bulgaria was an
important transit point, lying between the Byzantine Empire and
either central Europe or Russia and the Steppes. Some towns, such as
Perejaslavec on the Danube, were to acquire great prosperity from this
trade. Svjatoslav of Kiev described Perejaslavec in the mid-960s as
more prosperous than his own well-known trading center of Kiev.
The significance of commerce is also shown by the fact that the
state concerned itself with it. Commercial clauses regularly played a
part in Bulgarian-Byzantine treaties, and Symeon went to war with

Byzantium in 894 over the commercial issue of the Bulgarian market
being switched from Constantinople to Thessaloniki. Clearly then the
state profited-through taxes and through goods acquired-from the
prosperity of its merchants. Trade probably was a major source of cash
in a state which lacked its own coinage, but which presumably needed
coins to carry out foreign purchases or large-scale domestic ones.
Thus medieval Bulgaria enjoyed considerable commercial impor-
tance and its prosperity was likely to have increased during periods of
peace with Byzantium, which is what existed between 927 and 965.
Thus the frequently found depiction of Peter's reign (927-69) as a
period of economic decline probably should be rejected.
Very little is known about taxes. Bulgaria had no coins yet, so
whatever taxes the Bulgarian peasants paid were in kind. It is not
known whether taxes were based on land, on hearth (or head), or on
both units. In addition to paying taxes in kind, the common people
surely had various service obligations-e.g., building or repairing
roads, bridges, and fortifications. People probably also had obligations
to billet and feed troops and to yield horses in requisitions.
Many scholars have assumed that foreign-particularly Byzan-
tine-coins circulated in Bulgaria, that Byzantine gold coins were
probably used for major purchases, and that the state may even have
collected a portion of the taxes it received from the great magnates and
from merchants in foreign currency. Cash could have been obtained by
the state and by individual Bulgarians from booty taken in raids and
from exports abroad. This assumption, though plausible, should not be
accepted as fact. Very few Byzantine coins dating from the seventh
through the mid-tenth centuries have been found in Bulgaria. They
only become relatively common from the reign of John Tzimiskes
(969-76); and he, as we shall see, was to annex part of Bulgaria.
Recent Bulgarian scholarship has emphasized social antagonisms
between different classes in Bulgaria in the tenth century. No sources
exist on this subject at all. Surely there were various tensions; through-
out the history of mankind (the Balkans included) such conflicts have
existed. However, in the absence of sources, specific statements cannot
be made about the nature and importance of these conflicts in medi-
eval Bulgaria. Moreover, even though most scholars have picked the
mid-tenth century as a period of increased and bitter social antago-
nisms between classes and other groups, no sources exist to suggest
that such conflicts were any more frequent or intense under Peter than
under other rulers. Thus when we turn next to the heresy of the
Bogomils, it cannot simply be assumed that the Bulgarian people were
living in the midst of rampant social antagonisms at the moment the

sect arose.
The Bogomil Heresy
The Bogomil heresy arose in Bulgaria during the reign of Peter. Presum-
ably the Christianization of Bulgaria entailed the conversion of the
elite, the formation of a priestly class, and subsequently the religion's
gradual spread throughout society. By the time of Peter, some sixty
years after the official conversion, most Bulgarians probably were at
least nominally Christian; however, many of these nominal Christians
must certainly have retained many pagan practices. But the established
church-the Bulgarian Orthodox church-regardless of the beliefs of
many of its uneducated members, was a duplicate of the Byzantine
church, though with a Slavonic liturgy and with a leadership lacking
the theological brilliance of its Byzantine counterparts.
The Bogomil heresy arose in Bulgaria, a state in which over ninety
percent of the population was peasant and illiterate. Thus we should
pause before we treat-as many scholars have-Bulgarian Bogomilism
as an intellectual movement or stress its doctrinal aspects. Other schol-
ars have treated the Bulgarian heresy as a popular movement; and
though they may admit the leadership was primarily interested in the-
ology, they argue that the heresy acquired its following for non doctrin-
al reasons. In this way one can convert what may have originally been
a more or less crudely expressed theological doctrine into an ideology
for some sort of social protest. Recently a large proportion of writings
on the heresy have been written by either theologians and church
historians, who stress the doctrinal side, or by Marxists, who have
stressed the social (and class struggle) side. But whether treated as a
theological or a social movement, Bogomilism has always been con-
sidered by scholars as a large and significant movement, one of the
major phenomena of medieval Bulgarian history.
Before turning to the heresy itself, it makes sense to stress the fact
that an overwhelming majority of Bulgarians were peasants. As I have
argued in detail elsewhere, 2 the religion of Balkan (and other) peasants
is practice-oriented and deals primarily with this world. It has little or
no doctrine and its emphasis is chiefly or even entirely upon practices
that aim at worldly goals: at the health and welfare of family, crops,
and animals. It clearly would be difficult to effectively propagate a new
creed in such a society, indifferent to formal religion and already at-
tached to old rituals which served these worldly needs. Moreover,
furthering the difficulties of the new creed's dissemination would be
the poor communications existing in Bulgaria. These difficulties are

serious ones that require explanations; however, most scholars skim
over them as if they were trivial matters and state or imply that heret-
ical ideas simply swept across the land.
At the very beginning we must ask the vital question: how does a
religious movement obtain a large number of adherents in a peasant
society indifferent to formal religion? If the new religion is a state
religion, where there is a policy of conversion implemented by state
pressure, one can understand how members of that society can become
nominally adherents of that religion (while, of course, in their homes
many of them continue to adhere to and practice thei:- old rites). This
is what happened in Bulgaria at the time of the official conversion to
Christianity. However, it is an entirely different matter when we try to
explain the acceptance of a religion such as Bogomilism which was
opposed by the state. Why would peasants be attracted to it? This is
particularly important when the heresy in question, Bogomilism, is
presented as a dualist, otherworldly, antimaterial religion, for such a
world view is contrary to the materialistic peasant world view.
To resolve the question one can pose three alternatives: (a) Bogo-
milism was not really a dualist religion, (b) Bogomilism, though dual-
ist, obtained its following for non theological reasons (e.g., social pro-
test, nativistic protest against Byzantium, or some such), which would
make it a popular movement; thus it could-though not necessarily-
have become a large movement, (c) Bogomilism, though dualist, was
not widespread and had only a small semieducated following, but
alarmist church sources exaggerated its danger and size.
Since the sources emphasize the religious side I shall treat the
theological aspects of Bogomilism first and then later return to the
questions which I have just raised.
Theological Aspects of Bogomilism
The three main sources about the Bogomils in Bulgaria-which all

stress beliefs-are a letter from Theophylact, patriarch of Constantino-
ple, to Tsar Peter written about 940; a tract written against the heretics
by a Bulgarian priest named Cosmas (written probably about 970); and
the edicts of a church synod held under Tsar Boril in 1211 which
condemned the Bogomils.
Theophylact's letter is written in response to a nonextant letter
from Tsar Peter which asked the patriarch for advice on how to deal
with the heresy. Presumably the remarks about heretical beliefs given
in Theophylact's letter were drawn from Peter's initial letter. The
patriarch refers to a heresy newly appeared in Bulgaria which is given

no name. He claims the heretics believed in two principles, the first
of which created light and the invisible world and the second dark-
ness, matter, and the human body. The heretics rejected the Old
Testament, marriage, reproduction, and the reality of Christ's incar-
nation; these are said to be derived from the evil principle (the
devil). The heresy is ancient but newly appeared, a mixture of Mani-
chaeism and Paulicianism.
Paulicianism was an eastern heresy, generally depicted as dualist
but recently shown by N. Garsoian to be an adoptionist movement.
Adoptionists believe that Christ was simply a man until He was
adopted by God and made divine by grace at the time of His baptism.
The Paulicians lived in large concentrations in Armenia and eastern
Anatolia. Over the years large numbers of them had been transferred
by the emperors to the Balkans both to break up their concentrations
in the east and also to defend the Thracian frontier because they were
excellent warriors. Many had been settled in the region of Philippopo-
lis (modern Plovdiv) near the Bulgarian border. The Paulicians have
generally been credited with a major role in producing Bulgarian
Bogomilism. If the Paulicians really were dualists, such a role is possi-
ble; however, if they were adoptionists, then an indigenous origin
should be sought for Bogomilism.
The best and most detailed source about the heresy is a treatise by
the Bulgarian priest Cosmas who had firsthand acquaintance with the
heretics and who had the advantage of not being a sophisticated theo-
logian, for most Byzantine antiheretical tracts tend to call heresies by
classical names and then give the reader a mixture of new and relevant
as well as classical and irrelevant beliefs when discussing their subjects.
Cos mas says that during the reign of Peter, a priest (pop) named
Bogomil ("worthy of the pity of God" [a translation of his name] but,
in truth, unworthy) preached heresy in the Bulgarian lands. Out-
wardly, the heretics seem like sheep; they are gentle, humble, and
silent; they do not speak vain words or laugh or behave in such a way
as to distinguish themselves from true Christians. But inside they are
ravenous wolves. When they find the ignorant they sow the drunken-
ness of their teaching and blaspheme the doctrines transmitted by the
Holy Church. They are worse than demons, for demons fear the cross
of Christ and the images of the Lord. The heretics do not venerate
icons but call them idols. The heretics mock the relics of the saints and
mock us when we prostrate ourselves before them. They refuse to
honor the saints and scorn the miracles of God as brought about by the
relics of saints through the power of the Holy Spirit; they say that
miracles have not occurred by the will of God but by the devil who
makes them to seduce men.
They claim that not God but the devil was the creator of the
visible world. They ask how can one adore the cross? It was on it that
the Jews crucified the Son of God. The cross is therefore the enemy of
God. They teach their adherents to detest it, saying that if someone
killed the son of the king with a piece of wood, would that wood be
dear to the king? Communion was not instituted by the command of
God, and the Eucharist is not really the body of Christ but simple food
like any other. They do not believe that the words of priests are
sanctified by God. If priests are sanctified, then why do they not live as
they should?
They are opposed to priests, churches, prayers (except for the
Lord's Prayer), and reject the Law of Moses and the Books of the
Prophets. They do not honor the Virgin Mary. They say a great
deal of nonsense about her that Cosmas cannot even repeat. How-
ever, through fear of men they frequent churches and kiss the cross
and icons as those who have been converted to Orthodoxy report to
us. They say: all the honor we pay icons (and the like) is because of
men and not because of the heart. In secret we keep hidden our
beliefs. They do not accept the Old Testament, but only the Gos-
pels. They live not according to the Law of Moses but according to
that of the Apostles. They make the devil the creator of men and of
all divine creation; some call him a fallen angel. (Cosmas then goes
on to make it seem they worship the devil since they have made
him the creator.)
The heretics spread their venom under the veil of humility and
hypocritical abstinence; or, holding in their hands the Gospels, they
give impious interpretations and try by these means to trap men. They
say it is by will of the devil that all exists-the sky, sun, stars, air,
earth, men, churches, the cross, and all that moves on earth. They
make the Lord have two sons, Christ the elder and the devil the
younger. It is the devil (Mammon) who commanded men to take
wives, eat meat, and drink wine. They call themselves the inhabitants
of heaven; they refuse all joys of life not by abstinence as we [Ortho-
dox monks] do but because they claim these acts are impure. The
Orthodox Christian, believing God made the world, sees nothing im-
pure in these acts. Cosmas says that wine is fine in moderation whereas
the heretics absolutely forbid touching it and meat. They reject bap-
tism and hold in horror a baptized child. They call themselves Chris-
tians but do not have priests to baptize them. They do not make the
sign of the cross or accept the chanting of priests and do not hold
priests in honor. They do not believe in the miracles of Jesus Christ

but claim that the devil was the author of them.
They pray, closing themselves up in their own houses, four times a
day and four times a night. For prayers they say only "Our Father."
They believe that men, not God, instituted the rites and practices of
the Church and of Christians; these are not in the Gospels. The here-
tics do not celebrate church holidays. They do not commemorate the
martyrs and saints. When faced with questions from the Orthodox they
deny their heresy and affirm the Orthodox faith, and will do so under
oath. They will deny their own practices; this they do as a ruse, saying
if our works and practices become known to men, then all our labors
will be lost. They confess their sins to one another and practice confes-
sion among themselves.
They also win converts by saying, do not fatigue yourself with
work on the land for the Lord said "Take no thought about what we
shall eat, drink, or be clothed in." This is why some of them become
beggars and do not want to occupy their hands with any task. They go
from house to house and devour the goods of others. They teach their
adherents not to submit to authority; they slander the rich; they hate
the emperors; they mock their superiors and insult their lords. They
claim that God has horror of those who work for the emperor and
recommend that all servants not work for their masters.
The third main source, written over two hundred years later
(1211), is the edicts of a synod convened by a Bulgarian ruler named
Boril (1207-18) against the Bogomils. It states that the devil has sown
all the Bulgarian land with the heresy of the Manichaens and mixed it
with that of the Massalians (an enthusiastic sect which flourished in
some Byzantine and Syrian monasteries in the fourth and fifth centu-
ries about which very little is known). Pop (priest) Bogomil in the time
of the emperor Peter received this Manichee heresy and spread it in
the Bulgarian lands. The heretics believe that it was only in appear-
ance (not in reality) that Christ was born of Mary, crucified, and risen
in the flesh. Satan was the author of all visible creation and the creator
of Adam and Eve. The heretics reject Moses, the prophets, and the
patriarchs and claim that these Old Testament writings contain the
sayings of Satan. They reject the Old Testament. Woman conceives in
the womb through the aid of Satan, and he remains there throughout
and is not chased out by baptism but by prayer and fasts. They reject
John the Baptist and his baptism with water; they oppose the mass and
churches; their only prayer is "Our Father" and it matters not where it
is said. They oppose the priesthood, communion, the Christian myster-
ies, the cross, and icons.
The three sources discussed above clearly demonstrate that the

Bogomil heresy was a dualist one. This heresy spread from Bulgaria to
Byzantium where it attracted many intellectuals and developed into a
much subtler theological movement. From Constantinople it spread
both east into Asia Minor and west along the Mediterranean to Dal-
matia, Italy, and southern France. In these western European lands
this same heresy-under different names (e.g., Cathars, Albigensians,
Patarins )-flourished from the second half of the twelfth century. It
was wiped out in France in the early thirteenth century but survived in
Italy through the fourteenth.
Many sources exist which describe the beliefs and organization of
these western heretics. These documents show that the western dual-
ists shared many beliefs with the Bogomils. Since Inquisition sources
state that the western heresy originated in Bulgaria, these similarities
in views are hardly surprising. As a result, scholars have combined the
information contained in eastern and western sources to produce a
composite picture of medieval dualism. Then this picture is used to fill
in the gaps in our knowledge about Bulgarian Bogomilism.
However, since new doctrinal ideas can be documented develop-
ing in the West, it cannot be inferred that every belief found in south-
ern France, for example, was necessarily also held in Bulgaria. Thus
most probably such composite pictures are not totally accurate for
Bulgaria. Keeping this drawback in mind, a summary of the composite
picture can still give the reader at least a rough outline of how the
Bogomils viewed man's life on earth and how they sought salvation.
These heretics held a dualist world view: i.e., one which believes
in two principles, one good (identified with the spirit world, who
created that world and our souls) and the other evil (connected with
matter, who created the visible world and human bodies). They had
various cosmological myths but their basic idea was as follows: God
had two sons, Satan and Christ. Both were entirely spiritual beings.
Satan rebelled and created matter, made the world and everything on
it including men. However, he could not create life by himself so he
had to receive help from the spiritual father to put life in his creation.
There are different stories as to how this was done; the two com-
monest have God either breathing on the clay man or Satan imprison-
ing an angel in the clay. In the former God's breath and in the latter
the angel becomes our souls, which are imprisoned in matter. Thus
creation is identified with Satan who becomes the God of the Old
Testament; for this reason the dualists rejected the Old Testament.
Meanwhile the good principle and the good son (Christ) remained in
the spiritual kingdom, while human souls, imprisoned in earthly
bodies, desired to escape from matter and return to it. Since they did
not know how, God sent Christ to earth with a message to explain the
way. Christ, however, was entirely spirit. He only appeared to be a
man but did not really undergo any of the earthly experiences attrib-
uted to Him. Thus He was not really born and did not really die, for
He could not take on the evil of matter. His message of how to escape
from matter is contained in the Gospels.
In simplified form He taught the following: souls through repro-
duction and sin on earth have become perpetually bound to this world;
as a result when a man dies his soul is reborn in another earthly body.
The only way to escape to heaven is to lead an ascetic life, praying so
many times a day, and practicing only spiritual sacraments (avoiding in
worship all material objects, baptism with water, crosses, icons,
churches, etc.); one must avoid sex (and marriage) and anything born
of sexual acts (e.g., meat).
Of course such an ascetic life is impossible for most people; thus
western society was divided into two orders: the perfecti (priesthood)
who have undergone a spiritual initiation and become possessed of the
Holy Spirit, and the believers. The believers led normal lives and then
late in life (when widowed or on their death beds) received the spiritual
initiation and became perfecti. If one failed to receive this initiation,
after his death he would be reborn as a man again. The perfecti led a
wandering ascetic life, doing no manual labor, and being fed by the be-
lievers. If they sinned, they had to be initiated all over again. The west-
ern dualists were divided into many "churches," each under a bishop.
Some aspects of the composite picture outlined above cannot be
corroborated in the Bulgarian sources and thus may not be accurate in
respect to Bulgaria. For as noted this composite picture is drawn from
many different places (Bulgaria, Anatolia, southern France, northern
Italy) over a long period, from the tenth to the fourteenth centuries. It
cannot be assumed that a foreign belief-even though ties between
Bulgaria and the western heretics can be shown-was also held in
Bulgaria if it is not documented there.
Though one can dispute whether the Bogomils held certain spe-
cific beliefs found in this composite picture, still a considerable amount
is known from Bulgarian sources about Bogomilism's theology and
general spirit. However, very little is known about other aspects of the
heresy, even though some scholars present detailed accounts. The or-
ganization of the leadership given in the composite picture is drawn
chiefly from foreign sources; it may well also be accurate for Bulgaria,
but in the absence of evidence it must remain speculative. However,
since the movement arose in Bulgaria, it does seem likely that many
organizational aspects found in the West would have had the same or
similar manifestations in Bulgaria. In fact, it is likely that much of the
institutional structure found in the West even originated in Bulgaria. It
can be proposed with some confidence that the Bulgarian Bogomils
practiced spiritual initiation with a ceremony similar to that found in
the west. This is suggested by the fact that an Italian dualist bishop
named Nazarius is known to have gone to Bulgaria around 1190 to
receive his initiation. Moreover, an Italian inquisitor, Rayner Sacconi,
writing in about 1250, states that in the East there were six dualist
churches (including Bulgaria and Dragovica in Thrace) which together
had a total of five hundred perfecti. Thus it is evident that by the late
twelfth and thirteenth centuries the Bulgarians, like the western dual-
ists, had perfecti. There is no reason to believe this was a late innova-
tion. And it seems likely that Cosmas is referring to perfecti when he
states that certain Bulgarian Bogomils led wandering lives, doing no
manual labor and being fed by others. But whether the Bogomils, like
their western counterparts in the twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth
centuries, had an organized hierarchy under the direction of one or
more major bishops is unknown. All that can be said is that Baril's
synod in 1211 condemned, among others, a ded'ec of Sardika (modern
Sofija), who many scholars have plausibly suggested was some sort of
bishop. (Ded is a Slavic word for grandfather which on occasion was
used for an important elder.)
Social Aspects and Significance of Bogomilism
Now let us return to the questions raised at the start of this section. It
is evident that very little information exists to settle the question of
what appeal a dualist movement would have had in Bulgaria's peasant
society. Was it a social movement (which for nonreligious reasons may
have attracted a large following) or was it only a small sect?
To support the idea that Bogomilism was a social movement,
there exists only the one brief paragraph in Cosmas about not obeying
your superiors, etc. These adages were evidently preached but that is
all that can be said. It is not known that they were effective in drawing
converts. Since Bogomils are not found either leading or participating
as a following in the various known social protests in medieval Bul-
garia, it is hard to make a case for Bogomilism as a social movement.
Since sources do not mention Bogomils active in any war against Byz-
antium or revolt against the empire-when Bulgaria was under Byz-
antine rule-it is even harder to make a case for Bogomilism as a
national (nativistic) movement.
If it was not a practical movement for some worldly goal, be it

national or social, it is hard to see why peasants would join it. And no
source shows that they did. Thus, we probably should conclude that
though Bogomilism had social aspects to its teachings, it did not be-
come a peasant or social movement. When these facts are combined
with the fact that there are only a handful of scattered sources about
Bogomils in Bulgaria-sometimes with over a century between one
reference and the next-and with the fact that none of these sources
states it had a large following-though some state Bogomilism was
scattered over a large area (e.g., throughout Bulgaria)-it seems that
there are strong grounds to consider Bogomilism a small movement.
Elsewhere I have argued this point at considerable length.'
Since the Bogomils cannot be found playing a role in any political
or social event in Bulgarian history, Bogomilism probably had little
impact on Bulgarian history. Thus I think it should be regarded as an
interesting but small sect whose membership was attracted, on the
whole, to a religious doctrine. These Bulgarian dualists had a major
role in sowing the seeds of the dualist movement throughout the Med-
iterranean area (with a strong assist from Byzantine Bogomils who
seem to have been the chief middlemen). Thus they acquired great
prestige among foreign dualists.
However, if we are analyzing Bulgarian history as a whole and
significant movements and causes of historical developments in Bul-
garia, Bogomilism's importance has been tremendously exaggerated in
all historical works. In fact-other than nuisance value to alarmist
Orthodox churchmen and the curiosity value of its interesting world
view-one would be justified in writing a history of medieval Bulgaria
without mentioning the Bogomils at all, just as one could write a
history of the United States without mentioning the Mennonites or the
Shakers. The overwhelming majority of Bulgarians from their conver-
sion to Christianity throughout their history have been members of the
Orthodox church. In any case, the Bogomil sect which rose in the time
of Peter lasted throughout the history of medieval Bulgaria, to be last
heard of in Trnovo-the capital of the second Bulgarian Empire-in
the middle of the fourteenth century.
Nicephorus Phocas, 963-69
In the empire, Romanus Lecapenus was overthrown in 944 and the

legitimate monarch of the Macedonian house, Constantine VII Por-
phyrogenitus, who had been coemperor but had always taken a back
seat, succeeded. He ruled until 959 when his son Romanus II sue-
ceeded him. Romanus II died early after only a four-year rule, in 963,
leaving a widow and two small sons; the eldest, Basil II, was to be-
come the greatest of Byzantium's military emperors. To preserve her
position and that of her sons, Romanus's widow, Theophano, married
Nicephorus, a military aristocrat from the important Anatolian land-
owning family of Phocas. He became coemperor in 963. These events
occurred in the midst of a period of great Byzantine military successes.
Crete had been recovered from the Arabs in 961 and Nicephorus led
successful crusades to recover much eastern territory from the Arabs.
Nicephorus was a great general, who loved nothing better than life on
campaign. Sharing all the hardships with his men, he was extremely
popular with them. When he was not on campaign he enjoyed the
company of ascetics, and was one himself, sleeping on an animal skin
on the floor and always wearing a hair shirt.
Development of Mt. Athas
During Nicephorus's reign Mt. Athos began to develop as a major

religious center. He gave enormous gifts to it. Up until Nicephorus's
reign Athos had been populated by hermits living in their own caves.
Nicephorus supported and financed a monk named Athanasius, whom
he greatly admired, to build a great lavra-monastery-there. The
emperor put Athanasius, abbot of the lavra, over the prota of the
mountain. The prota was a hermit, who until then had been a loose
head over the whole mountain, standing over the hermits who all
favored individual rather than community asceticism. The hermits and
prota complained to Nicephorus about the change and the great au-
thority given to the abbot of the new community monastery. By the
time the complaint arrived, Nicephorus had been murdered (969) and
the case was turned over to his successor, another general who also
was regent coemperor for the two young boys, John Tzimiskes. He
turned the case over to a Studite monk, a member of an enormous
monastic community in Constantinople. Not surprisingly the Studite
decided in favor of the abbot of the lavra.
In the centuries that followed, Mt. Athos-the Holy Mountain-
became the greatest monastic, if not religious, center in the empire.
Eventually the different Slavic nations (Bulgarians, Serbs, and Rus-
sians) also established their own monastic communities there. The mon-
asteries are still active today, though now the number of monks is
small. These monasteries have preserved great libraries with a vast
number of manuscripts, valuable not only for religious history but also
for the social and economic history of the empire, because the libraries
contain a large number of charters which give a picture of the monas-

teries' landholding, of the status of people on their lands, and so on.
From these documents a great deal can be learned about the legal and
social position of peasants on monastic land and also about the immu-
nities-tax and other legal exemptions-granted to the monasteries by
the mountain's secular suzerains over the centuries. Mt. Athos has also
been a center of male chauvinism. Even today no women are allowed
on the mountain; in fact, even female animals (including until 1863
even hens) are banned from it.
The Russian and Byzantine War over Bulgaria, 965-71
In 965 Bulgarian envoys appeared at the court of Nicephorus Phocas to

collect the annual tribute-prescribed by the peace treaty with Peter in
927-owed by the Byzantines. This was a period of extraordinary
Byzantine military success against the Arabs in the east. Nicephorus
was enraged that after all of his triumphs the "lowly" Bulgars would
dare ask for tribute. Furthermore Maria Lecapena, Peter's wife, had
by then died, and Nicephorus claimed that the annual financial gifts
had not been tribute but money for her upkeep. As she was dead there
was no further reason to send money. Whether this was an accurate
interpretation of the 927 treaty or a way to escape payment is not
known.
Deciding that the empire would pay tribute no longer, Nicephorus
had the Bulgarian envoys whipped and sent home with stinging insults
and the warning that he would come and personally deliver the tribute
they deserved. He then attacked some Bulgarian border fortresses.
Most scholars feel this was more than sufficient to quell the Bulgarians.
Yet next the emperor summoned the Russians from Kiev, under their
prince Svjatoslav, to attack the Bulgarians. Why would Nicephorus
have called in a powerful state (which was to become a dangerous
enemy when its troops overran Bulgaria) against a relatively weak en-
emy? And, if the emperor wanted to punish the Bulgarians, why did he
not call in the Pechenegs as usual?
Stokes, a British scholar, argues convincingly that the Russian
prince Svjatoslav, who had just destroyed the Khazars, opening his
way into the Crimea, was threatening the town of Cherson, an impor-
tant Byzantine commercial and intelligence center. Thus, Nicephorus's
intention, when he invited Svjatoslav to plunder Bulgaria, was to draw
him away from Cherson. Various sources support this theory; Yahya
of Antioch, a Christian Arab chronicler, speaks of Nicephorus making
peace with the Russians before obtaining the agreement that they
would attack Bulgaria. Furthermore a subsequent Byzantine-Russian

treaty of 971-concluded after Tzimiskes had defeated Svjatoslav in
Bulgaria and was forcing the Russians to withdraw-makes Svjatoslav
promise to henceforth leave Bulgaria and Cherson alone. Thus the
emperor seems to have hoped that the Russians and Bulgarians, as two
troublesome enemies, would exhaust one another, and did not visual-
ize other consequences.
Instead Svjatoslav arrived and in a matter of months crushed the
Bulgarian armies and took over part of Bulgaria (presumably some of
the territory along both banks of the Danube). There is no evidence
that the Russians ever reached Macedonia at all. With Svjatoslav was
Kalokyris, the Byzantine governor of Cherson, who had negotiated the
initial treaty with Svjatoslav, and who, ambitious for the throne (to
replace Nicephorus as regent coemperor), had accompanied Svjato-
slav, encouraging him to attack the Byzantine empire, and offering
Svjatoslav permanent possession of Bulgaria if he would help Kalokyris
obtain the throne. Nicephorus, of course, had n"ever agreed to Svjato-
slav's conquering Bulgaria; all he had offered the prince was a chance
for booty. Byzantine sources clearly show that the Russians were not
expected to remain in Bulgaria and that Svjatoslav had, in fact, agreed
to leave.
The chronology of the warfare in Bulgaria is complicated and the
sources are at variance with one another; thus scholars disagree and
one finds different dates in different studies. The most reasonable
chronology is one worked out by Stokes, which places the initial Bul-
gar tribute demand in 965, Nicephorus's attack on the border for-
tresses and the invitation to the Russians in 966 and the Russian inva-
sion and successes in 967.
After the Russian victory in 967 Peter, according to the Byzantine
chronicler Leo the Deacon, suffered an epileptic fit and became inca-
pacitated. Presumably the author meant an apoplectic fit or stroke.
Peter then abdicated, entered a monastery, and died in 969. His son
Boris had long been resident in Constantinople, possibly kept there
partially as a hostage. Upon Peter's abdication Boris appeared in Bul-
garia. Probably after the abdication of the father, the Byzantines had
allowed the son to return to Bulgaria to try to regain his lost lands,
hoping he would rule over them as a Byzantine vassal. To try to assure
his loyalty, Boris's two daughters were engaged to the two young
Byzantine emperors Basil II and his younger brother Constantine
(VIII).
On his arrival in Preslav, he was immediately proclaimed as Tsar
Boris II. Thus Svjatoslav clearly had not conquered all the Bulgarian
state. Svjatoslav, however, held much of the territory of northeastern

Bulgaria on both sides of the Danube including the important commer-
cial town of Perejaslavec which he made his center of operations. The
core of the original Bulgarian territory was thus divided, but it is impos-
sible to say in general who held what and to determine how extensive
Svjatoslav's conquests yet were. Bulgarian independence, however, was
threatened by Svjatoslav's presence. Boris was too weak to oppose him
and it is evident that if Boris was to have any hope of remaining the ruler
of Bulgaria he needed Byzantine aid to oust Svjatoslav.
The Byzantine sources state that in 968 he sent an embassy to
Constantinople for help against the Russians. The Byzantines, being
occupied in the east, wereunable to help. Instead they sent envoys to
summon the Pechenegs to aid Boris by attacking Kiev. However, the
Russian Primary Chronicle states that the Bulgarians summoned the
Pechenegs themselves, without the Byzantines as middlemen. The Byz-
antine story seems more probable for it is known that in 968 an em-
bassy sent by the Bulgarians arrived in Constantinople. Liutprand of
Cremona, an emissary of Otto I, the German emperor, who was also
there at the time, notes its arrival and complains that the Bulgarian
envoys were seated higher than all other foreigners. This is often taken
by scholars to be a sign of the general position of the Bulgarians in
imperial eyes. However, considering the timing of this particular em-
bassy (968), this precedence may have been special for that occasion
rather than a general rule; for Nicephorus by then, realizing that the
Kievans were far more dangerous than the Bulgarians, was actively
trying to convert the Bulgarians into allies. He had allowed Boris to go
to Bulgaria and had engaged the two Byzantine child-emperors to
Bulgarian princesses; this situation may explain the seating of the Bul-
garians. Furthermore, they may have been seated prominently to insult
Liutprand since at the time the Byzantine emperor was angry at him
because of his master Otto's imperial pretensions.
In any case in 968 the Pechenegs attacked Kiev. Svjatoslav left
some of his troops in northeastern Bulgaria and returned to Russia,
planning to return later to Bulgaria. He defeated the Pechenegs and
drove them out into the Steppe; then he set up viceroys to rule his
Russian territory. After this success and reorganization of his Russian
realm, Svjatoslav, according to the Russian Primary Chronicle, an-
nounced to his mother (Saint Olga) and the Russian boyars,
I do not care to remain in Kiev but should prefer to live in Pere-

jaslavets on the Danube since that is the center of my realm,
where all the riches are concentrated, gold, silks, wine and various
fruits from Greece, silver and horses from Hungary and Bohemia
and from Rus furs, honey, wax and slaves. 4
From this it is evident that Svjatoslav, having come to know Bul-

garia, saw great possibilities for wealth there and decided not only to
retain part of it but to make one of its cities his capital. This indicates
the importance of trade to the Rus and the importance of Perejaslavec
as a commercial center; presumably it was more important than the
today better-known Kiev. Thus Bulgaria was a richer trade center than
we have suspected till now. The chronicle also notes the countries with
which Bulgaria had commercial contact and what the chief imports
were.
Olga complained that she was old; why did her son want to leave
her? She begged him to wait until she died and to bury her first and
then he might go wherever he wished. She died three days later. Svja-
toslav mourned her with many tears, buried her, and returned to Bul-
garia in the middle of 969. It seems that in Svjatoslav's absence, Boris
had driven the Russian troops which Svjatoslav had left behind back
across the Danube and had retaken Perejaslavec. Svjatoslav quickly
defeated the Bulgarians in a major battle and regained the city. He
impaled three hundred Bulgarian boyars for disloyalty. This defeat
seems to have ended Bulgarian resistance to the Russians. There
would be no further Russian-Bulgarian battles.
Meanwhile in 969, in Constantinople a second general, John Tzim-
iskes, murdered Nicephorus Phocas and became regent for and coem-
peror with the two young emperors. He wrote Svjatoslav telling him to
keep to the original agreement and return to Russia, which indicates
that the original agreement of 965 or 966 had specified a Russian
withdrawal. Svjatoslav replied that if the empire wanted peace, the
Byzantines would have to withdraw to Asia Minor leaving Constanti-
nople to him. Tzimiskes sent a second imperial embassy of warning.
Disregarding it, Svjatoslav now took Preslav. There is no evidence that
much fighting was necessary to take the city, and it seems it was
surrendered immediately or after a very short time.
Since in 971, when Byzantium conquered Preslav, Boris was found
freely wandering around the city (while Svjatoslav then was at Silistria)
dressed in imperial robes, it seems probable that the city was sur-
rendered promptly to Svjatoslav by agreement. After the Bulgarian
defeat at or near Perejaslavec it must have been apparent to Boris that
he was unable to resist Svjatoslav. Thus when the Russian prince ap-
peared with troops, Boris probably surrendered on condition that he
be allowed to retain his freedom and possibly even to continue to
govern the city as Svjatoslav's vassal. This would have been a good
opportunity for Svjatoslav; it would have given him the chance to
obtain further Bulgarian support. The Bulgarians probably would have
preferred being ruled by a Bulgarian than by a Russian and it would
mean Svjatoslav would not have to spread his own commanders and
troops too thinly. If Boris should turn out to be disloyal or fail to remit
tribute or meet other obligations, then Svjatoslav could easily depose
him and Boris knew it. Thus Boris seems to have been made not a
prisoner but an ally, granted an ally in a very dependent position,
retaining a title (though more or less a figurehead) and allowed to
administer his capital for Svjatoslav as long as he behaved well.
That there was an agreement between Boris and Svjatoslav is
confirmed by the subsequent actions of Bulgarian troops. In the war-
fare that followed against the empire, including a large battle at Arca-
diopolis, the Byzantine sources report that Bulgarians were fighting on
the Russian side. They remained with Svjatoslav until the end of the
war; at that juncture some of them deserted him but that was after the
Byzantine victory was assured. One Byzantine source mentions a spe-
cific Bulgarian-Russian alliance at this time. This is quite possible and
could well have been part of the agreement which allowed Boris to
retain his position in Preslav as a Russian ally and vassal. There is even
mention of one skirmish between Bulgarians and Greeks with no refer-
ence to Russians at all.
This Bulgarian support of Svjatoslav is not surprising, considering
the long history of anti-Byzantine feeling in Bulgaria. Svjatoslav gave
them not only a chance to attack the Greeks but also to obtain great
booty in his successful campaigns. In addition, despite a strong Scandi-
navian element in the Kievan ruling class, the Russians were fellow
Slavs, which possibly created a bond against the alien Greeks. The fact
that Svjatoslav decided to make a Bulgarian town his capital also re-
flects relative acceptance of him by the Bulgarians; if they had strongly
opposed him he probably would not have chosen to live there but
would have garrisoned it, collected income from it, and gone back to
Kiev to reside. In addition the Bulgarians and Russians had also had
earlier ties through trade and connections existed between Bulgarian
clerics and the small Christian beginnings in Russia. However, Bulgar-
ian support for the Russians was probably not a mass movement;
surely the majority of Bulgarians were nonpartisan, trying to eke out
some sort of existence and survive in a war-torn land.
The sources suggest that Svjatoslav, who now continued to move
south, tried-usually with success-to restrain his troops and prevent
them from looting thereby preventing them from antagonizing the Bul-
garians. When cities surrendered immediately, which most of them

seem to have done, he permitted no plundering; churches and their
treasures were left intact. The only place where Svjatoslav met resis-
tance was at Philippopolis, a Byzantine city south of the Balkan moun-
tains in Thrace and a center of the Paulicians. When it fell Leo the
Deacon, probably with exaggeration, states that Svjatoslav impaled
twenty thousand people.
The first major Russian encounter with the imperial army was at
Arcadiopolis (probably early in 970). Since this battle followed the fall
of Philippopolis, it is probable that by then all of Bulgaria down to the
Balkan mountains (though not including Macedonia which is men-
tioned in no sources at this time) had fallen to Svj atoslav. Some of this
territory, however, seems not to have been occupied directly, but ruled
indirectly through Boris.
The battle of Arcadiopolis-in Thrace not far west of Constanti-
nople-was considered a Byzantine victory in Byzantine sources and a
Russian victory in the Russian Primary Chronicle. Most scholars have
accepted the Byzantine claim, but since Svjatoslav continued on south
into Thrace after the battle, it is probable that either he won or else
suffered only a minor defeat at Arcadiopolis. In fact, one Byzantine
writer who says the Byzantines defeated one Russian division may be
correct; if this had occurred, then Svjatoslav with the rest of his army
would still have been in a position to push on south.
An important question at this juncture is whether or not a treaty
was signed in 970 between the Russians and Byzantines. The Byzan-
tines probably would have liked a treaty; in 970 they had been able to
put only limited forces in the field against Svjatoslav since most of
their forces were needed to oppose the revolt of Bardas Phocas-
avenging the slain Nicephorus. Furthermore the existence of such a
treaty would explain the puzzling fact that in 971, when Tzimiskes
attacked Bulgaria (i.e., the Russians in Bulgaria), the mountain
passes, ideal for ambushes, were unguarded. Svjatoslav at the time was
back in Perejaslavec. Stokes speculates that a treaty had been signed
which Svjatoslav trusted and thus, lulled into a false sense of security,
he did not bother about border garrisons. Then Tzimiskes, seeing the
open passes, decided to strike fast. In four months John Tzimiskes,
leading the attack in person, had gained all of eastern Bulgaria. The
Russians and their Bulgarian allies put up a heroic resistance first at
Preslav (it is here at its fall that Byzantine sources note the capture of
Boris) and then at the final fortress of Silistria on the Danube, which
underwent a three-month siege.
At Silistria, short of supplies, the Russians charged out at the
besiegers, were defeated in a wild battle, and agreed to a truce. A

treaty was then signed; Svjatoslav was to be allowed to depart in peace
up the Danube as a friend of the empire. Trade between the two states
was to be restored; the Russian prince promised he would not return
to Bulgaria again and would leave Cherson in peace. The emperor
then promised food supplies to Svjatoslav's men.
After emissaries agreed to these terms, Svjatoslav expressed the
desire to meet the emperor in person and the request was granted. The
emperor appeared in all his pomp and splendor; Svjatoslav with a
handful of other blond men naked to the waist arrived in canoes.
Svjatoslav was distinguished from the others by a large gold earring.
After the meeting, he left for home, wintering en route. In the spring
of 972 he continued on his way, but was ambushed by the Pechenegs-
possibly in the service of the Byzantines-and killed. His skull was
made into a drinking cup.
During the period that Svjatoslav was active in Bulgaria (between
966 and 971), many Bulgarians went to Russia, some as prisoners,
others as merchants, artisans, and craftsmen. After the 971 defeat still
other Bulgarians emigrated to Kiev. Archaeologists have found "Pre-
slav-style" tiles on Kievan floors from this period, showing Bulgarian
influences in Russia. Bulgaria had long been an important center from
which the small number of Russian Christians had obtained Slavonic
clergy and texts. During the five years spent among Christians in Bul-
garia, Svjatoslav's soldiers surely found themselves subject to many
Christian influences. Some of them may well have maintained an inter-
est in that religion on their return to Russia. Thus connections between
Bulgarians and Russians, resulting from Svjatoslav's activities in Bul-
garia, must be considered as an important part of the background to
the official conversion of the Russians which occurred in 988 under
Svjatoslav's son Vladimir.
Tzimiskes's Policy toward Bulgaria
Tzimiskes took Boris captive in Preslav. At first, however, to gain

Bulgarian support he hailed him as ruler of the Bulgarians. During
Tzimiskes's successful campaign in 971-through part of which he had
the captured Boris at his side-various Bulgarians deserted Svjatoslav
to join the Byzantines. A particularly large number of these desertions
occurred in the final month of that campaign.
After the defeat of Svjatoslav, Tzimiskes annexed Bulgaria, and
converted it into a theme; this annexation included only the northeast-
ern part of the former state. Macedonia was not affected. Tzimiskes
took Boris back to Constantinople and kept him there with his brother
Romanus. This left no members of the royal family in Bulgaria. He
also abolished the Bulgarian patriarchate. This victory restored the
Byzantine border to the Danube for the first time since the arrival of
Isperikh in the late seventh century. Of course, this annexed territory,
despite becoming part of the empire, still remained settled overwhelm-
ingly with people considering themselves Bulgarians.
Tzimiskes then turned to campaigns in the east, which included
further warfare against the Armenians and Paulicians. This led to the
transfer of more of these fine warriors to the region of Philippopolis,
both to break up their concentrations in the east and to dilute the Slavs
in Thrace. At the same time Tzimiskes removed various Bulgarian
boyars from their homes and settled them in Constantinople and Ana-
tolia, where they were given high titles and lands. Many came to serve
the empire in high positions. Thus the Bulgarians were deprived of
many of their natural leaders.
Samuel's Revived Bulgaria and Its Wars with Byzantium
Except for possibly a raid here or there, all the major Russian and
Byzantine battles (e.g., Silistria, Perejaslavec, Preslav, Arcadiopolis,
Philippopolis) took place in eastern Bulgaria. This was the region where
both Svjatoslav and Tzimiskes were active. The western part of the
state-Macedonia-which had belonged to Peter was untouched by the
war. Boris II, though he presumably had title to this land, had had no
opportunity to establish his authority there and there is no evidence that
western Bulgarians sent him aid. Thus probably he had no control of
this area. After defeating Svjatoslav, Tzimiskes returned to his eastern
frontier to battle the Arabs. There is no evidence that he, during or after
his victory over Svjatoslav, ever campaigned in Macedonia. There is
also no indication that the western part voluntarily surrendered to him
nor is there reason why it should have. Even though this territory may
have been surrendered to Byzantium on paper (by Boris II) and have
become officially part of the empire, in fact it probably remained on its
own, under its own nobility, one family of which, that of Count Nicholas
and his four sons, rose to dominance. Thus as Tzimiskes turned east and
the rulers of eastern Bulgaria were eliminated and replaced by imperial
officials, western Bulgaria (Macedonia) remained independent. Perhaps
Tzimiskes had intended to direct a second campaign to annex this Mace-
danian territory. Such a plan might explain why easterners were subse-
quently settled in Thrace. But regardless of plans he never had the
opportunity before his own death.
The Revolt of the Cometopuli
Soon after Tzimiskes's death in 976 there broke out in Macedonia the
"revolt" of the four Cometopuli, sons of the Count Nicholas. Presuma-
bly this region had been independent all along but its inhabitants had
not dared to do anything provocative in the lifetime of the able mili-
tary emperor. The count's family had probably controlled only a
county in the period 969-76, possibly gradually adding other counties
to theirs. Presumably in 976 they pressed on to unite under their own
rule all of Macedonia, and this constituted their revolt.
The four sons all had Old Testament names (Samuel, Aaron,
Moses, and David), which is strong reason to assume that their parents
had not been Bogomils, though it does not prove that some of them
could not have been attracted to the heresy later in life. Some scholars
suggest the family was of Armenian origin, and there has been consid-
erable dispute among scholars on this; if so, it is not clear whether the
Armenian ancestors came to Bulgaria in the ninth or tenth century. In
addition the Middle Ages in Bulgaria was a period when nationality was
not important; thus there is no reason why an Armenian in a position of
power could not have united behind him a large number of Slavs against
Byzantium. In any case, the family's nationality is not known.
The Roles of Romanus and Samuel in the New State
With the appearance of this new Bulgarian state in Macedonia, the

ex-ruler of Bulgaria, Boris, and his brother Romanus set out for the
Bulgarian border. It is not known whether they simply escaped or
whether the Byzantines released them hoping that their attempt to
regain the throne would set off a civil war, destroying whatever
strength and unity the new Bulgarian state in the west might have. In
any case, the two reached the Bulgarian border. There Boris was killed
by a Bulgarian sentry (supposedly in error) but Romanus succeeded in
arriving in Bulgaria. The sources do not agree on the role Romanus
was to play or on the title he took.
According to the Byzantine chronicler Skylitzes, writing at the end
of the eleventh century, Romanus, because he had been castrated by
the Byzantines, was not eligible for the Bulgarian throne. (In Byzan-
tium at least such a castration would have eliminated him as a candi-
date for the throne.) Thus, according to this source, leadership re-
mained in the hands of the family of Count Nicholas. Nicholas by then
had died, and power was divided among his sons, in particular the son
named Samuel.
A second source is Yahya ibn Said, an Arab Christian author who

was writing ca. 1020 at Antioch. He states that Romanus was accepted
as king of the Bulgarians, even by the family of Nicholas. That family
served Romanus until his death as a prisoner in 997 after which-and
not before-Samuel took the title of tsar. Yahya's dating of Romanus's
death is at variance with Skylitzes's and is not generally accepted.
Samuel did take the tsarist title in 997, but Romanus probably did not
die then. He was to be captured by the Byzantines-if we can believe
Skylitzes, not the most reliable author-in 1004, when he surrendered
the town of Skopje to them. Skylitzes, who states Romanus was never
tsar of Bulgaria, refers to him here as the town commander.
However, it is possible that Samuel and his family did recognize
Romanus for a while but in 997 some event other than his capture led
the family to cease their recognition of Romanus and to crown Samuel
tsar. Possibly Romanus, though at first accepted as tsar, abdicated in
or before 997. Such an abdication would have allowed Romanus to
remain alive and active in Bulgaria after Samuel's coronation.
It is also possible that the dates are wrong. Perhaps, as Zlatarski
suggests, Romanus's capture described in the Byzantine source did not
happen in 1004 but at an earlier date. No source confirms this; but
since Yahya has Romanus dying as a prisoner in 997 (thereby leaving
the throne vacant for Samuel's coronation), we must either reject
Yahya's story entirely or redate Romanus's 1004 capture. Zlatarski
chose this second alternative; and since the only known Byzantine
pre-997 campaign-other than the disastrous one in 986-was 991, he
chose that date for Romanus's capture. Thus Zlatarski, rejecting Sky-
litzes's dating of Romanus's capture to 1004, followed Yahya and con-
cluded that Romanus was captured prior to 997 (choosing 991 as the
most likely time) and believed that Samuel then waited six years after
this until Romanus died in 997 before he allowed himself to be
crowned.
In any case, after Romanus's arrival in Bulgaria there seems to
have been no friction between the four brothers and him (regardless of
what title he did or did not get). The four brothers seem to have ruled
jointly, each holding a portion of the territory. (Such a division of
lands among sons was common among the Slavs in place of the primo-
geniture found in Western Europe.) On the basis of insufficient
sources, some Bulgarian scholars have tried to work out who held
what. Their conclusions can be ignored for the matter is impossible to
prove and, more important, this arrangement was short-lasting.
Within about ten years all the brothers except Samuel were dead.
One brother was killed by a Vlach, a second fighting against Byzan-
tium, and a third, Aaron, was killed by Samuel. As a result, all the
territory devolved upon Samuel, who was the most active and impor-
tant individual in Bulgaria regardless of whether Romanus was tsar or
not. The sources speak little of Romanus and emphasize Samuel. Thus
it is clear that even though Samuel may not have been the titular ruler
between 976 and his coronation in 997, he actually wielded power.
The Character of Samuel's State
Thus a new state appeared in Macedonia, with centers in Ohrid and

Prespa. Scholars at times (particularly Macedonian scholars who want
to depict this as a distinctly Macedonian state) have tried to stress the
differences between Samuel's state and the earlier Bulgarian state. The
main difference seems to lie in the geographical locations of their
centers; the earlier state had been centered near the Danube while
Samuel's state was centered to the west in Macedonia. However, this
geographical difference is quite irrelevant. Macedonia was simply a
geographical term; there was then no Macedonian ethnic awareness.
And though some historians may stress the Slavic character of Mace-
donia and claim there had never been Bulgars here, this too has little
meaning. By Samuel's time whatever Bulgars there had been anywhere
in Bulgaria or Macedonia were slavicized; moreover, Kuver's activities
in Macedonia would have given this area some earlier Bulgar back-
ground as well.
What is important is that Samuel called his state Bulgarian, a fact
which shows that he considered it Bulgarian; furthermore, Byzantine
sources called it Bulgarian also and treat Samuel simply as a ruler,
continuing the former Bulgarian state. The fact that Samuel remained
based in the west is also no evidence that he did not see himself as
continuing the earlier state. In the west lay the center of his own
support; furthermore, in Macedonia he was more distant from Byzan-
tine attack, which enabled him to build up his state and army more
easily. Thus he had no reason to move to Preslav and operate from the
old capital.
Whether any of the leading figures of the previous Bulgarian
state, centered in the northeast, came west to serve Samuel is not
known. They would have supplied continuity between the two states,
and one suspects some easterners must have fled west. But even if
some had so fled, presumably Samuel still would have chiefly relied on
his own servitors from the west whose loyalty he was assured of. The
only emigre from the east whom the sources mention is the patriarch
Damian who fled from Preslav when Tzimiskes conquered that city
and abolished his office. Samuel shortly thereafter made Damian patri-
arch of a new patriarchate which Samuel established in Ohrid. This
appointment at least provided continuity for the Bulgarian church be-
tween Preslav and Ohrid. With changes in title, up and down, between
patriarch and archbishop, this see was to continue until the Ottomans
abolished it in 1767.
Samuel was to expand his state from Macedonia in all directions.
He seems to have launched his first attack right after the death of
Tzimiskes in 976 (which would explain the reference to the revolt of
the sons of the count in that year). Moses was killed in an unsuccessful
attack against Serres. Samuel then raided Thessaly (at first he failed in
a siege of Larissa; but he was to gain Larissa in 986 when he conquered
all of Thessaly).
Samuel's Early Relations with Byzantium
It is apparent that if Byzantium had had a role in the escape of Boris

and Romanus and had hoped thereby to cause a weakening of the
Bulgarian state through civil war, the ploy had not worked. Romanus's
presence had not diminished Samuel's actual power at all. Therefore,
according to Yahya, the Byzantines next tried to stir up rivalry be-
tween the two surviving brothers-Samuel and Aaron. Basil sent an
envoy to Aaron who offered him aid against Samuel and Basil's own
sister for a wife. Aaron, according to the story, was receptive and the
metropolitan of Sebastea (modern Sivas in central Anatolia) arrived
with a girl who in fact was a fake and not a princess at all. Further-
more, the metropolitan brought with him a document for Aaron to
sign concluding peace and recognizing Byzantine suzerainty. Aaron,
however, discovered the fraud about the girl, rejected the agreement,
and killed the metropolitan of Sebastea.
After this failure, the young emperor, Basil II, decided to lead an
expedition against the Bulgarians in 986. He attacked Sardika (modern
Sofija); according to Zlatarski, this town was Aaron's, and Basil was
angry at Aaron's rejection of the proposed agreement. He besieged
the town for twenty days without success, and then ordered his troops
to withdraw. Meanwhile Samuel had hurried thither to aid Aaron, and
the combined armies of Samuel and Aaron pursued the withdrawing
imperial troops. They succeeded in ambushing Basil's army, which
they handily defeated though Basil himself managed to escape.
Samuel seems to have known of Aaron's treacherous dealings with
the Byzantines. Thus his coming west to Sardika was probably designed
both to thwart any further treachery as well as to prevent Basil from
achieving his aims. Not trusting Aaron, Samuel then murdered him,
probably still in 986. The Chronicle of the Priest of Dioclea-a twelfth-
century source based on considerable oral tradition-says Samuel killed
Aaron and a son. Skylitzes says he murdered all Aaron's family except
for one son, John Vladislav, who was saved by the intervention of
Samuel's son Gabriel Radomir.
After the elimination of Aaron and the defeat of Basil, Samuel
was able to consolidate his hold over all the Bulgarian territory, and he
now stepped up his raids against Byzantium, first attacking and annex-
ing the territory of the original Bulgarian state and then the region of
Thessaloniki (not including the city itself), acquiring several lesser
forts. He then, probably still in 986, dispatched his army into Thessaly.
Larissa fell. According to Skylitzes, Samuel then transferred many
people from around Larissa to Bulgaria. Some of them were drafted
into his armies. Next his troops pressed south and plundered parts of
the Peloponnesus. Subsequently he attacked Epirus and the region of
Durazzo between 986 and 997, a period for which almost no sources
survive. By the end of it, Samuel held all Macedonia, Bulgaria. Thes-
saly, Epirus, Durazzo, and most, if not all, of what is now Albania.
Basil, during this period, had been in no position to oppose Samuel
because he was involved in putting down major rebellions by the great
magnates of Anatolia-relatives of the former regent coemperors
Phocas and Tzimiskes.
Samuel and John Vladimir of Duklja
With his hands tied by the Anatolian civil wars, Basil entered into
negotiations with various other Slavic rulers, including Stjepan
Drzislav of Croatia and John Vladimir of Duklja. The name Duklja
was derived from Dioclea-the name of a city (whose ruins lie just
outside of Titograd) and of a Roman province roughly corresponding
to modern Montenegro. The name Dioclea, in Slavic form, was re-
tained as the name of the first Slavic state located there. Later this
whole region came to be called Zeta, after one of the zupas (or
counties) within Duklja.
Duklja had greatly increased its strength and size after the death
of the Serbian prince Caslav in ca. 960. Serbia had then disintegrated
and Duklja had absorbed most of it along with Zahumlje and Tre-
binje. Duklja's ruler was John Vladimir, with whom Basil in the 990s
entered into relations. These negotiations seem to have taken place in
992 after a campaign by Basil into Macedonia in 991 which seems to
have achieved nothing (unless it succeeded in capturing Romanus as
Zlatarski speculates). This alliance, whenever concluded, was a cause

of worry for Samuel; and in about 997, after he captured Durazzo,
Samuel turned against Duklja and defeated John Vladimir. He thereby
gained control over both Raska (Serbia) and Duklja. John Vladimir
was imprisoned.
A romantic story is given in the Chronicle of the Priest of Dioclea.
Since clearly the story is based on oral legends and written almost two
centuries later, in the middle of the twelfth century, it is often felt to
be unreliable. Sadly, there are no other sources about the event with
which to compare the chronicle's information. In any case, the chroni-
cle story reports that Samuel's daughter Kosara saw John Vladimir in
jail, fell in love with him, and asked for his hand. Samuel allowed the
marriage and the two were sent back to Duklja. John Vladimir re-
ceived back his old principality and part of the duchy of Durazzo to
rule as Samuel's vassal. An uncle of John Vladimir, named Dragimir,
was given Trebinje and Zahumlje to rule also as Samuel's vassal.
There is much to wonder about in this story. John Vladimir clearly
returned to rule in Duklja during Samuel's lifetime and one must
therefore assume that he did so with Samuel's permission, presumably
even as his vassal. Whether there is truth in the Kosara story is not
known, but it is conceivable that, in restoring him to Duklja, Samuel
did bind John Vladimir to him by making him a son-in-law. However,
it is worth noting that after his restoration-and possibly his
marriage-John Vladimir does not seem to have played any role in
the warfare that followed between Byzantium and Bulgaria. Since
Basil II never seems to have considered attacking Duklja it is likely
that John Vladimir remained more or less neutral in the warfare.
Samuel and Ashot in Durazzo
Also to make us wonder about the romantic story is the fact that an
almost identical story about two different figures is given by Sky-
litzes-a Byzantine source whose reliability may not be too much
better than the Chronicle of the Priest of Dioclea. Skylitzes tells how a
daughter of Samuel-this time called Miroslava-fell in love with a
second captive of Samuel. This captive was Ashot, the son of Gregory
Taronites, the Byzantine governor of Thessaloniki. Ashot married the
girl, was released, and appointed governor of Durazzo (which Samuel
captured in 997). He was not the only Byzantine in Samuel's service. 5
It is hard to believe that two such romances happened. Possibly
one of them occurred but one of the sources took the event and attrib-
uted it to the wrong pair. It is quite possible, however, that Samuel
really did utilize these two men-possibly in both cases after capturing
them-and bound them to him by marrying them to his daughters,
thinking marriage would make them more loyal vassals. If so, Samuel's
reasoning and hopes did not pay off. It seems John Vladimir contrib-
uted nothing to his cause, though, at least as one who seems to have
remained neutral, he did not actually betray Samuel.
In Durazzo Samuel was less lucky. There he not only had his new
son-in-law installed as governor, but Samuel himself was married to
Agatha, the daughter of John Hruselios, a leading citizen of Durazzo.
Once in power Ashot, until recently a Byzantine, entered into close
relations with the leading citizens of the town (which up to 997 had
been a Byzantine city and whose citizens had many economic reasons
to prefer being under Byzantium) including John Hruselios. Together
a plan to turn the city over to the Byzantines was hatched, which was
eventually carried out in 1005 when, after Ashot and Miroslava
(Samuel's daughter) were safely carried off to Constantinople on a
Byzantine ship, the leading citizens opened the gates to the Byzan-
tines. Thus in this case Samuel was directly betrayed.
Expansion of Samuel's State and His 997 Coronation
However, this betrayal was several years in the future when in 997
Samuel had subdued Duklja, conquered Durazzo, and installed Ashot.
At that time he was moving from triumph to triumph. His state had
expanded in all directions to incorporate Bulgaria, western Thrace and
Macedonia (excluding Thessaloniki), Thessaly, Epirus, Albania, and
Durazzo. In addition, the rulers of the states of Duklja, Raska (Ser-
bia), Trebinje, Zahumlje, and some or all of Bosnia were his vassals.
Thus he had an enormous kingdom stretching from the Black Sea to
the Adriatic and from the Danube to the Aegean. Following these
successes, Samuel had himself crowned tsar in 997. As noted above, it
is not known why he waited this long before taking this step.
After describing the marriage between Kosara and John Vladimir,
which settled Duklja's relations to Samuel for the moment, the Priest
of Dioclea's chronicle states that Samuel marched up the Dalmatian
coast as far north as Zadar and then returned via Bosnia (where he
presumably asserted his suzerainty) and Serbia. In Dalmatia his activi-
ties were limited to raiding rather than conquest.
In the course of this campaign he also carried out negotiations
with the king of Hungary, Stephen I. As a result Samuel's son and heir
Gabriel Radomir married that king's daughter and briefly an alliance
was established between the two states. But no permanent ties devel-
oped and a divorce soon followed which ended Samuel's alliance with
the Hungarians. The Hungarians soon returned to the Byzantine camp
and in 1004 participated along with Byzantine forces against Samuel.
The Hungarian princess, however, who Skylitzes claims was driven out
of Bulgaria, does seem to have left a son, the one child of the mar-
riage, Peter Deljan, behind. Deljan was to lead a mid-eleventh-century
revolt against Byzantium. His activities then and the different accounts
of his ancestry (causing certain scholars to be sceptical that he really
was Gabriel Radomir's son) will be discussed in the next chapter.
After the Hungarian girl's departure Gabriel Radomir married a girl
from Larissa by whom he had a large family.
Samuel and the Bogomils
Various scholars have tried to show-or have even stated as a fact with
no discussion-that Samuel was a Bogomil or else that he supported
that heresy or was supported by it. There is no evidence to support any
such claim. His name shows he was not of Bogomil origin since Bogo-
mils rejected the Old Testament. Of course, he could have converted
later. But other facts do not support this. He restored the Bulgarian
Orthodox patriarchate by establishing Damian in Ohrid. He transferred
relics from a conquered Greek church in Thessaly to his to~n of Prespa
on one occasion. He also built a church with carved crosses on it in 993
(which violated two Bogomil precepts). And when these facts are com-
bined with the lack of any evidence about him in connection with Bogo-
mils, it must be concluded that he was Orthodox. But it is worth noting
that the building of at least one church does not prove outright he could
not have been a Bogomil. He could have been a fairly indifferent one
who built the church to please a wife or a local population. In Bosnia
and Hercegovina, for example, in the fifteenth century rulers erected
churches for wives of other faiths and later Turkish pashas on occasions
built churches for Christian wives or concubines.
It is clear that Samuel was trying to unite considerable territory
under his rule, and then rally it behind him for his Byzantine wars. If the
Bogomils had a following of significant size-which is not known-he
presumably would have tolerated them. And there is no evidence of any
persecution under him. This tolerance could be expected in any case; for
in the medieval Balkans-excluding occasional Byzantine actions in
areas under imperial rule-very few acts of religious intolerance or
fanaticism were carried out by Slavic rulers. But as noted, there is no
reference in any reliable source about Samuel's relations with the here-
tics, and no source mentions them during Samuel's long wars with Byz-
antium, which suggests theirs was a small movement. Had they been a
major force, the Byzantine sources, hostile to Samuel, would presum-
ably have tried to link him or his cause to the heresy to discredit his
movement. If Samuel himself had been a Bogomil, these sources surely
would have damned him with that fact.
Basil II's Counteroffensive, 1001-18
In 1000 or 1001 the great counteroffensive of Basil II began, led by the

emperor in person. It was a slow methodical reconquest with cam-
paigns sometimes carried out through all twelve months of a year,
instead of the usual briefer campaigning season with troops returning
home to winter. He first recovered Sardika (Sofija) and then sent an
army northward to cut Samuel off from the territory of the original
Bulgarian state (Preslav, etc.) in the northeast. Next, after occupying
this region, troops were sent south from Sardika into Macedonia where
they took Berrhoia and opened the way to Greece. Shortly thereafter
Byzantine rule was restored in Thessaly and in more of eastern Mace-
donia (including Voden). Then a major offensive was directed north
again toward the Danube, and Vidin was taken after an eight-month
siege-the emperor not letting himself be distracted from this venture
when Samuel in person led a daring attack through the newly re-
covered territory against Adrianople. Samuel managed to capture that
city, which he sacked, but could not hold.
Having captured Vidin, Basil moved south again, this time along
the Vardar River, and in 1004 attacked Skopje. There an engagement
was fought between Basil's and Samuel's armies, ending in a victory for
Basil, but Samuel managed to escape. The city of Skopje then fell. It is
here-if Skylitzes is to be believed-that the Byzantines captured
Peter's son Romanus, who had commanded the city's Bulgarian garri-
son. After Roman us surrendered the city, he was received well by Basil
and made strategos of the militarily unimportant theme of Abydos
which, however, had an important customs station and was a lucrative
post. By the end of 1004 Basil had conquered about half of Samuel's
state. As a result of his gains to the north along the Danube and to the
south in Thessaly, he had Macedonia in pincers. Next, in 1005, Durazzo
was betrayed back to Byzantium by Ashot. (Parenthetically, it is worth
noting here that in the course of this long war fortresses were betrayed
by commanders to opponents in both directions and there were cases of
Greeks deserting and seeking service with Samuel.)
After the surrender of Durazzo in 1005 the campaign continued
for another decade but no sources survive about it. It seems to have
consisted of a slow but steady Byzantine push to the west, presumably

against stubborn resistance. Then in 1014 Basil surrounded the main
Bulgarian army in the mountains near the River Struma; Samuel man-
aged to escape to Prilep. But fourteen thousand men, we are told,
were captured and Basil had them all blinded, sparing only one eye of
every hundredth man, so that the one-eyes could lead the rest back to
Samuel. When they arrived at Prilep, Samuel, at this grisly sight, fell
unconscious to the ground and died two days later, on 6 October 1014.
Rule over what was left of Samuel's state went to his son Gabriel
Radomir. From this point progress for the Byzantines was rapid and
various Bulgarian commanders surrendered fortresses to Basil. In 1015
Gabriel Radomir was killed by his cousin John Vladislav (the son of
Samuel's brother Aaron, whom Samuel had murdered). The Chronicle
of the Priest of Dioclea says that he was pushed into this murder by
Basil II and that he also killed Gabriel Radomir's wife and his eldest
son by that marriage. Whether Basil was behind the murder is not
known. Possibly it was simply a case of a blood feud. The Priest of
Dioclea further claims that John Vladislav at first made peace with
Basil and received a charter granting him lands in exchange for submit-
ting to the empire; but subsequently, when he found the empire in-
triguing in his internal affairs, he became alarmed and renewed the
war. Other sources do not describe this brief interlude of peace in the
midst of the war.
Meanwhile John Vladislav murdered John Vladimir of Duklja. Ac-
cording to the not unbiased saint's life of John Vladimir, the murder
could not have been done in more dastardly fashion. After sending John
Vladimir a cross as a safe conduct, John Vladislav had him murdered in
a church. Not surprisingly after his being struck down in such circum-
stances, John Vladimir's grave was to become a site of miracles. The
motivation behind the murder is not clear: was it John Vladislav's ambi-
tion to annex Duklja? Was John Vladimir, as Samuel's son-in-law,
another victim in the feud between the two branches of Count Nicho-
las's family? Or if John Vladimir had been neutral throughout the war
and had not supported the Bulgarians against the Byzantines, was he
possibly being punished for failing to help? Possibly John Vladislav felt
that such an unreliable (at least nonsupportive) figure could be counted
on to assist the Byzantines now that their victory seemed assured. Thus
to prevent a second front against himself, he murdered him. The saint's
life does not suggest any such intent by the murdered prince and makes
him a man of peace who did not like war. But, of course, reality could
have been considerably different.
In any case the Byzantine war continued. In 1018 John Vladislav
led an attack against Durazzo but was killed fighting outside it in an

unsuccessful effort to take the city. In that same year Basil reached the
Macedonian capital of Ohrid where he received homage from Samuel's
widow and other members of the family. All the Bulgarian state lay at
his feet and he annexed it.
Basil's Administration of Bulgaria after the Conquest
After his victory Basil II was as moderate and sensible as he had been
ruthless during the campaign. Though he annexed Bulgaria and Mace-
donia, he granted these regions special privileges. The rest of the
empire paid taxes in gold, but Basil, having noted the absence of
coinage in Bulgaria, allowed the Bulgarians to retain their existing tax
system and pay taxes in kind. He also left the bishop's seat in Ohrid
and even permitted the Slav, a man named John, who was bishop
there under Samuel, to remain in office. He only reduced the prelate's
title from patriarch to archbishop. However, he gave this archbishopric
a special position. The see was not placed under the patriarch of Con-
stantinople but directly under the emperor. The emperor, rather than
the patriarch, was to appoint subsequent archbishops. In its ranking it
was to stand higher than any archbishopric under the patriarch. In
addition, he allowed the archbishop of Ohrid to retain all his suffragan
bishops in Bulgaria and Macedonia. Not only did these sees remain
under Ohrid but the Bulgarians who held office in them were permit-
ted to remain in their positions. Basil thereafter tried as much as
possible to utilize the church (rather than the military occupation) to
administer these lands.
Basil transferred a considerable number of the leading Bulgarian
boyars to Anatolia where they were given land grants. With the acqui-
sition of lands, honors, positions, and often Byzantine wives, many of
these transplanted Bulgarian aristocrats soon became Romans. Thus
the Bulgarians were deprived of their natural leaders. But at the same
time he left many of the middle-level nobles on their estates in Bul-
garia, giving them privileges and a role in the local administration.
Thus it seems he tried to gain the loyalty of the local populace by
leaving them under their traditional leaders (after he had eliminated
the major figures). Furthermore, Basil may have felt that the con-
quered area was too large to administer directly. Keeping these Bul-
garian nobles in their customary positions spared utilizing for adminis-
tration an extremely large number of Byzantines, possibly more than
he had available. Finally, by giving the former nobility a stake in the
new system revolts might be avoided.
At the top of the three themes into which Bulgaria was divided
stood Byzantine generals appointed by the emperor. Therefore the
highest and most responsible positions were in Byzantine hands. The
Bulgarians were allowed a role only in local affairs and in these they
were subordinated to and responsible to Byzantines. In addition to
placing Byzantine officers at the top, Basil also established Byzantine
garrisons in key towns to maintain order and razed the walls of the
fortresses he lacked manpower to permanently garrison, thereby pre-
venting them from becoming possible bases of resistance.
Byzantium's Position in the Balkans after 1018
All the Balkan area was now more or less Byzantine again. Basil
divided what he directly governed into themes. The core of Samuel's
state was divided into three themes: Bulgaria (with its capital in
Skopje), Sirmium (with its capital in that city), and Paristrion (with its
capital in Silistria). The former themes, which had lost some or all of
their territory to Samuel, upon recovery were reconstituted: these
were the themes of Macedonia, Strymon, Nikopolis, the Helladikoi,
Dalmatia (with its capital in Zadar from which Dubrovnik was soon to
break away as a separate theme), and the special duchies of Thessalo-
niki and Durazzo.
Durazzo was particularly important. It was the chief Byzantine
port on the Adriatic, where a fleet was maintained and utilized to
defend Byzantine interests along that coast. Furthermore it was both
the center from which intelligence was kept on the local Slavs of the
hinterland (Duklja and western Macedonia) and the base from which
land attacks were generally directed at the Slavs located in those
regwns.
While the strategos in Durazzo directed military affairs in the
Adriatic, in purely municipal affairs the local aristocracy played a ma-
jor role. The activities of Hruselios were discussed above. The sources
also mention a local archon in Durazzo who aided the strategos on
occasion. When more troops were needed, the local archon levied
Durazzans to supplement the troops permanently based there under
the command of the strategos. In certain conflicts in the course of the
eleventh century against Duklja the sources mention both thematic
troops under the strategos and local militia troops under local Duraz-
zan leaders.
Thus, in addition to the Balkan territories (chiefly in Greece and
Thrace) long held by the empire, Bulgaria and Macedonia had now
been directly annexed and made into themes. Despite various
revolts-which were to be put down-these newly acquired regions

remained part of the empire until 1186. Serbia (Raska), Bosnia, Za-
humlje, Croatia, and possibly Duklja continued to be ruled by native
princes who were vassals of Basil. During the rest of Basil's lifetime
(until his death in 1025) Duklja, Raska, and Zahumlje stayed safely
cowed. Croatia, more distant and stronger, was able to retain more
independence, though it also did pay homage to Basil. After Basil's
death, the empire began to show signs of weakening at the center,
following a series of palace coups and weak emperors. The military
declined as the civil bureaucracy asserted itself. As a result of these
developments, the different Slavic peoples began to gradually reassert
themselves. It became apparent that the enormous empire left by
Basil on his death in 1025, which extended from the Adriatic to the
Caucasus, was far too large for his less able successors to hold.
NOTES
1. J. Fine, "A Fresh Look at Bulgaria under Tsar Peter (927-969),"

Byzantine Studies 5, pts. 1-2 (1978):88-95.
2. J. Fine, The Bosnian Church: A New Interpretation, East European
Monographs, vol. 10, East European Quarterly, distributed by Columbia Uni-
versity Press (Boulder and New York, 1975), pp. 9-39.
3. J. Fine, "The Size and Significance of the Bulgarian Bogomil Move-
ment," East European Quarterly 11, no. 4 (Winter 1977):385-412.
4. The Russian Primary Chronicle, ed. S. H. Cross, (Cambridge, Mass.,
1953), p. 86.
5. For other examples, see V. Zlatarski, Istorija na b"lgarskata d"riava,
vol. 1, pt. 2, p. 677.
CHAPTER 7
Duklja and the Central and

Eastern Balkans from the Death
of Basil II, 1025, to the 1180s
Duklja after John Vladimir
The last chapter introduced Duklja-a region inhabited by Serbs

whose territory coincided with what is now Montenegro-under John
Vladimir. After he was murdered by John Vladislav of Macedonia in
about 1016, the history of Duklja becomes obscure for a while. In view
of the fact that John Vladislav was fighting for survival against Basil II,
it is unlikely that he was able to annex Duklja.
The last prominent member of John Vladimir's family was his
uncle Dragimir-ruler of Trebinje and Zahumlje-who was murdered
in Kotor by some local citizens in 1018, the same year in which Basil
destroyed the last remnants of Samuel's former state. Many scholars
believe that at this point-if not a year or so earlier-Duklja was
placed under direct Byzantine rule, under the authority of the strate-
gos in Durazzo. There is no proof for this supposition but certain
sources suggest it might have been the case. The Chronicle of the
Priest of Dioclea (not an ideal source, and written in the mid-twelfth
century) speaks of the dreadful situation in Duklja under Greek rule as
the background to the revolt-to be discussed shortly-of Stefan Voji-
slav. Skylitzes says that in 1034 the Serbs renounced Byzantine rule.
Since the sources do not mention any Serb rising other than Vojislav's
and since there were anti-Byzantine military activities in Duklja in the
middle of the 1030s, the Serbs to which Skylitzes refers were probably
from Duklja. Thus these two sources do suggest that Duklja had been
directly under Byzantine rule.
Some scholars, however, pointing to the fact that John Vladimir
did not ever seem anti-Byzantine and had not aided Samuel in the war,
believe it quite possible that Duklja was left under a member of his
202
Duklja and the Central and Eastern Balkans, 1025 to the 1180s 203
family-whose name has not survived-as a Byzantine vassal state.

This flies in the face of the Priest of Dioclea's statement about Greek
rule being dreadful. However, his chronicle, as has been mentioned,
was partly based on oral traditions which may not always have been
accurate. Thus possibly the reference to Greek rule is an error. If so,
then this second interpretation that has Duklja remaining under its
own princes as a Byzantine vassal state could be correct. In that case,
one could interpret Vojislav's rising as being one to shed vassalage and
its obligations for full independence.
In any case, when the sources again mention Duklja in the 1030s a
certain Vojislav (or Stefan Vojislav) was ruling there. The most de-
tailed of our poor sources, the Chronicle of the Priest of Dioclea, calls
him Dobroslav and makes him the son of Dragimir, thus a first cousin
of John Vladimir. This relationship is perfectly plausible but it is also
possible that the chronicle was inventing a relationship to provide con-
tinuity between Vojislav and the dynasty of Saint John Vladimir. It is
not certain when after 1018 he took power.
At some time between 1034 and 1036 Vojislav refused homage to
Byzantium. Byzantine troops were sent in from Durazzo; Vojislav was
captured and taken off to Constantinople, and Duklja was put under
the strategos of Durazzo. Not long thereafter (possibly in 1038 or
1039) Vojislav escaped from Byzantium and returned to Duklja where
he took to the mountains with an ever-growing following; soon he had
liberated most of Duklja again. Subsequent Byzantine expeditions
against Duklja failed; in one of them the Byzantine commander was
killed. This warfare followed a general pattern. When the Byzantine
troops arrived in Duklja from Durazzo, the Dukljans retreated into
the mountains from where they carried on a guerrilla war, marked by
quick raids and ambushes, against the larger, better-equipped Byzan-
tines. They defeated several Byzantine armies and the Byzantines were
unable to subdue the Dukljans.
Peter Deljan's Rebellion
Though Duklja was able to assert its independence, Bulgaria and

Macedonia remained under Byzantine administration. The late 1030s
was a period of droughts and bad harvests for these regions. At the
same time Basil II's successors-less sensitive than he to Bulgarian
conditions-reversed Basil's tax policy which allowed the Bulgarians
to pay taxes in kind and demanded payment in cash, while at the same
time increasing the tax rate. To further exacerbate the situation, in
1037 Bishop John, the Slav whom Samuel had appointed as patriarch
in Ohrid (and who had been left in office as archbishop by Basil II),
died. The emperor, Michael IV, did not replace him with another Slav
but with a Greek cleric named Leo who had served on the staff at
Hagia Sofia. In addition the emperor seems to have made the appoint-
ment without consulting the Bulgarian bishops.
Rebellion swiftly broke out among the Bulgarians and very soon
in 1040 it was joined and taken over by Peter Deljan (possibly more
properly Odeljan) who claimed to be the son of Samuel's son Gabriel
Radomir. The Byzantine sources give different versions as to who he
really was: Gabriel Radomir's son, the son of Samuel's brother Aaron,
or a man of low birth. (To be Aaron's son, Deljan would have had to
be a fairly elderly man.) Most scholars have accepted his claim of
descent from Gabriel Radomir, though others, led by the Soviet Litav-
rin, have been sceptical. Because of the disparity among the accounts
in our sources, there is no way to be certain, and one could argue that
the Byzantine authors who state Deljan's claims were false were trying
to denigrate him and his whole rebellion. Indeed, subsequent develop-
ments connected with the appearance of Alusianus-to be discussed
later-and his relations with Deljan suggest that Zlatarski may be
right in opting for Skylitzes's version which makes Deljan the son of
Gabriel Radomir and the Hungarian princess to whom he was briefly
married.
In any case, the first stirrings of revolt occurred in the north
further away from Byzantine control, and Peter Deljan was crowned in
1040 in Beograd (which seems to have been taken over by the rebels).
After his coronation, Peter Deljan pushed south and, supported by
large numbers from the local population, captured Nis and Skopje.
The emperor called on the dux of Durazzo to send troops to put down
the rebellion, but dissension in Durazzo prevented any effective ac-
tion. First, the Byzantine second-in-command accused his superior, the
strategos, of plotting against the emperor Michael. As a result of this
charge and the confusion that followed- which eventually led to the
removal of the strategos, who was replaced by his accuser-the rebels
were given further time. Second, in the vicinity of Durazzo itself a
second Slavic rebellion broke out under a certain Tihomir.
Deljan thought it would make sense to coordinate the activities of
the two rebellions; possibly he aimed to take over the leadership of
Tihomir's rebellion as well. In any case, there were differences between
the two rebel commanders, and it was decided to hold an assembly in
Skopje to settle the questions of leadership and the strategy to follow.
Tihomir arrived and in the course of the meeting he was stoned to
death. One source claims that this murder was the result of Deljan's
deliberate planning. As a result Peter Deljan assumed control over the

whole movement. Deljan then took Durazzo-it is not known whether
he took it from the Byzantines or whether it had already been taken by
Tihomir. One can assume that after Tihomir's murder his followers
would have been disgruntled, to say the least, over Deljan's leadership.
Deljan meanwhile pressed further south with successes, capturing
Prespa and occupying some of northern Greece (where were found not
only Greeks, but also Slavs [labeled Bulgarians] and Vlachs). In the
theme of Nikopolis in Epirus a revolt was already in progress over
fiscal corruption in local imperial tax collection. These rebels joined
Deljan, but they did so, according to Skylitzes, not for his sake but out
of their hatred for excessive imperial taxes. Deljan's troops were active
in Epirus and Thessaly. Possibly they briefly acquired control over
parts of these regions.
Meanwhile a man called in the Byzantine sources by the hellen-
ized name of Alusianus appeared on the scene. He was the grandson
of Aaron and the son of John Vladislav of Macedonia, who had briefly
ruled in western Macedonia from 1015 to 1018 after he had killed
Gabriel Radomir. Thus, assuming Deljan was Gabriel Radomir's son,
there would have been bad blood between Alusianus and Deljan. Up
until this time Alusianus had been in Byzantine military service in
Anatolia and had held fairly high commands. Presumably the Byzan-
tines, knowing of the relations between the two branches of the
Bulgaro-Macedonian royal family, unleashed him in the hope of caus-
ing a split in the rebellion.
Alusianus was ambitious and quickly advanced his own claims to
lead the rebellion and began building up support. One may assume
that many of Tihomir's former supporters would have gladly joined
him. Although Alusianus and Deljan reached some agreement, the
latter was highly suspicious of this newcomer who had arrived to
challenge his leadership. After the agreement Alusianus was given
troops and departed to attack Thessaloniki; this attack was a fiasco
and Alusianus's army suffered great losses, which weakened Deljan's
overall forces. As a result, Deljan, already hostile toward Alusianus,
began to suspect treachery. Possibly Alusianus was a Byzantine agent
who lost the battle intentionally to weaken the rebellion's strength.
Next Alusianus's men captured Deljan when he was completely
drunk and blinded him. As a result of this Alusianus was able to take
over the whole movement. He seems to have attempted to keep the
rebellion going, but he lost a second major battle to the Byzantines
and the movement began to fall apart.
With the revolt fizzling, Alusianus's family contacted Michael IV
and negotiated an amnesty for him. After the emperor agreed to this,
Alusianus deserted to Byzantium where he was received with all hon-
ors. After this, the revolt died out completely; it was all over in 1041.
The evidence given here strongly suggests that Alusianus was a
Byzantine agent throughout, whose only aim was to destroy the rebel-
lion. After he had achieved this goal his family went through the
motions of seeking amnesty which allowed him to return and reap the
rewards of his great service to the empire. This is borne out by Kekau-
menos's account of his activities; for his actions, as depicted, reflect
such incompetence that one can only conclude they were deliberate.
Soon thereafter his daughter married the prominent Byzantine aristo-
crat Roman us Diogenes who later took the throne as Roman us IV.
None of the revolt's causes was to be alleviated. None of the privileges
enjoyed under Basil II, which had been suspended, was restored and
the Byzantines simply tightened their grip over these provinces.
Stefan Vojislav and Duklja in the Early 1040s
Though some scholars have suggested cooperation between Vojislav of

Duklja and Deljan, no sources suggest that Duklja played any role
whatsoever in these Bulgaro-Macedonian events. However, the Dukl-
jans were able to take advantage of Byzantium's other worry to assert
their own full independence. Vojislav established his capital at Skadar
(Scutari, Skhoder) and maintained other courts in Trebinje and the
coastal cities of Kotor and Bar. His territory stretched along the coast
as far north as Ston, and included a portion of Zahumlje as well as
Trebinje and Duklja. In about 1040 a Byzantine cargo ship was
wrecked off Duklja's coast and Vojislav confiscated the rich cargo
(including gold and other goods). He then refused Byzantium's request
to return the cargo. The Byzantines, having regained Durazzo from
the rebels, now sent another army against Duklja. Vojislav retreated
into the mountains where he was able to ambush the Byzantines and
gain a major victory.
The Byzantines did not accept matters but dispatched a couple of
further expeditions, both of which were equally unsuccessful. In one of
them, in 1042, the Byzantines built up against Vojislav a coalition
including the ruler of Bosnia, the .Zupan of Raska (Serbia), which had
reemerged as a state (though one still under Byzantine dominance),
and Ljutovid the knez (prince) of Zahumlje. Ljutovid led the allied
troops (supposedly the largest force yet sent against Duklja). The
Dukljans won a huge victory and the Byzantines temporarily gave up
the fight, but Vojislav pursued the war against Zahumlje, defeating
Ljutovid. According to the Chronicle of the Priest of Dioclea, Ljutovid

fled after he and a few of his retainers were defeated in a duel by
Vojislav's son Gojislav and several of his followers. This victory re-
sulted in significant territorial gains in Zahumlje for Vojislav. In fact,
it seems he annexed most if not all of it. According to the Chronicle of
the Priest of Dioclea he also was able to annex much of the hinterland
territory of the Duchy of Durazzo. At this point then Duklja had
become the leading Serbian state. It held this position until Raska rose
to supplant it in the next century.
The lack of Byzantine success in the Balkans (namely against
Duklja) seems to have been an excuse for an able Byzantine general
named George Maniakes to raise a rebellion in 1043. He picked up
support in Durazzo and then slowly began to move east across the
Balkans. A scholar named Milobar has suggested he formed an alli-
ance with Vojislav, and Milobar tries to connect Duklja's attack on the
territory of Durazzo, leading to the Dukljan gains there, with such an
alliance. Moreover Milobar sees confirmation for this theory in the fact
that Maniakes in his march east kept well south of Dukljan territory.
However, no source mentions such a specific alliance; and Maniakes
would naturally have avoided the state of Duklja since, aiming for
Constantinople, he would have had no reason to weaken his army by
attacking Duklja. The Dukljan attack on Durazzo's hinterland can be
seen simply as Vojislav taking advantage of Byzantine weakness at a
moment of internal difficulties.
As Maniakes went east he promised to reduce taxes and quickly
picked up considerable support from the inhabitants of Macedonia and
Bulgaria. There is no evidence, as Milobar claims, that part of this
increase was from troops given him by Duklja. The tax relief he prom-
ised affected only imperial territory and not Duklja; he seems to have
built up his support in the dissatisfied Slavic provinces of the empire
through which he was marching. However, in a skirmish near Thes-
saloniki which his side was winning, Maniakes was killed by an arrow
and his rebellion ended. All the regions which had supported his rebel-
lion were quickly restored to imperial control. Nevertheless, owing to
the decline of the Byzantine army, actual Byzantine control over its
Slavic provinces was less than had existed during the rule of Basil.
Vojislav died, probably in 1043, having greatly expanded his state
and having achieved its independence from the empire. Many of the
older works (such as Milobar's) go into great detail about Vojislav's
aims and his conception of his state. It makes sense to think that he
had some aims; however, since no sources survive about them there is
no justification in speculating about them.
Raiders from the North, 1046 to the 1070s
The Pechenegs in the Balkans
Meanwhile the Turkic tribesmen called Pechenegs became a major

problem for the empire during the period after Basil Il's death. Prior
to his annexation of Bulgaria, that state had been a buffer between the
Pechenegs and the empire. In fact the Pechenegs had been useful to
the Byzantines, for frequently when the Bulgarians had proved trouble-
some to the empire, the empire had been able to call upon them to
raid Bulgaria. But now, with the annexation of Bulgaria, the Byzan-
tines found themselves with a border along the Danube beyond which
lived the Pechenegs. Now Pecheneg raids came to be directed against
imperial territory, and the empire had the responsibility to defend
these lands against their ravages, which became particularly trouble-
some in the 1030s. Eventually some of the Pechenegs sought and re-
ceived permission in 1046 or 1047 to cross the Danube in large num-
bers to settle.
These Pechenegs, allowed to settle in the empire, were under a
chief named Kegenis, an opponent of the great chief Tyrach. He and
his following had split away from the main horde. Pursued and weak-
er than his rival, Kegenis had asked for and received permission to
settle inside of imperial territory along the Danube with the responsi-
bility of defending the river border. A condition of this arrangement
was that Kegenis had to agree to be baptized. This is an excellent
illustration of the Byzantine technique of settling foreigners on dan-
gerous frontiers-like the former federates-to do the brunt of the
fighting. It was a sensible policy if the foreigners were reliable, and
since Kegenis's people were already enemies of Tyrach's Pechenegs
across the border, one might expect that if they were well treated
they would serve loyally.
Kegenis seems to have accepted his new role while retaining his
hatred for Tyrach. Kegenis, therefore, sent frequent raiding parties
across the Danube to plunder the lands and camps of Tyrach's Peche-
negs. Tyrach, becoming exasperated and knowing that Kegenis was
now an imperial subject, held the emperor responsible. In 1047 he sent
an embassy to Constantinople to complain. The emperor, Constantine
IX Monomachus, stupidly insulted the envoys; so, that winter, when
the Danube was frozen, Tyrach led his hordes into the Balkans. Thou-
sands poured in, plundering as they went. The raiders, however, were
quickly struck with dysentery and thereby weakened. ·This enabled
Kegenis's men and the Byzantine thematic troops from Macedonia and
Thrace to finally defeat them. Many prisoners were taken, including

Tyrach, and the practical Kegenis suggested that they should be massa-
cred; but the Byzantines did not follow this advice. Instead they settled
them in various underpopulated parts of Bulgaria. It seems many were
settled near Kegenis's Pechenegs, which created a great concentration
of Pechenegs in the same general area.
In the following spring, 1048, the Byzantine emperor decided to
send a large number of these newly captured Pechenegs to the east to
strengthen the border defenses there against the Seljuks. The Byzan-
tines took their leaders-including Tyrach-hostage and sent the rest
across to Anatolia where they began their march east. The Pechenegs
were not happy with this turn of events and began to wonder why they
were obeying a silly order like this; and seeing no reason, they simply
turned around and returned on their own to Europe. Byzantine troops
were unsuccessful in preventing their return to Thrace.
Back in the Balkans, these captured Pechenegs were reunited with
their compatriots who had not been sent east. After a meeting at
Nikopolis on the Danube they organized a large army to conquer the
fertile region of Bulgaria (the region between the Danube and the
Balkan mountains). Kegenis and his men had not been involved in any
of these events, and throughout them they had remained loyal to the
empire. Now Kegenis was summoned to Constantinople to discuss
matters with Constantine IX. He arrived with his full army, and
camped outside the walls of the capital.
While Kegenis was camped there, three Pechenegs attacked and
seriously wounded him. The three were arrested and for some reason
taken to the emperor. They told him the fantastic story that they had
committed their deed for the empire since Kegenis planned to seize
Constantinople. The emperor foolishly believed this, and taking
Kegenis into the city for medical treatment, locked him up. He also
locked up Kegenis's two sons who had come into the city with their
father, and then released the three would-be assassins. Then to try to
win over Kegenis's armies to prevent a revolt Constantine sent out
wine and meat to them. Kegenis's armies, though, were not so easily
mollified. Angry at the loss of their leaders, they departed on the
same night to join the rebels.
Thus Constantine succeeded in alienating all the loyal Pechenegs
at this critical moment. After they had joined with the rebel Peche-
negs, the whole throng marched south to avenge Kegenis and his two
sons. The imperial army (the themes of Thrace and Macedonia) was
sent out to meet them; but these troops, led by an incompetent court
favorite, were defeated. Constantine IX, alarmed, now released the
Pecheneg leaders who had been taken hostage at the beginning of the
year when the Pechenegs were being sent east. These leaders, includ-
ing Tyrach himself, were sent to Bulgaria to pacify the rebels. At the
same time the emperor summoned to the Balkans troops from the
east. These troops were needed for defense there, and to allow for
their departure the emperor had to conclude a humiliating treaty with
the Seljuk leader Torghrul bey.
Tyrach and the other hostages, not surprisingly, upon rejoining
the rebels, did not even attempt to pacify them; in fact they were
restored to their old positions and took over the leadership of the
rebellion. An imperial army sent out against them was defeated and
the Pechenegs found themselves free to plunder not only Bulgaria but
also Thrace. In May 1049, after the Pechenegs had freely plundered
for almost a year, a third Byzantine army was dispatched against them.
Once again its commander was chosen as a result of court intrigue
rather than for talent and once again, this time near Adrianople, the
Pechenegs won a major victory. This allowed their pillaging to contin-
ue unabated.
Finally in 1050, Constantine made peace with Kegenis and he was
sent off to win his former tribesmen away from Tyrach. In the course
of this attempt Tyrach had him murdered, so things remained the same
until a Byzantine mercenary force of Varangians and Taurus mountain-
eers surprised a large Pecheneg force and defeated it. This led to peace
between the two sides. Skirmishes occurred again in 1052, but then a
thirty-year peace was agreed to by Tyrach.
In this way, and at the expense of imperial interests in the east,
peace was briefly restored to the Balkans. However, Pecheneg raids
did not cease; and the empire was to be faced with further brigandage
and banditry from Pechenegs inside the empire and from others settled
beyond its borders. They not only damaged the economy by plunder-
ing, but the state was also forced to buy protection or peace from them
by further gifts, land grants, privileges, and titles.
Pecheneg raids continued throughout the 1060s, both by those
from beyond the Danube and at times by those settled within imperial
territory. Furthermore these Pechenegs, including some of the imperial
colonists, carried out raids against the Hungarians (Magyars). The
Hungarians, angry at this, complained to the emperor about these
Pecheneg activities. When the emperor did nothing to stop them, prob-
ably because he could not, the Hungarians had an excuse to invade
imperial territory. They launched an attack in 1059; but when the
emperor Isaac Comnenus mobilized his forces, the Hungarians quickly
made peace.
However, the problem of the Pechenegs remained, and in the late

1060s (possibly 1068) the Hungarians came to the conclusion that some
Pechenegs, who were raiding Hungarian Srem, were working for the
imperial governor in Beograd. In retaliation, the Hungarians attacked
and took several towns on the Danube. The sources do not say which
towns were taken, whether the Hungarians retained any of them, or
whether they just looted and withdrew. The Pechenegs also continued
their raids into the empire; in 1071 some from beyond the Danube
penetrated as far as Thrace and Macedonia.
In 1071 or 1072 the Hungarians attacked the empire again and
took Beograd; it seems they only plundered it and did not try to hold
it. In any case, Beograd was clearly imperial when the First Crusade
passed through it in 1096. Presumably, if it had been briefly retained it
reverted to the empire in a 1074 treaty between the empire and the
Hungarians, a treaty whose clauses have not survived. But though
Beograd remained imperial, Sirmium was lost to the Hungarians who
were in possession of it in 1071.
Ghuzz Turk Raids
The Pechenegs were not the only Turkic raiders who plagued the
empire. A new Turkish people appeared in 1064 called the Ghuzz or
Uze Turks. They had been pushed west by pressure from a third
Turkish Steppe tribe to their east, the Cumans (Polovtsy). In 1064 the
Ghuzz poured into the Balkans ravaging Bulgaria, Thrace, Macedonia,
and northern Greece. Then they were struck by the plague, as a result
of which many were wiped out. Others fled while still others entered
imperial service. The Ghuzz did not disturb the empire again, but the
Pechenegs still did and, later on, so did the Cumans.
The Balkans, 1043-1100
Michael Obtains Power in Duklja
Let us now return to Duklja after Vojislav's death which probably

occurred in 1043. Our main source, the Chronicle of the Priest of
Dioclea, gives a detailed story but there is serious doubt as to how
much of its narrative can be believed. The chronicle was written more
than a century after 1043. Much, if not most, of its eleventh-century
material is from oral sources, whose accuracy cannot generally be con-
firmed by other sources. When it treats the twelfth century, the chroni-
cle becomes partisan on behalf of one faction struggling for power and
its bias may well influence its interpretation of events. But with this
word of warning, alerting the reader that some items which follow may
not be accurate, let us turn to the narrative.
According to the Chronicle of the Priest of Dioclea, when Stefan
Vojislav died, his lands were divided between his widow and five sons
(Gojislav, Predimir, Michael, Saganek, and Radoslav). Gojislav re-
ceived the Trebinje region and shortly thereafter the local nobles rose
up and killed him. They then installed one of their number, named
Domanek, as prince. Michael attacked and defeated Domanek, who
fled; Michael then put his own brother Saganek in. After Michael's
departure Domanek returned and drove out Saganek who then decided
not to return. Michael offered the territory to his brother Radoslav, who
was afraid to go lest he lose Zeta (Luska zupa).
Zeta at this time was one zupa within Duklja. From the end of the
eleventh century the name Zeta was also at times used to refer to all of
Duklja. Zeta received this broad meaning for the first time in Kekau-
menos's military manual written in the 1080s. The term Zeta gradually
replaced Duklja over the succeeding decades and eventually became
the standard term for this whole region until it was gradually replaced
by the term Montenegro which was first to be used in the fifteenth
century.
It seems that Radoslav was afraid that Michael or his other
brothers would try to seize Zeta if he departed for Trebinje; it is also
possible that Michael was trying to offer him a deal to take Trebinje in
place of Zeta. Meanwhile Byzantium, wanting to take advantage of the
death of the able Vojislav and the consequent instability in Duklja,
was preparing for an offensive against Duklja. Faced with this threat,
the four remaining brothers made peace and an alliance. A text of the
agreement is given by the Priest of Dioclea; and though it should not
be treated as a verbatim text, it probably conveys more or less the
contents of that agreement. This is the oldest known treaty in Serbian
history. After this agreement was made Radoslav felt safe to attack
Trebinje, which he did successfully, and Domanek was killed. After
this event their mother, who seems to have been a figure for stability-
keeping any one brother from trying to oust the others-died.
Next Michael acquired the title king. It is not known whether his
brothers agreed to this or whether Michael forced it upon them. It also
is not known whether the remaining brothers retained local rights
within their shares, or whether they were forced to surrender their
appanages. But from here on it is clear that Michael was the ruler of
all Duklja. At most his brothers were rulers only of appanages, with
no independent foreign policy, owing tribute or taxes and service to
the king. Trebinje seems to have maintained considerable autonomy in

local affairs, and possibly certain other areas under other brothers did
as well. However, Trebinje, as a region with its own special history
and traditions, could well have been a special case.
If the Priest of Dioclea is correct in stating that Michael ruled for
thirty-five years, then, since Michael died in 1081, he must have taken
power in 1046. This would mean that the period of joint rule by the
brothers lasted from 1043 to 1046. However, since on other occasions
the chronicle gives inaccurate lengths of reigns, it is not certain that
Michael actually did reign for thirty-five years.
The greatest threat to Duklja was from Byzantium. To reduce this
danger and also to avoid giving his brothers the opportunity to utilize a
Byzantine war to assert themselves against him, Michael made peace
with the empire. He was a widower with, according to the Priest of
Dioclea, seven sons; he now married a Greek, a relative of the em-
peror. The emperor at the time was Constantine IX Monomachus. The
Byzantine sources do not mention this wedding but they do mention
Michael obtaining the Byzantine court title of protostrator, which was
presumably the result of a treaty. Treaties on occasion were sealed
with marriages, and that such a marriage may well have occurred in
this case is seen by the fact that two of his sons (the third and fourth)
by his second wife had Greek names (Nicephorus and Theodore).
The treaty did not cause Michael to suffer any loss of indepen-
dence nor to become a vassal of the empire, but it did allow the
Byzantines to regain the part of the hinterland of Durazzo which Voji-
slav had taken in 1042 or 1043. After this agreement Michael began
asserting himself against at least one of his brothers. He seized Rado-
slav's part of Zeta and assigned it to one of his own sons. Subsequently
he regularly awarded territory which he conquered to his own sons.
For example, between 1060 and 1074 he conquered Raska and as-
signed it to another son, Petrislav.
Vojteh's Rebellion in Macedonia
Despite the Byzantine alliance, Michael supported a rebellion against

the Byzantines which broke out in Macedonia in 1072. Though there is
no evidence that he had a planning role, the speed with which the
rebels sought his aid suggests he may have been in communication with
them earlier. In any case in 1072 an important Slavic landholder in
Skopje named George Vojteh revolted against Byzantium. It was
beautifully timed, for the Byzantines were at a military nadir. In the
previous year they had suffered two major defeats-in the east at
Manzikert to the Seljuks, which opened up Asia Minor to the ravages

of Turkomen tribesmen, and in the west at Bari in Italy, where the last
Byzantine port there fell to the Normans. Michael of Duklja received a
delegation from the rebels (showing the prestige and strength of
Duklja) and immediately sent them an army under his son Constantine
Bodin and a second army under a general named Petrilo.
On the way to join the rebels in the early fall of 1072, Bodin
stopped at Prizren where he was crowned tsar of the Bulgarians. This
coronation seems to have had the support of the rebel leader Vojteh;
thus it did not cause a division in the ranks. Petrilo led his army south
into Macedonia, where he took Ohrid, but then he was stopped at
Kastoria. Kastoria was defended by both Byzantine troops and local
aristocrats commanded by a Byzantine general who was a Bulgarian by
birth, showing that other ties were at times stronger than ethnic ones.
In fact, this general soundly defeated Petrilo's army and Petrilo re-
turned to Duklja. Bodin meanwhile marched east by a more northerly
route and took Nis. A Byzantine army was sent out against Skopje, the
headquarters of Vojteh. Skopje was captured and Vojteh was taken
prisoner. Hearing of this disaster, Bodin turned south to help, but near
Skopje he was met by the Byzantine army which defeated his army and
took him off to Constantinople as a prisoner. He remained a prisoner
for several years until he was ransomed by his father or by his uncle or
escaped (stories vary) around 1078. Bodin's capture occurred late in
1072 or early in 1073.
When Bodin's father, Michael, heard of his son's difficulties he at
once dispatched new troops under a Byzantine general whom he had
captured and subsequently married to one of his daughters. This gen-
eral, however, did not feel particularly loyal to his new father-in-law
and deserted to the Byzantines. After this final debacle, the rebellion
quickly fizzled out and the region around Prespa suffered terrible dev-
astation from the victorious Byzantine troops.
The Yugoslav scholar Ferluga 1 has concluded that the Vojteh-
Bodin rebellion was a less substantial affair than Deljan's. It had a
smaller following and involved a smaller region. This he attributes to
less support from the Balkan nobles. By the 1070s many of them were
established on successful estates. Having every reason to enjoy the
status quo, they remained faithful to the empire. Ferluga argues that
by the 1070s the interests of the Balkan landlords had come to re-
semble those of the aristocrats elsewhere in the empire. Furthermore,
the peasants were more and more becoming enserfed on estates, leav-
ing fewer free peasants to provide manpower for rebel armies, and the
many landlords who did not join certainly were not encouraging their
peasants to do so. The sources do not provide any numerical data or

any solid evidence on how members of different social classes stood.
All any scholar can do is come up with an impression, which he can
support with a small number of illustrations, but which he cannot
prove. Ferluga's impressions are reasonable and plausible but they still
could easily miss the mark.
Position of the Church in Duklja
Michael, by sending Bodin to aid the rebels, was moving further away
from Byzantium. He was soon in communication with the pope from
whom he received a crown in 1077. He may have had several reasons for
turning to Rome. Having earned the Byzantines' enmity by his Balkan
policy, he needed a powerful ally. Furthermore, the Normans were also
papal vassals; thus becoming a papal vassal could help Michael in his
relations with them and facilitate cooperation with them against the
Byzantines. In addition, Michael's being a papal vassal made it more
likely that the pope would act to prevent the Normans from attacking
Duklja. Moreover, Michael wanted an independent church for his state.
Presumably he saw this as the prerogative of an independent ruler. At
that moment the churches of Duklja were subjected to one of two if not
three superior metropolitans: Ohrid, Durazzo, and possibly Split. Not
one of these suzerain metropolitans lived within Michael's state. Since
his relations were not particularly friendly with Constantinople, it made
sense for Michael to seek his own archbishop from the pope, who might
be expected to approve it since Rome could thereby add to its jurisdic-
tion further territory, for both Durazzo and Ohrid were subject to
Constantinople.
The only part of Duklja that might then have been under Rome-
through Split-was coastal territory. Duklja's future archbishopric, the
port of Bar, was said to have been under Split in the middle of the
eleventh century. However, the one source which states this is the very
partisan supporter of Split, Thomas the Archdeacon's chronicle. This
is clearly not an ideal source to settle the question and his statements
are not supported by traditions preserved in the later records of Du-
brovnik and Bar. If, as was probably the case, Bar was not a suffragan
bishop of Split, then probably it was under Durazzo, an important
nearby coastal see under Constantinople. It is also possible that some
churches in Bar recognized one suzerain while other Bar churches
recognized the other. Michael, it seems, had been pressing the pope to
raise the bishop in Bar to the rank of archbishop and place him directly
under the pope. Some studies have stated that Michael's request was
granted and a bull of Pope Alexander II of 1067 to this effect is fre-

quently cited. However, it seems that this bull is not authentic and
most scholars now believe that Bar had to wait until 1089 to receive
this elevation. In confirmation of this later date is a letter of 1078 to
Michael from Pope Gregory VII which refers to a certain Peter, bishop
of Bar. Had he possessed a higher title the pope clearly would have
used it.
1066 Revolt in Thessaly
In 1066 a serious revolt had broken out against the empire, this time in
Thessaly. The rebels were Bulgarians and Vlachs; this shows that both
of these peoples existed in significant numbers this far south. In fact so
many Vlachs lived in Thessaly that part of it was then called Valachia
in the sources. The rebels were chiefly free men, not living on estates,
but paying their taxes directly to the state. The revolt began in the
region of Larissa, where in 1065 there was a great deal of dissatisfac-
tion among the local populace over increases in taxation and corrup-
tion in its collection. The Bulgarians and Vlachs began to speak of
revolt, and came together, deciding to revolt jointly.
Word of their plans reached a powerful magnate of Larissa named
Nikulica Delfin, who had his own fortress, garrisoned with his own
men and supplied with his own weapons. He was one of the most
powerful men in Thessaly and the population looked to him as their
lord. He, disgruntled with Constantinopolitan politics, rarely went to
court, and stayed at home as a provincial strong man. But he was not
happy about the brewing rebellion, so he went to Constantinople to
warn the emperor of the situation that was developing in Larissa and
to call on him to reduce taxes to appease the potential rebels. The
emperor brushed him off and took neither reform nor defensive mea-
sures, so Nikulica returned to Larissa.
The Vlach and Bulgar allies, meanwhile, had increased their
propaganda and had drawn into the movement many people from the
town of Trikkala. Nikulica, seeing the movement growing, tried to talk
them out of a revolt. Unimpressed by his arguments, the rebels called
on him to lead them. After all, he had a fortress and a well-equipped
private army. He tried to avoid involvement by pointing out to them
that his two sons were then in Constantinople and would be sure to
suffer if he joined the revolt. The rebels, however, forced him to take
a leadership position.
The revolt was soon in full swing. Supported by both townsmen and
countrymen, it spread north toward the Bulgarian border. But though
he was now one of its supposed leaders, Nikulica was not pleased with
the situation and managed to write secretly to the emperor trying to
mediate a peace. At first the Byzantine governor in Bulgaria did not
take his letters seriously, finding it inconceivable that one leading a
successful rebellion could actually be seeking peace; but eventually
Nikulica did succeed in mediating a peace between the two sides and it
seems that he did win a relaxation in taxes (surely one that would be
short-lasting). This revolt was ended easily, in spite of its strength and
success, because it lacked a serious leader. The man chosen was not
interested in rebelling and succeeded in alleviating some of the griev-
ances, which presumably defused much of its following.
Even though it was a minor event, its narration is valuable for us
because of the light it sheds on the population and local history of
Thessaly at the time. It shows that there were abuses in the tax system.
These abuses are confirmed by other sources, in particular the letters
of Theophylact, the Greek who was archbishop of Ohrid from about
1090 to 1109. Theophylact complained greatly about the amount col-
lected in taxes as well as the behavior of the tax collectors; even the
privileges held by church properties in the Ohrid archdiocese were
ignored by the imperial tax officials.
Rise of Great Magnates in the Byzantine Balkans
The Nikulica Delfin story also sheds light on an important stage in the
evolution of the great magnates who, in their own localities, possessing
their own private armies and fortresses, were becoming more or less a
law unto themselves. In the century that follows more and more such
figures appeared and their rise is a sign and further cause of the decline
of the central government of the empire. Before Constantinople's fall
to the Crusaders in 1204, whole areas of Greece and Macedonia had
become more or less autonomous under local strong men, each of
whom had his own private military force. Nikulica was in a position to
become such a warlord in the 1060s; however, he did not have such
ambitions and remained loyal to the government in Constantinople
throughout.
This all reflects a major change which had been occurring gradu-
ally in the empire. At the time of The Farmer's Law, many free
villages had existed in the Byzantine Balkans. Such villages probably
outnumbered villages on estates. However, a process was also under-
way by which estates absorbed free villages. This process was stepped
up through the eighth, ninth, and tenth centuries until these great
estates created a state problem-in the same way as they had under
Justinian. The wealthy magnates were acquiring vast tracts of popu-

lated land and the number of free villages was declining. The magnates
acquired these lands through purchase, through foreclosure (after
lending money to villagers who had put up lands as security), and even
through gift.
In the case of a gift from a peasant (as in some cases of foreclo-
sure and purchase) the peasant remained on his lands with a right not
to be removed from them. This was in the landlord's interest, for at a
time of manpower shortage lands were of limited value if they lacked
peasants to farm them. The peasant, though retaining his hereditary
right to his plot and his livelihood, had exchanged his free status (by
which he paid taxes directly to the state) for the status of a serf, whose
obligations were to a landlord. If, on occasion, magnates acquired
peasant lands through gifts, clearly then there were advantages in be-
ing a serf rather than a free peasant. What were these advantages?
First, the great magnates, through services to the state and through
pull, had acquired a variety of fiscal immunities; thus peasants on their
lands paid lower taxes. Moreover, the magnate, who clearly would be
interested in the prosperity of his estates for years to come, himself
collected these taxes. Furthermore, in bad years the magnates, as a
result of their influence, could wangle waivers of taxes through the
courts which free villagers could not. The free villager faced an impe-
rial tax collector who was obliged to collect for the state the whole sum
that was owed and who usually hoped to line his own pockets as well.
If this meant taking all the peasant's seed for the next year's planting,
the tax collector would not have cared; as an outsider assigned to a
particular province for a short term, he had no interest in what hap-
pened to a village the following year. Bad weather conditions or raids
could also ruin small freeholders, whereas peasants under the protec-
tion of a magnate were better protected; since the magnate was inter-
ested in the prosperity of his villages, peasants could count on him to
supply seed and other necessities in critical moments when they had
none. Finally, his armed retainers could also provide defense against
raiders. Thus peasants sometimes voluntarily gave up legal freedom to
become bound to estates. The magnates also seem to have absorbed
thematic villages-weakening the military defenses of the state-and
some of the great magnates in the tenth and eleventh centuries created
large private armies.
The state started issuing edicts against the absorption of land in
the 920s under Romanus I and such edicts continued through the reign
of Basil II. The frequency with which these edicts were issued shows it
was a losing battle, and by the eleventh century the state had lost.
Though free villages were to remain-such as those supporting the

1066 rebellion-a great portion of the empire was in the hands of these
great magnates.
Because this change had a detrimental effect on military service, a
new military system, known as the pronoia system, was worked out
late in the eleventh century, becoming common under the Comneni.
By this system a source of income (usually a manned estate belonging
to the state) was assigned to a powerful magnate; this was called a
pronoia. In exchange for the income from this grant, the magnate was
obliged to serve on call leading a contingent of armed retainers. The
size of his contingent depended on the size of his pronoia. Since these
lands were not to be alienable, and since title to them remained with
the state, the state could reclaim them if a magnate failed to provide
the expected service. On a magnate's death, his pronoia reverted to
the state to be reassigned. A holder could not leave, sell, or even
donate it to a church.
The pronoia system shows that by the late eleventh century the
state had given up trying to oppose the magnates. Furthermore, since
the thematic units were on the decline it was apparent the state could
not depend for its defense on the theme system. Thus the state recog-
nized the existing situation and turned to the triumphant magnates,
and by increasing their privileges and powers, placed a large propor-
tion of the empire's defenses in their hands. As the central bureau-
cracy declined, these magnates acquired greater and greater control of
their own areas. At times they were able to ignore orders from the
center and even, by the end of the twelfth century, carve out their own
private petty principalities. It should also be mentioned here that, with
the decline of the thematic armies, the Byzantine state came also to
use more and more mercenary troops.
Byzantium's Religious and Cultural Policy in

Occupied Bulgaria
In addition to the fiscal and social grievances which caused the revolts
of the various Balkan peoples against Byzantium, there must also have
been dissent at Byzantium's culturo-religious policy. To what extent
this dissent played a part in causing these revolts is unknown. How-
ever, it is worth noting that Deljan's revolt followed shortly after
Michael IV reversed Basil's Bulgarian church policy and, without con-
sulting the Bulgarian bishops, appointed a Constantinopolitan Greek
(Leo) as archbishop of Ohrid. From then on Basil's conciliatory church
policy was forgotten and Michael's successors continued to appoint

Greeks as bishops throughout Bulgaria and Macedonia.
By the end of the century, the language of the Bulgarian church
became an issue. Byzantium's tolerance of Slavonic was a feature of its
foreign policy; the annexation of Bulgaria and Macedonia made the
liturgical-literary language a domestic matter. Efforts toward the hel-
lenization of the Bulgarian church may well have been the cause for
the murder of the Greek bishop of Sardika by a mob in 1082. This
policy of hellenization became particularly intense under Archbishop
Theophylact of Ohrid (ca. 1090-1109), whose surviving letters are a
major source for this period. Theophylact closed Slavic schools, intro-
duced Greek-language services in many places, and encouraged the
translation from Slavonic into Greek of many local texts. Theophylact
himself translated into Greek the life of Saint Clement.
There also seems to have been a systematic destruction of Slavic
manuscripts. Not one Slavic manuscript written prior to the establish-
ment of the Second Bulgarian Empire in the 1180s has survived within
Bulgaria. Scholars have long blamed the Ottoman Turks for the destruc-
tion of Bulgarian texts. But though it is certain that many Bulgarian
manuscripts were destroyed during and after the Ottoman conquest,
still this, as the Yugoslav scholar Vladimir Mosin has shown, is not
sufficient explanation. If the Ottomans had been responsible, one would
not expect any medieval Bulgarian texts to have survived. However,
several hundred manuscripts from the Second Bulgarian Empire have
been preserved in Bulgaria. Furthermore, many Greek manuscripts
from as far back as the ninth and tenth centuries have been preserved in
Ohrid. Thus, Mosin reasonably concludes, a systematic destruction of
Slavic manuscripts evidently occurred prior to the thirteenth century,
namely during the period when the Byzantines ruled Bulgaria. 2 (Those
writings from the First Bulgarian Empire which have been discussed in
this work were all preserved abroad, chiefly in Russia.)
Not surprisingly, in this atmosphere Bulgarian culture seriously
declined. No major Bulgarian writers were active during the Byzantine
period.
Constantine Bodin Obtains Rule over Duklja
Meanwhile in 1081 or 1082 Michael of Duklja (or Zeta as that state

was by then often coming to be called) died. The last reference to him
alive is in 1081. No source gives a date for his death. According to
most sources, Bodin succeeded him immediately; one source even sug-
gests that Bodin had been coruler with Michael since his return from
Byzantine captivity in about 1078. According to the Priest of Dioclea,

Michael's immediate successor was Michael's brother Radoslav. This
version has many odd features; it claims that Radoslav, Bodin's uncle
(rather than Michael, Bodin's father and the king), purchased Bodin's
freedom from the Byzantines; next it states Radoslav succeeded
Michael and ruled for sixteen years, which is a clear impossibility.
Thus one can have little confidence in the chronicle here. It then states
that Radoslav, on obtaining the throne, gave appanages to a large
number of people; but after a time a revolt broke out on behalf of
Bodin, led by his four half-brothers, the four sons of Michael's Greek
second wife. (Bodin was a son of Michael's first marriage.) This revolt
supposedly drove Radoslav out of the kingdom to Trebinje where he
remained until his death as an old man.
In any case, in the very early 1080s when Bodin was already king
the zupa of Zeta was held by Radoslav's sons. Bodin saw them as a
threat and tried to expel them; however, the bishop of Bar intervened
and made peace, as a result of which the brothers submitted to Bodin,
presumably still holding some of their Zetan appanages. This story of
Radoslav's sons suggests a way to reconcile the two accounts: Bodin
immediately on his father's death succeeded to the throne, but his
succession was greeted by a rebellion led by Radoslav (or his sons-of
whom there were supposedly eight, the eldest being Branislav-using
Radoslav as a figurehead) in his lands in the zupa of Zeta. The inhabi-
tants of the zupa of Zeta in supporting Radoslav recognized him as
king of Duklja. Thus, the Priest of Dioclea simply followed an oral
tradition from the zupa of Zeta when he stated Radoslav became king.
Bodin then suppressed this revolt, forcing Radoslav to flee to Tre-
binje; but he was stopped from destroying his cousins by the interven-
tion of the bishop of Bar.
In any case Badin-if not from the death of Michael-was clearly
ruler of all Dukl j a by 1085.
Bodin's Relations with Byzantium
Also in 1081 the Normans launched an attack against the Byzantine

city of Durazzo; the Byzantine emperor Alexius Comnenus went out
to meet the attack. The actual fighting around Durazzo will be dis-
cussed later, but what is relevant here is that Bodin appeared as an
imperial ally to aid in the defense of Durazzo. Whether he was already
the Dukljan ruler or whether he had simply been sent by his father
King Michael to lead the Dukljan troops is not known. However, at
the key battle in October 1081 the Dukljans sat on the sidelines, and
their neutrality contributed to the Norman conquest of Durazzo.
Milobar believes that Bodin was already a secret Norman ally
because that same year (in April 1081) he had married an Italian girl
from Bari, whose father was head of the Norman party in Bari-a city
which had been conquered from the Byzantines by the Normans in
1071. That there may have been an agreement, Milobar feels, is seen
by the fact that when, after their victory, the Normans marched east,
on their way toward Thessaloniki, they bypassed Duklja, marching
well to the south of its borders. This last argument is unwarranted
because the best route to Thessaloniki in any case lay south of Duklja
and the Normans presumably would have taken it with or without an
agreement. Furthermore, the imperial cities along that route were
more important for both the strategic and plundering interests of the
Normans.
However, whether or not there was an alliance, it would have
made sense for Michael to keep his army out of the fray and intact to
defend his country from the victor should it choose to attack him. For
had the Byzantines repulsed the Normans, they would have been free
to turn against Duklja; and one might not have foreseen that victorious
Normans would not have decided to seize further ports in southern
Dalmatia (including those belonging to Duklja). In fact, shortly there-
after the Byzantines were to turn against Duklja. Milobar sees this
attack as further evidence that Bodin was allied to the Normans; how-
ever, Bodin's neutrality alone, since the Byzantines had counted on his
participation on their side, would have been sufficient reason for the
empire to have seen him as unreliable and deserving of punishment if
not removal.
Bodin and Raska
In the midst of the domestic and Norman-Byzantine confusion, it

seems that Raska broke away from Duklja and asserted its own inde-
pendence. Though no source mentions a revolt there, Badin-once his
hands were freed from these issues-marched against Bosnia and
Raska and in both cases was successful. Since Raska had already been
annexed by Michael, a conquest by Bodin would only have been neces-
sary if it had broken away. The period right after Michael's death
when Bodin was faced with these other problems would have been a
natural time for this breakaway to have occurred.
Bodin put two zupans-Marko and Vukan-over Raska. These
two men were from his court, and recent scholarship 3 considers them
two sons of Petrislav (a son of Michael and his Greek second wife);
Petrislav had been placed by Michael over Raska between 1060 and
1074. In any case, these two men swore an oath of loyalty to Bodin
and took power as his vassals in Raska. Most scholars date this action
in Raska to 1083 or 1084. Marko immediately disappears from the
sources but Vukan remained in power in Raska for many years and
became a very prominent figure in subsequent Balkan history. Byzan-
tium, still concerned with the Norman threat, was not able to intervene
in these events involving Raska.
Neither Bosnia, Zahumlje, nor Raska was ever incorporated into
an integrated state with Duklja. Each retained its own nobility and
institutions and simply acquired a member of the Dukljan royal family
to head the local structure as prince or zupan.
In 1085 the Norman leader Robert Guiscard died, and the Byzan-
tines were quickly able to regain Durazzo. According to Anna Com-
nena, the Byzantines simply recovered it, which is probably correct;
according to the Priest of Dioclea, Bodin captured it but, afraid to
provoke the Byzantines further, and wanting to conclude peace with
them, restored the town to the emperor. In any case, the Byzantines,
because of Bodin's behavior when he, though an imperial vassal, sat
on the sidelines in 1081 when the Normans took Durazzo, did not trust
Bodin. When the Norman threat was over and Durazzo, the leading
center for mobilizing forces to go against Duklja, was recovered, the
Byzantines began preparing for a new offensive against Bodin.
Bar Raised to an Archbishopric
In the meantime, and probably just on the eve of the Byzantine attack
against Duklja, Bodin succeeded in achieving one thing that Michael
had tried but failed to do. By supporting the pope against an antipope in
1089, he got the bishop of Bar raised to the rank of archbishop. The
historical basis for this promotion was that in the early church an arch-
bishop had existed in the nearby Dukljan city of Dioclea. Under Bar as
suffragan bishops would be: Kotor, Ulcinj, Svac, Skadar, Drivast, Pula
(Polati), Serbia, Bosnia, and Trebinje. It is noteworthy that Zahumlje
was not included under Bar. Possibly Zahumlje had already broken
away from Duklja. Thus in obtaining its promotion to an archbishopric
Bar acquired a much larger diocese, and it obtained much territory that
earlier had not been under the pope but had been included in the
dioceses of the metropolitan of Durazzo and the archbishop of Ohrid,
two sees which recognized the jurisdiction of Constantinople.
However, much of Bar's new territory was certainly only theoreti-
cal, for in fact the pope's edict could only have affected those churches
which recognized Rome or were willing to do so. Thus making Serbia a
suffragan bishop had little meaning because most of the churches in
Serbia were under Constantinople. There is no evidence that Bodin's
governor there, Vukan, tried to swing the churches in his territory over
to the pope, and besides, Vukan was to become an independent actor
two or three years from then. Thus probably Durazzo and Ohrid suf-
fered only slight territorial losses, presumably chiefly along the coast.
But briefly the Dukljan church would be subject to Rome, and Bar
itself was to remain a Roman Catholic bishopric throughout the
Middle Ages. However, most of inland Duklja was not much affected
and subsequently, along with much of the Dukljan coastal population
(like most of the population of Kotor), was to retain its loyalty to
Orthodoxy. Possibly Bodin's turning to the pope at this time was moti-
vated by a search for allies on the eve of the Byzantine attack.
Duklja Loses Peripheral Territories
It seems the Byzantine campaign did not actually take place until some
time between 1089 and 1091. Then the Byzantines directed a major
attack against Duklja which was successful not only in defeating Bodin's
army, but also in taking him prisoner again. Some scholars think it a bit
too much to believe that he could have been captured twice and doubt
that this second capture took place. They argue that sources making this
claim have mixed in an account of his initial capture.
In any case a civil war soon broke out in Duklja among Bodin's
many relatives which greatly weakened Duklja and gave the Serbs of
Raska a chance to assert themselves and break away from Duklja's
control. Bosnia and Zahumlje also seceded from Dukljan control. The
leader of Raska in this venture was Vukan, who, as noted, was a
Dukljan-possibly a nephew of Badin-placed over Raska by Bodin.
Up to this point-through the eleventh century-the leading Ser-
bian center (and also Balkan center of resistance to Byzantium) had
been Duklja. But now because of Duklja's defeat by the Byzantines
and the civil war that followed-which we shall shortly turn to-this
role passed to the Serbs of Raska whose prestige rose. In the twelfth
century Serbs based in Raska (rather than Duklja) became the leading
opponents of Byzantium. Because of the loss of Bosnia, Zahumlje,
and Raska, Duklja became much weaker and was left with little terri-
tory other than Duklja itself and Trebinje. Not surprisingly, Bodin's
heirs were forced to recognize the overlordship of Byzantium.
Vukan of Raska and Byzantium
In the course of our study, we have found Serbs living in many regions
of what is now Yugoslavia: Raska, Duklja, Zahumlje, Trebinje, and
parts of Bosnia. By the end of the eleventh century Raska had come to
be the most powerful Serbian state, and it was to remain so throughout
the Middle Ages. Henceforth in this work the terms Raska and Serbia
will be used as synonyms. Furthermore, the term Serb, unless other-
wise modified, will refer to a person from Raska.
In the early 1090s Vukan of Raska took the title of grand (veliki)
:Zupan. His state was centered in the vicinity of modern Novi Pazar.
Under him were a series of local zupans (each over a zupa or county)
who seem to have been more or less autonomous as far as the internal
affairs of their zupas were concerned, but who were obliged to be loyal
to the grand :Zupan and to support him in battle. It seems the zupans
were hereditary rulers of their counties-local Raskans with their own
local support who had had authority in that land before the Dukljans
annexed Raska. In about 1090 Vukan began raiding into imperial terri-
tory, first in the vicinity of Kosovo.
Initially the Byzantines were unable to take serious steps against
Raska for once again they were faced with a serious threat from the
Pechenegs. In 1090 a horde of these Turkish tribesmen reached the
walls of Constantinople, plundering along their route to the city. They
then formed an alliance with the emir of Smyrna (modern Izmir on the
west coast of Asia Minor) who provided ships. The emperor in this
desperate situation called upon a second Turkic people living beyond
the Danube, the Cumans (or Polovtsy). They responded to the call
and, joining the imperial troops, battled the Pechenegs in a wild battle
on 29 April 1091 which lasted the whole day. It resulted in a massive
victory for the Byzantines and the whole Pecheneg force was de-
stroyed. Anna Comnena writes, "An entire people numbering myriads
was exterminated in a single day." Most scholars believe she was a bit
too optimistic and feel this victory only destroyed a particular group of
Pechenegs, leaving others still beyond the Danube, who were to be a
problem again in the 1120s. However the Rumanian scholar Diaconu
persuasively argues that Anna was, in fact, accurate. The nomadic
barbarians who were to attack the empire in the 1120s were Cumans,
not Pechenegs.
With the Pecheneg problem solved, Alexius Comnenus was able
to turn to the Serbs of Raska. Owing to the vagueness of sources, the
dates of some of the events that follow are not certain; thus the reader
may find that some of the dates given here are different by a year or so
from those in some other studies. There really is no way to be certain

of the dating; all that seems secure is the sequence of events. In any
case, Alexius first sent out an army led by the governor of Durazzo.
The Serbs defeated this army in 1092, so in 1093 Alexius mobilized a
larger army under his own leadership and marched on Raska. Vukan
immediately sent envoys to the emperor seeking peace and offering
homage which Alexius quickly accepted because a new problem had
arisen at home. The Cumans from beyond the Danube had broken
their alliance with the empire and had begun to plunder imperial terri-
tory, penetrating as far as Adrianople. The emperor accepted Vukan's
homage and returned east to meet and drive out the Cumans.
As soon as the emperor departed, Vukan broke his treaty and
began to expand along the Vardar obtaining much booty and taking
the cities of Vranje, Skopje, and Tetovo. Once again in 1094 or 1095
the emperor marched out to meet the Serbs. Vukan with his zupans
arrived at the emperor's tent to make peace and to give the emperor
hostages, including his own son Uros. Throughout the twelfth century
it was usual to find a son or other close relative of the Serbian grand
zupan in Constantinople as a hostage; these hostages were one factor
keeping the Serbs in semiorder vis-a-vis the empire. Vukan seems to
have carried out these actions entirely on his own. He was no longer a
Dukljan vassal but an independent actor; and Duklja, because it was
so involved in its own civil strife, did not involve itself in these
Raskan-Byzantine wars.
Byzantium and the First Crusade
Byzantium had long been hard pressed by the Moslems from the
east-particularly by the Seljuks and Turkomen-and by Alexius's
reign much of the east had been lost, not only the Holy Land (of
interest to all Christians) but much of Anatolia as well. In 1090, threat-
ened by the alliance between the emir of Smyrna and the Pechenegs,
Alexius had sought help, hoping for mercenaries, from the West. The
West was slow to respond, and by 1095, when Pope Urban went into
action, the crisis had passed. Furthermore the pope did not do what
Alexius had wanted. The emperor had thought that the pope, a figure
in contact with all the western rulers, was an ideal person to widely
disseminate word of Byzantium's need for mercenaries who could
come east and fight under imperial command. However, instead of
asking the secular rulers to recruit such mercenaries for the hard-
pressed Byzantines, the pope in 1095 called for a crusade to march
under its own leaders and recover the Holy Land.
This massive venture was not at all to the emperor's liking. Large
armies loyal to their own leaders and hostile to the Greeks had to pass
through imperial territory. They included Normans, one of the major
enemies of the empire, who had ambitions toward imperial territory;
the Crusaders had to be fed somehow and kept in order; their obedi-
ence to imperial wishes was doubtful; furthermore mercenaries would
have fought where needed, particularly in nearby Anatolia, whereas
the Crusaders' ambitions lay toward the Holy Land, and once there
they became more interested in hacking out independent kingdoms
than in restoring the former imperial lands to the Byzantines.
To make matters worse, news of their arrival came late and the
empire expected them to land at Durazzo and come via the Via Egna-
tia through Ohrid and Thessaloniki. Instead the largest groups ap-
peared via Hungary at Beograd, planning to take the Orient Express
route (Nis, Sardika), where they were not expected. The Byzantines,
on short notice, were not able to have sufficient supplies for them, so
the Crusaders began looting. This led to skirmishes with the local
population and also with Byzantine units sent out to guard the roads
and to try to keep order.
None of these occurrences increased the good will between Cru-
saders and Byzantines, and the issues noted earlier divided them as
well. Thus the Crusades can be seen as a major factor in causing
hatreds on a popular level between easterners and westerners, and in
making the people themselves opposed to any compromise to heal the
rift that had developed between the two churches. The split had offi-
cially occurred in 1054. However, at that time all that had taken place
were mutual excommunications between a papal legate, representing a
deceased pope, and a Byzantine patriarch. Neither had excommuni-
cated the other church as a whole. Though communion had not been
restored after that, relations had been continued between the two
sides, as is seen in Alexius's request to the pope for mercenaries. 4 But
now as a result of the Crusades more and more bad feelings developed
and each society came to look upon its own practices (leavened or
unleavened bread in the communion wafer, shaven or bearded priests,
Filioque or not,) as superior and would brook no change.
As time went on the Crusades became more and more directed at
schismatic and, possibly more important, wealthy Constantinople. Fi-
nally in 1204 Crusaders were to take Constantinople itself and for
fifty-seven years occupy the capital from which they directed an ineffi-
cient Latin Empire. We shall be devoting considerable attention to the
Crusaders off and on in this history. But what is relevant here is that
Vukan took advantage of Alexius's difficulties with the Crusaders to
assert himself once again. He pressed south into Macedonia, and Alex-
ius was able to do nothing about him until 1106, when the dust settled
from the Crusaders. Then once again Vukan submitted.
This Serb drive to the south was to be a constant one over the
next two and a half centuries. At this time Raska was still too weak to
successfully expand against the Byzantines and establish any sort of
permanent hold over this territory. To do so it needed a strong ally
and in the twelfth century it was to find this ally in the Hungarians.
This Hungarian-Raskan alliance was to exist throughout most of the
twelfth century, a period during which the Hungarians greatly in-
creased their activities and influence in many regions of the Balkans,
particularly after 1102, when they incorporated Croatia and Dalmatia
into their kingdom. Thus from the early twelfth century the Hungari-
ans became a major factor in Balkan politics.
Civil War in Duklja
Controversy over Bodin's Position in the Civil War
It is not known what happened to Bodin of Duklja after the Byzantine

war. Milo bar, following the Chronicle of the Priest of Dioclea, which
does not refer to Bodin being captured by the Byzantines, believes he
was not captured; Milobar suggests that the Greek source, Anna Com-
nena, which notes this capture has taken the story of his first capture in
1072 and mistakenly placed it later. Milo bar thus believes that Bodin
ruled without a break straight through until 1108. Milo bar, following
the Priest of Dioclea's account, believes that the civil war which oc-
curred in Duklja was against a present Bodin.
The other extreme view is that of Zlatarski who has so low an
opinion of the Priest of Dioclea that he ignores his information en-
tirely. Zlatarski-doubting that the Byzantines, once freed of the Nor-
mans, would have waited five or six years to attack Zeta-dates the
Byzantine invasion right after 1085. He thus believes Bodin's defeat
took place in 1085; he also believes Bodin was captured, as Anna
Comnena states; and since he discounts the Priest of Dioclea's chroni-
cle, Zlatarski claims that from this point onward Bodin disappeared
from history.
A modified view, frequently found, argues that Bodin was cap-
tured; during his absence civil war broke out as rivals tried to oust his
wife from power; then Bodin returned to Duklja to find a weakened
state with Raska and possibly Bosnia gone. Bodin was able to regain
his throne but could not reassert his authority over the neighboring
regions; thus he ruled over a weaker state until his death which oc-
curred after 1101. It is impossible to choose among these various views
because sources are lacking with which to compare the Priest of Dio-
clea's data. In any case, all views allow for some sort of civil strife
leading to the loss of some territory and the weakening of the Dukljan
state.
First Phase of the Dukljan Civil War
Let us now summarize the account of the civil war given by the Priest
of Dioclea. As noted, the chronicle does not have Bodin captured.
Presumably, however, Bodin could have been captured and then have
returned to face the situation described in the chronicle's account.
Bodin's wife is depicted as the moving force behind the throne.
She was of Italian origin and was named Jakvinta. She was worried
that Michael's brother Radoslav's son Branislav (who was the eldest of
the eight sons of Radoslav) would threaten the future of Bodin and her
children; her sons were younger and thus weaker, and should Bodin
die before they reached their majority Branislav could well have
ousted them from succession. Her children's ages are not known; but
since Bodin and Jakvinta were married in 1081, the children could not
have been much older than ten or fifteen, depending on when in the
1090s the action taken against Branislav and his family, described by
the Priest of Dioclea, occurred. Milobar believes it took place around
1093-95, which would explain Bodin's noninvolvement in the war
between Vukan and Byzantium.
Branislav, Branislav's brother, and a son, unattended and expect-
ing no trouble, arrived at some time in Skadar. They were quickly
seized and jailed on Bodin's orders at Jakvinta's urging. Branislav very
soon thereafter died in jail; at liberty were six more brothers and six
other sons of Branislav who were furious and also afraid for their own
lives. They temporarily found asylum in Dubrovnik. Bodin then de-
manded that Dubrovnik expel them, but the town, faithful to a tradi-
tion it upheld-often at great risk-throughout the Middle Ages of
granting asylum to all who sought it, refused. So Bodin besieged the
city. In the course of the siege a favorite of 1akvinta was killed. In fury
she convinced Bodin to take the two remaining prisoners (Branislav's
brother and son) before the walls of Dubrovnik to be beheaded.
After these events the church succeeded in mediating a peace, but
the desire for revenge remained strong in Branislav's family, several of
whose members departed for Constantinople as emigres, and were to
contribute to further weakening Duklja after Bodin's death. Not sur-
prisingly Bodin, occupied with these matters, was in no position to

restore Duklja to its former state.
The Situation at Bodin's Death
After the death of Bodin in the first decade of the twelfth century (the
actual date is unknown; scholars accept different dates between 1101
and 1108) chaos broke out in Duklja. Originally it seems Duklja, like
Raska, had been divided up into zupas each under a hereditary local
nobleman (zupan); however, Stefan Vojislav had started placing mem-
bers of his enormous family over the local leadership as governors of
the zupas. Thus the old system, working from the bottom up, contin-
ued to exist but a royal relative was now sent out from the center to
stand at the top of this provincial structure (e.g., Gojislav who was
sent off to rule Trebinje ).
Michael on occasions and Bodin even more frequently began try-
ing to deprive many members of their own broad family from a ruling
role over provinces; in their place they tried to establish rule by their
own descendants alone. Thus Bodin tried to break the staresina (elder)
principle which would have given rights to all descendants of Vojislav
or of Michael, and to limit the rights to his own descendants; he also
tried to establish for his succession a principle of primogeniture (with
his own eldest son succeeding) rather than the senior member of the
broad family. This conclusion is Milobar's; however, by thinking in
terms of systems and rights, he may have been too systematic. Possibly
Bodin simply aimed to install his own children in de facto authority
and never concerned himself with the theory behind matters.
In any case at Bodin's death chaos was created by the ambitions of
others to succeed, by the hatreds produced during his rule (which were
particularly directed at his widow who was supporting her own sons),
and by the return of many exiles. The two major groups of contenders
for power seem to have been (1) the four sons of King Michael by his
second, the Greek, wife, the eldest of whom was Dobroslav who then
was about twenty-five, and (2) Bodin's widow working on behalf of her
four sons, the eldest of whom, Michael, was a teenager.
Dukljan Civil War: Second Phase
When upon Bodin's death, his eldest son Michael tried to establish
himself, Bodin's half-brother Dobroslav was also declared king. At the
same time word of Bodin's death reached the emperor Alexius in
Constantinople and he decided to meddle in Dukljan affairs by utiliz-
ing one of several Dukljan exiles then in his capital. He ordered the
brothers and sons of Branislav sent to Durazzo from where one
brother, named Kocapar (with Byzantine support), went to Raska to
seek from Vukan aid against Dobroslav. At this moment Vukan was at
peace with the empire, recognizing Byzantine overlordship. Seeing an
untenable situation developing, Dobroslav, to save his throne, sought
Byzantine suzerainty and Alexius accepted his request.
Vukan and Kocapar, however, then attacked Duklja and won a
battle on the Maraca River in which they captured Dobroslav, who
was taken off to Raska as a prisoner. Vukan and Kocapar occupied
Duklja and even pillaged part of Dalmatia. Then Vukan returned to
Raska, leaving Kocapar as his man on the throne of Duklja. (This
reverses the eleventh-century situation when the Dukljans were put-
ting their men on the Raskan throne.) But very quickly, for some
unknown reason, a break occurred between Vukan and Kocapar; pos-
sibly Kocapar was not satisfied to remain in this subordinate position.
In any case Vukan sent troops to Duklja, forcing Kocapar to flee first
to Bosnia and, later, to Zahumlje where he died. Next "the people"
(presumably nobles) of Duklja held an assembly and ignoring the out-
side powers, elected as their ruler one Vladimir, the son of a Vladimir
who was a son of King Michael. Milobar tentatively dates his reign
1103-14; these dates are by no means secure.
Meanwhile the Byzantines, to face a Norman attack, had assem-
bled a large army which was gathered on the borders of Vukan's
Raska. Vukan was worried that this army might attack him for elimi-
nating the Byzantine vassal Dobroslav. Vukan's fears were quickly
realized; the Norman Bohemund delayed his campaign, freeing Alex-
ius to turn against Raska. Vukan immediately sent an embassy for
peace and, though he had not kept promises before, Alexius accepted,
for the emperor, worried about Bohemund, wanted in an emergency
to be able to count on neutrality if not help from the Balkan Slavs.
According to the Priest of Dioclea, twelve years of peace followed in
Duklja, which suggests that to pacify the Byzantines, Vladimir must
have accepted Byzantine suzerainty. Moreover, Vladimir married
Vukan's daughter; thus good relations were reestablished between the
two Serb states.
But all was not well, for Jakvinta, still ambitious for her sons,
continued to intrigue. Now she was working on behalf of her (and
Bodin's) son 1uraj. She succeeded in giving Vladimir in Kotor a dose
of a slow-working poison. He was carried ill to Skadar. Jakvinta ar-
rived there right after him to try to secure the succession for Juraj. She
tried to put the blame for the murder on Dobroslav (who had been
transferred from a Raskan jail to one in Duklja where he had lan-

guished for about a decade). Vladimir did not listen to her but had her
driven from Skadar; but Jakvinta continued to plot against Dobroslav
whom she expected to be released from jail and restored to the throne
on Vladimir's death. Therefore at Vladimir's death, Jakvinta's hench-
men attacked the jail and captured Dobroslav whom they castrated
and blinded. He was tonsured as a monk and then placed in a monas-
tery in Skadar.
Jakvinta's son Juraj then ascended the throne. Milobar dates his
reign 1114-18. However, more recent scholarship places all these
events later and sets his accession at about 1118. Juraj seems to have
had support from a local party opposed to the empire; after his succes-
sion, members of the family who had had close ties with the Byzan-
tines fled to Durazzo. These included the surviving sons of Branislav
who all escaped except for a certain Grubesa who was captured and
jailed. Not surprisingly, the refugees sought and obtained Byzantine
support. Soon a Byzantine army, accompanied by various members of
the Dukljan royal family, was dispatched into Duklja from Durazzo.
Juraj was driven out and J akvinta was arrested and sent to Constanti-
nople where she died.
Grubesa, released from jail, was then declared king. Since the
invasion had been carried out in his name, perhaps he had !Jeen plot-
ting prior to his arrest. Thus possibly Juraj, rather than being an initia-
tor (who groundlessly tried to arrest the sons of Branislav), had been
reacting to their plots against him, and thus had arrested Grubesa in
self-defense.
In its discussion of these events the Chronicle of the Priest of
Dioclea strongly favors the descendants of Branislav and thus depicts
them as heroes while Bodin's heirs (particularly Jakvinta and Juraj)
are cast as villains. Bias, therefore, should be added to the other
difficulties presented by this source. As a result, this chronicle in sup-
porting its favored family ends up also favoring the pro-Byzantine
party, whose policy brought Duklja into a dependent position under
Byzantine overlordship, and opposing Bodin's son who aimed for
fuller independence.
After Grubesa gained the throne, word reached the Byzantine
troops, stationed in Duklja in support of Grubesa, that Alexius was
seriously ill in Constantinople. Thus finally a definite date exists-
1118. The Byzantine commander, John Comnenus, was heir to the
throne. Since he was faced with a possible challenge to his succession,
the Byzantine forces withdrew to Durazzo, leaving only a few troops
behind to support Grubesa. Juraj meanwhile fled to Raska to seek
asylum from Vukan. Grubesa ruled until 1125 and during his reign
Duklja enjoyed a period of peace.
However, in 1125, in the midst of a Hungarian-Byzantine war,
Uros I of Raska and Juraj, who lived at his court, attacked Duklja,
ruled by the Byzantine ally Grubesa. Grubesa was killed and Juraj again
became ruler of Duklja; but it seems that he did not hold it all. By then
various cousins held territories and soon quarrels broke out between
them and Juraj. The most prominent dissidents were Grubesa's three
brothers, who had fled when Grubesa was killed. To prevent further
intrigues which might have brought the Byzantines in to depose Juraj
again, Juraj had invited the three back under oath and had given each
an appanage. This peace did not last and two of the brothers fled to
Durazzo. The Priest of Dioclea (who is biased in favor of the brothers
and against Juraj) blames Juraj for this and claims he intended to jail
them.
Once again a large Byzantine army entered Duklja and occupied
much of the coast and the inland territory as far as Podgorica (modern
Titograd). Juraj fled after blinding two prisoners-the third brother of
Grubesa whom he had jailed and also ex-King Vladimir's son Michael.
Michael had been plotting against Juraj (whose mother had murdered
his father) and it seems he was also intriguing with the Byzantines.
According to the biased Priest of Dioclea, the people hated Juraj and
did not support him. The Byzantine commander next declared Gra-
dinja, one of the brothers of Grubesa who had fled to Durazzo, king.
He was to be the last ruler of Duklja to bear the title king. Juraj
remained in the woods, carrying on a guerrilla war while Gradinja
strengthened his ties with both Serbia and Byzantium. This phase of
the struggle lasted for some time and was probably the most destruc-
tive part of this long civil war. Eventually another Byzantine expedi-
tion from Durazzo succeeded in capturing Juraj, and he was carried off
to Constantinople where he died.
Gradinja ruled into the 1140s as a Byzantine vassal. As was usu-
ally the case, when a ruler of Duklja accepted Byzantine suzerainty
(and when the leading fighters for independence were in exile) peace
followed. Various people who had fled during the last civil war re-
turned; however, intrigues and arrests continued. Gradinja eventually
died a natural death in about 1146 and his eldest son, Radoslav, suc-
ceeded. He was personally installed, during a visit to Constantinople to
pay homage, by the emperor Manuel Comnenus. He bore the title
prince (knez) rather than king. Radoslav was hard pressed to maintain
his state against pressure from the Serbs of Raska, who, by this time,
had developed ambitions toward Duklja.
Hungary, Byzantium, and Serbia (Raska), 1100-1180
The Hungarians had gradually become a more active factor in the

Balkans. They had occupied considerable territory nominally Byzan-
tine, conquering Sirmium and the surrounding region of Srem. In addi-
tion they annexed Croatia in 1102 and took over, as well, various cities
in Dalmatia which belonged to the empire. The Byzantines naturally
felt concerned about this expansion and about the danger of further
Hungarian actions against imperial territory.
King Koloman of Hungary, meanwhile, trying to guarantee suc-
cession for his own son Stephen, had blinded his own brother, Almos,
and Almas's son, Bela. These two had then fled to Constantinople
which was becoming a center for Hungarian dissidents. Constantinople
may well have been chosen as a refuge partially because John Comne-
nus, heir to the throne, had married a Hungarian princess. When in
1116 Koloman died, his son Stephen succeeded as Stephen II.
A few years later a huge horde of "Scythians" crossed the Danube
and plundered Thrace and Macedonia. Scholars have usually con-
cluded these were Pechenegs but recent scholarship has shown them to
be Cumans. John Comnenus marched out against them and won a
terrific victory over them in 1122 or 1123. Many were captured; some
of those taken as prisoners seem to have been settled in the empire
and drafted into the imperial army. This event is relevant to our dis-
cussion of the Hungarians and Serbs because it is dated and chroniclers
have placed other Balkan events in sequence with it.
According to one Byzantine source, Niketas Choniates, John,
after his victory over the "Scythians," immediately turned against the
Serbs and defeated them. However, a second Byzantine historian, Kin-
namos, makes the war against the Serbs follow the Hungarian wars (to
be discussed shortly), and since there is no sign of any Serb provoca-
tion this early, probably Choniates's story about the Serb war should
be placed a little later. Kinnamos states that after his victory over the
Scythians, the emperor was involved in affairs in Asia Minor.
Next, the Hungarians protested to the emperor about his harbor-
ing the blinded Almos and other Hungarian dissidents, but the Byzan-
tines refused to give Almos up. Choniates adds that the Hungarians
were also objecting to the treatment of Hungarian merchants by the
local inhabitants of the important Byzantine border town of Branicevo
(at the junction of the Morava and Danube rivers).
Since they received no satisfaction from the empire, the Hungari-
ans attacked Byzantine territory. Choniates depicts it as an attack
upon the relevant city of Branicevo. He states that the town was de-
strayed and the stones were taken from it to build the Hungarian city
of Zemun (just across the river from Beograd). He claims they deeply
penetrated imperial territory, reaching Sardika (Sofija) which they
plundered. The emperor then sent out troops, defeated the Hungari-
ans, and reestablished peace.
Kinnamos describes two Hungarian attacks. The first was directed
against Beograd, from which Kinnamos says stones were taken to build
Zemun. (Since Beograd is just across the river from Zemun, it is a
more likely source for the stones than Branicevo.) The emperor re-
sponded by driving the Hungarians back and obtaining a peace which
Kinnamos claims was immediately broken, for the next year the Hun-
garians launched a second attack, this time against Branicevo. Then
the Serbs rose up and destroyed the fortress of Ras (then Byzantine
but soon to be Serbian).
Unfortunately, neither author gives a date for any of these events.
B. Radojcic believes that two Hungarian attacks occurred, and dates the
attack on Beograd to 1125, the imperial campaign the same year, fol-
lowed by a peace over the winter 1125-26, followed by the Hungarian
attack on Branicevo in 1126 at roughly the same time as the Serb rising. s
The emperor immediately went into action; he attacked the Serbs
first (and now we can utilize the data from Choniates's story which that
author implies occurred three or so years earlier). The emperor won a
decisive victory over the grand zupan of Raska and seized much booty
and took many prisoners. Some of the latter were settled as tax-paying
farmers and as soldiers in Asia Minor, in particular in the region of
Nicomedia. As a result the Serbs were forced again to acknowledge
Byzantine suzerainty.
Having settled the Serbian question, the emperor moved on and
defeated the Hungarians again, still in 1126, and forced peace upon
them. The Hungarians were driven out of whatever eastern Balkan
territory they had held and the empire recovered Branicevo, Beograd,
Zemun, and the region of Sirmium (which had been Hungarian since
the 1060s). Soon a major cause for the differences between the two
states was removed when in 1129 Almos, the exiled claimant to the
Hungarian throne protected by the Byzantines, died.
Radojcic's chronology makes sense, and I think it superior to
other versions which assign different dates to these events; most fre-
quently scholars have dated the Hungarian-Byzantine war to the pe-
riod 1127-29 and some scholars have even placed the Serbian revolt as
early as 1123 or 1124.
One addition should probably be made to Radojcic's version. If
Yugoslav scholars have correctly dated events in the Dukljan civil war,
then Raska's active opposition to Byzantine interests preceded the

1126 attack on Ras and went back at least to 1125-a year when the
empire was also concerned with the Hungarians-for in 1125 Uros
aided Juraj to oust the pro-Byzantine ruler, Grubesa, and to recover
the throne of Duklja.
The Hungarian king Stephen died in 1131. Having no son, shortly
before his death he recognized as his heir Bela "the Blind," the son of
Almos, also blinded by Koloman. Bela by then was back in Hungary
and had married in about 1130 Jelena, daughter of Uros I, grand
zupan of Raska. When he came to power Bela II (1131-41), presuma-
bly because of his blindness, relied a great deal on others and had
particular confidence in his wife Jelena and her brother Belos who also
came to the Hungarian court. Thus with these two Serbs in such
prominent positions it is not at all surprising that extremely close ties
were established between Hungary and Raska in the years that fol-
lowed. As Jelena's dowry the Hungarians received part of northern
Serbia (probably northeastern Bosnia and Macva, lying along the
lower Drina) and the Serbs in exchange received further support in
their struggle against Byzantium. Secondly both the Serbs and Hun-
garians negotiated with the Normans and marriage ties were estab-
lished between the Hungarian and Norman royal houses.
In 1141 Bela II died and was succeeded by his son Geza II, who
was still a child. Thus the Serbs at court-the boy's mother and
uncle-not only retained power under the new ruler but increased it.
Belos became the official regent; in 1142 he took the title of ban of
Croatia and Dalmatia (a position later often given to a younger son of
the Hungarian king who was not heir to the throne) and in 1145 he
became comes palatinus (count palatine), the highest Hungarian court
title, the holder of which was a substitute for the king when necessary.
Belos was able and retained close ties with Serbia where by now his
brother Uros II had become grand zupan. In times of trouble each was
able to count on the other.
By this time the emperor in Byzantium was Manuel Comnenus
(1143-80). He was attracted to the west and had visions of recovering
Italy, but he also had serious reasons to worry about the west because
of the Normans. In 1147 the Normans under Roger II seized Corfu,
Corinth, and Thebes (the center of the Byzantine silk industry, whose
weavers were captured and taken off to Palermo in Sicily to establish a
weaving industry there). Manuel, having defeated a Cuman attack in
1148, made an alliance with the Germans to support his war against
the Normans. In 1149 he began his offensive against them. In that year
with Venetian aid he recovered Corfu.
Meanwhile the Serbs, Hungarians, and Normans were exchanging

envoys; it is not clear who initiated these discussions but it certainly
was in the Normans' interests to stop Manuel's plans. In any case,
Manuel was at Avlona preparing to launch an offensive across the
Adriatic when he learned that the Serbs had revolted. This uprising
entailed more than just throwing off allegiance to Byzantium. First
there was danger that the Serbs might strike at the Byzantine Adriatic
bases while the Byzantines were attacking Italy. Secondly, the Serbs
had taken the offensive against a loyal Byzantine vassal; they had
attacked Radoslav of Duklja and had forced him to take refuge in
Kotor. The Serbs (Uros II and his brother Desa) occupied much of
inland Duklja and Trebinje, leaving Radoslav only the coastal terri-
tory. Thus with Radoslav driven into the very southwest corner of his
realm, about two thirds of Duklja was in Serbian hands. Radoslav
turned for help to his Byzantine overlord, and aid was sent from Du-
razzo. Just at this moment the Chronicle of the Priest of Dioclea ends;
presumably its author died.
A major Balkan war was on the verge of breaking out; for after
their attack on Duklja, making probable a major Byzantine response,
the two Raskan brothers, Uros and Desa, had sought aid from their
third brother Belos in Hungary. It is not clear whether any aid was
sent at once but Hungarian troops were to play an active role in Serbia
by 1150.
Manuel, seeing this situation developing in his rear, decided to
delay his attack on the Normans. He sent troops from Avlona into
Raska where they quickly captured the Serbs' major fortresses includ-
ing Ras (by now Serbian). Uros fled to the mountains, carrying on a
guerrilla war marked by hit-and-run attacks and ambushes and the
avoidance of any major encounters. Thus the Byzantines achieved no
major success against his armies, despite their capture of various forts.
In 1150 more Byzantine troops arrived, and in that year for the first
time sources mention the presence of Hungarian troops who had re-
sponded to the Serbian call. After several minor skirmishes the Byzan-
tine army met the Serbs and Hungarians on the River Tara in 1150 and
the Byzantines gained a major victory. A great deal of devastation of
Serbia followed. After this victory, Manuel, following the policy of his
father, resettled many captured Serbs elsewhere in the empire; some
were settled in the region around Sardika.
After the Byzantine victory, the defeated Uros was briefly deprived
of his rule; the Byzantines replaced him with his brother Desa. How-
ever, Uros asked for mercy from the emperor and was allowed to regain
his position as grand zupan of Serbia. Thus the old ties of vassalage were
restored between Raska and the empire. By the treaty Serbia promised
military aid for Byzantine wars and recognized the obligation to provide
two thousand men for western campaigns and five hundred men for
eastern campaigns. This turns out not to be a new obligation, for the
agreement states that previously the Serbs had owed three hundred men
for Asia and implies that the obligation to send two thousand men for
western campaigns had applied earlier. A final result of this warfare was
the restoration of Radoslav as the ruler of all of Duklja. He remained a
Byzantine vassal. If previous Byzantine action in 1149 had not suc-
ceeded in driving the Raskans from Duklja, them presumably the treaty
in 1150 brought about their withdrawal.
The Hungarian assistance to the Raskans must have wakened
Manuel to the Hungarian danger, for in 1151 he declared war against
Hungary and sent troops through the Balkans into the region of Sir-
mium and then across the Danube. Zemun was besieged. These armies
caused a great deal of destruction, and took many captives, who were
subsequently settled in underpopulated regions of the empire. There
was no occupation of Hungarian territory, however, for this was purely
a punitive campaign; after its completion the Byzantine armies with-
drew. Geza soon negotiated a treaty with Byzantium. Over the next
twenty years, however, there were to be ten Byzantine campaigns
against Hungary. As a result of them Manuel was able to keep the
Hungarian advance into the Balkans under control but this was at the
expense of his goals against the Normans in Italy. Manuel did not
consciously give up his Italian goals, but they were nevertheless aban-
doned because of his Balkan activities.
In 1150 the defeated Uros had been forced to accept Byzantine
overlordship. This pro-Byzantine result seems to have been upsetting
to the pro-Hungarian faction at the Raskan court and in 1155, these
people ousted Uros and replaced him with his brother Desa. The
Byzantines sent troops in, deposed Desa, and restored Uros. Uros on
the occasion reaffirmed his Byzantine alliance and renounced any alli-
ance with Hungary. Desa was granted the region of Dendra (near Nis)
and a definite border was established between his appanage and the
lands of Uros. The Byzantine armies then withdrew taking Serbian
hostages back to Constantinople.
In 1162 Geza died, leaving two sons. The elder was his successor
Stephen III and the younger son was named Bela (later to become
Bela III). However, in Constantinople resided two younger sons of
Bela II "The Blind" (grandsons of Almos, younger brothers of Geza,
and uncles of Stephen III), and unfortunately the one who concerns us
was also named Stephen; since he briefly was to hold the Hungarian
throne he was to become known as Stephen IV. The Byzantines sup-

ported Stephen IV and succeeded in placing him on the Hungarian
throne for a short time. But then Belos, the regent and brother of the
Raskan ruler, ousted him from power and took him prisoner. How-
ever, through an agreement he released Stephen IV and allowed him
to return to Byzantium. Once there in ca. 1163, Stephen IV and the
Byzantines immediately began planning a new campaign to recover the
Hungarian throne.
Meanwhile in Serbia, Desa had once again replaced Uros as grand
:Zupan. What had happened there is not at all clear. According to
Kinnamos, who gives no dates, at some time before 1163 the Byzan-
tines removed a Serbian grand zupan named Primislav; they briefly
replaced him with his brother Belos; but then Belos went off to Hun-
gary and the emperor replaced him with his younger brother Desa.
This account provides one more example of successful imperial interfer-
ence inside Serbia and shows the balance of power between the two
states. But beyond these obvious conclusions, scholars have argued
heatedly about this story.
Until now Kinnamos has not referred to Primislav, nor is this
name mentioned in any other source. Since he is clearly a brother of
Desa, either Primislav was another name for Uros II (as probably the
majority of scholars have concluded) or else Primislav was a fourth
brother who had somehow replaced Uros and had a brief fling at ruling
before he was overthrown.
Next comes the question, did Belos leave Hungary briefly to take
the Raskan throne? If Kinnamos is accurate here, that must be what
happened, for the Hungarian official Belos was Desa's brother, and the
Hungarian connection of Kinnamos's Belos is clearly stated; for after a
very brief rule Kinnamos states Be los left for Hungary. Thus, if his
account is correct, Belos had left Hungary for a short time; perhaps he
had been forced to flee by events following the death of Geza II in 1162.
He may have had to flee when Stephen IV took over in Hungary.
However, as noted above, Stephen IV had held power only briefly
and then Belos had quickly overthrown him. Quite possibly Belos had
gone to Serbia, raised an army, and then launched his successful cam-
paign against Stephen from Serbia. The victory over Stephen IV would
then have made it possible for Belos to return to Hungary. Quite
possibly Kinnamos had such an event in mind when he said Belos went
off to Hungary. Belos, by departing, evidently preferred Hungary to
Serbia; quite possibly he voluntarily gave up his rule there. It is also
possible that he had tried to hold both states but Manuel objected to
seeing so much power in the hands of one Serb, particularly an unreli-
able one who had fought Byzantium before. In any case, Desa was the
Raskan ruler by 1163. Presumably the initial Byzantine interference
came about because the Serbian grand :Zupan Primislav (or Uros if the
two are the same) had shown too much independence. These events
occurred at some time between 1155 and 1162. Most scholars place
them 1161-62.
The Byzantines meanwhile were bent on restoring Stephen IV to
the throne of Hungary. They aimed thereby to obtain a loyal vassal
and to regain the Sirmium region and Hungarian Dalmatia. The em-
peror with his army marched northward and called on Desa as his
vassal to mobilize his army and meet the emperor and imperial army at
Nis, after which the two armies together would march on Hungary.
Desa, as the brother of Belos who was supporting the legitimate King
Stephen III, was not enthusiastic about this plan and only the threat of
a Byzantine attack against Serbia (or possibly a real attack because one
source has Desa taken prisoner) forced Desa to appear at Nis with his
army. Since the sources tell different and not particularly precise
stories it is not certain exactly what happened. In any case in one way
or another Desa was forced to comply with Manuel's wishes.
The Byzantine army then proceeded to march toward Hungary.
Most scholars date this march to 1163 though Browning suggests it
occurred in 1164. 6 En route Manuel came to realize how unpopular
Stephen IV was in Hungary. Presumably Desa, if he was present on
this march, played a role in causing the emperor to change his mind.
When the emperor reached the border he sent an envoy to the Hun-
garian court to treat with Stephen III.
The treaty recognized Stephen III as ruler of Hungary. His
younger brother Bela was to come to Byzantium and be betrothed to
Manuel's daughter. If Manuel did not have a son, Bela would become
heir to the Byzantine throne, and if Stephen III had no children, Bela
would also become king of Hungary. Thus on paper, if neither ruler
had a male heir, Bela would become emperor of Byzantium and king
of Hungary and thereby unite the two states and form a vast empire.
If realized, such a union would have doomed the independence of
the Slavs-the Serbs and Bulgarians-living between Byzantium and
Hungary for however long such a union lasted. Whether such a thing
was feasible in reality in the context of actual Byzantine politics is a
matter for dispute, but Manuel, as we shall see, was serious about the
idea.
Moreover, it had already become customary for the Hungarian
king to make a younger son who was not heir to the throne ban of an
independent banovina or appanage as compensation. The ban was able
to rule this territory and collect income from it, but was not allowed
independence in foreign affairs. He remained subject to the Hungarian
king and was obliged to provide military service to the king. In the
course of the twelfth century it had become customary to make Croatia
that appanage, and Geza II had therefore made his younger son Bela
ban of Croatia and Dalmatia. Croatia in this context included the
territory south of the Krka River. Furthermore this banovina included
part of the region of Srem (Sirmium). According to the treaty between
Manuel and Stephen III, Bela should be allowed to retain this appa-
nage even after he came to Constantinople. In this way Byzantium
would regain this long-disputed territory.
What immediately followed this treaty is not clear. But it seems
that the Hungarians did not consider Srem as part of the territory to be
included in Bela's appanage, and thus they continued to occupy it.
Angry, Manuel in 1165-claiming Srem was Bela 's-sent troops
against Hungary to occupy Zemun. The Hungarians then besieged the
city and retook it. As a result Manuel himself led a second Byzantine
army and retook the city for the Byzantines. A new treaty followed in
which the Hungarians again recognized Bela's possession of his appa-
nage and now admitted that the appanage included Srem-meaning
Byzantine occupation of Srem-while the Byzantines once again rec-
ognized Stephen III as king of Hungary.
Bela meanwhile was living in Constantinople; there he took the
name Alexius, accepted the Orthodox faith and received the title of
despot (an honorary court title which by then was the second title in
the empire after emperor). Two years later he was officially engaged to
Manuel's daughter Maria and the two were declared heirs to the
throne; Byzantine generals and court officials were made to take oaths
to them. Protocol lists placed Bela's name right after Manuel's. Thus it
is evident that Manuel was serious about this plan and really intended
Bela to be his heir.
Meanwhile almost immediately after the second treaty between
Byzantium and Stephen III, the dropped candidate Stephen IV made a
new attempt for the Hungarian throne (presumably on his own initia-
tive). The Hungarians had, according to the second treaty, evacuated
Srem; but now Stephen IV appeared in Srem, trying to contact sup-
porters in Hungary and planning an attack on Hungary. He then in-
vaded Hungarian territory in 1165 or 1166, but picking up little sup-
port, he quickly retreated to Srem. The Hungarian troops of Stephen
III, not surprisingly, pursued him into Srem; as a result of this pursuit
the Hungarians found themselves in Byzantine territory, though of
course attacking Stephen IV and not Byzantium. It is also evident that
the Byzantines by not stopping Stephen IV's activities had failed to live
up to the treaty. In any case in the course of this attack the Hungarians
overran the Byzantine garrison and occupied the fortress of Sirmium.
Manuel once again accused Stephen III of violating their treaty,
and the emperor began negotiating with Venice for joint action against
the Hungarians in Dalmatia. A major Byzantine invasion of Dalmatia
followed which took Trogir, Sibenik, Split, Skradin, Ostrovica, Salona,
and a town whose name varies in different manuscripts but probably is
Klis (one later manuscript, often cited, says Dioclea; but its conquest
would be highly unlikely in this context). The KaciCi (the ruling family
of the Neretljani on the lower Neretva) were also subdued. Alto-
gether, Kinnamos tells us, fifty-seven towns were taken. Next the Byz-
antines sent troops to aid Stephen IV. But he was poisoned and the
Byzantines ascribed this act to the machinations of Stephen III. The
Byzantine armies then regained Sirmium and also Zemun and a new
peace was concluded between the Byzantines and Hungarians.
Matters were not yet quiet for later in 1166 warfare again broke
out, though it is not known what provoked it. At that time a Hungar-
ian army defeated a Byzantine army in Srem while a second Hungarian
army attacked Dalmatia. Finally in July 1167 a massive Byzantine
victory took place at Zemun which smashed the Hungarian armies and
peace followed. The Hungarians now accepted the loss of Srem, Dal-
matia, and part of Croatia (i.e., that part included in the banovina
under Bela). Inland Croatia south of the Krka River, including Bosnia,
went to Byzantium while the rest of Pannonian Croatia north of that
river remained Hungarian. It is not clear whether in 1167 Byzantium
had recovered all the relevant Dalmatian cities or whether some were
surrendered by treaty. But in any case after 1167 Byzantium held
Dalmatia, part of Croatia, Bosnia, and Srem. It retained this territory
for the rest of Manuel's reign. He was to die in 1180.
Byzantium and Venice
Venice was most unhappy with the renewed Byzantine presence in Dal-
matia. Tensions soon developed between the two states, leading to a
sudden overnight arrest of all Venetians in the Byzantine empire on 12
March 1171. At the same time the Venetians' property was confiscated
from their warehouses. This set off a Byzantine-Venetian war which
seems to have continued for a decade during which the Venetians
sacked various Greek islands. This war was a factor in turning Venice
even more strongly against Byzantium; relations went from bad to
worse until the Venetians turned the Fourth Crusade against Constanti-
nople itself in 1204 and conquered it, establishing the Latin Empire.
Byzantium and Hungary, 1169-80
Meanwhile in 1169 Manuel finally had a son (Alexius) and made him
his heir. Bela lost the title of despot for the lesser title of caesar. His
engagement to Maria was also broken off. Thus the plans to unite
Byzantium and Hungary were now scrapped. However, Manuel still
hoped to make Hungary a closer vassal of Byzantium through Bela
who remained the heir to the Hungarian throne since Stephen III was
still childless. Bela, though demoted, was not disgraced; he remained a
member of the imperial family and soon married the stepsister of
Manuel's wife.
In 1172 Stephen III died childless at the age of twenty-four, and
Bela, according to the agreement, was escorted by the Byzantine army
to the Hungarian border. There he was met by a Hungarian escort.
Most of the country was ready to accept him and the little opposition
to him that existed dissolved when Bela returned to Roman Catholi-
cism. Before his departure Bela took an oath of allegiance to Byzan-
tium and Manuel. He strictly observed this oath for the duration of
Manuel's life, eight more years. During this period Bela never tried to
regain Srem, Croatia, or Dalmatia and he even sent troops to aid the
Byzantines against the Seljuks of !conium (Konya) in Anatolia in 1176.
Stefan Nemanja Establishes a New Dynasty in the Serbian Lands
Up to this point a variety of Serbian revolts (often aided by Hungary)

had occurred. The Byzantines each time were able to put down the
uprising but Serbia never remained pacified. Even when the Byzan-
tines changed rulers in Serbia-as they did upon occasion-they could
not prevent new revolts from breaking out. Between 1166 and 1168 a
major change occurred in Raska. The old dynasty was replaced by a
new one, headed at first by a certain Tihomir who was quickly re-
placed by his brother Stefan Nemanja. This dynasty was to reign in
Serbia until 1371.
Where the founders of this new dynasty came from and what-if
any-connection they had to the preceding dynasty is a matter of
great controversy and unfortunately is really unknown. It is possible
that this family was installed by Manuel. A Byzantine oration, pub-
lished by Browning, referring to events of about 1166 states that
Manuel easily reduced the Serbs to submission; they repented and
accepted the ruler you [Manuel] appointed over them. 7 This suggests
a change of ruler occurred there in about 1166---roughly the date
Tihomir came to power. Thus quite possibly Desa did something to
displease Manuel leading once again to Byzantine intervention and a
change on the Serbian throne. Since the time is right perhaps Tihomir
was the ruler appointed over the Serbs by Manuel.
In any case by 1168 Serbian territory was divided among four
brothers (or cousins as one scholar has suggested since the term
brother on occasion can mean a cousin): Tihomir, Stefan Nemanja,
Miroslav, and Stracimir. The eldest, Tihomir, bore the title of grand
:Zupan. Nemanja quickly drove him out of Serbia and assumed that
title. Tihomir fled to Byzantium where he sought aid. He returned
with Byzantine troops but in the ensuing battle he was killed. The
Byzantine army was also defeated. This occurred in about 1171.
Since the Byzantines were becoming involved in a war with Ven-
ice they could not immediately become engaged in Serbian affairs, but
in 1172 the emperor Manuel led an army into Serbia. Like Vukan
before him, Nemanja saw it was pointless to resist; so he went forth to
surrender and submit to the emperor. The emperor made him go
through a humiliating ceremony at the imperial camp and then took
him back to Constantinople for another humiliating ceremony there,
featuring long orations celebrating his submission. (Some wall paint-
ings depicting this ceremony survive to the present day.) Then, as a
sworn loyal vassal, Nemanja was allowed to return to Serbia as its
grand :Zupan. Nemanja, too, remained loyal to this oath for the dura-
tion of Manuel's life.
While Nemanja held Raska, his brother Miroslav became en-
sconced in Hum (formerly called Zahumlje). Duklja, which by this
time was coming to be called Zeta, was soon conquered by Nemanja
and became a possession of his family. The conquest of Zeta may well
have occurred in the 1180s. When Nemanja abdicated in 1196 Zeta
was assigned to his eldest son, Vukan, as an appanage.
Byzantium's Position in the Balkans in the 1170s
Thus, by 1172, Manuel had recovered all of the Balkans except for
what is now Slovenia and the Croatian territory north of the Krka River
which was retained by Hungary. But the Hungarian presence was not a
major danger because the Hungarian throne was then occupied by a
king (Bela III) who had sworn allegiance to the empire. Dalmatia, part
of inland Croatia, Bosnia, and Srem had been recovered from Hun-
gary. One suspects that in part of this recovered territory-Croatia and
Bosnia-there was little or no direct imperial rule and these lands

remained in the hands of local nobles who only nominally accepted
Byzantine suzerainty.
Byzantine control of Dalmatia suffered one brief setback. In the
course of the Venetian-Byzantine war in ca. 1172, Venice was to attack
and capture certain Dalmatian cities-including Trogir and
Dubrovnik-but an epidemic and Byzantine military action soon
forced them out. The Serbian lands-Raska, Zeta, and Hum-were
under vassal princes who at the time were loyal to the empire; and
Bulgaria and Macedonia were of course still annexed and under the
regular Byzantine theme administration.
Postscript to This Section
It is here that this volume's coverage of the central and eastern Bal-
kans ends. Their subsequent history will be traced in the second vol-
ume. This postscript will present just a brief look ahead at the immedi-
ate aftermath which will be treated in detail in the second volume.
Manuel died in 1180 and a brief and unsuccessful regency for his
minor son Alexius followed. What had held Bela III of Hungary and
Nemanja of Serbia loyal had been personal ties to Manuel. Now those
ties were broken, and in 1181 Bela recovered Srem, Dalmatia, and most
probably Croatia as well. It seems this was a bloodless recovery, and
perhaps the Byzantines even acquiesced in it. It was a time of anarchy
and intrigue at home and Byzantium was in no position to send troops to
Dalmatia. Presumably it seemed better to have friendly Hungary obtain
Dalmatia than Venice with whom Byzantium was at war. Venice in fact
had already recovered Zadar and the Hungarians had to take it by force
in February 1181. Venice, after an unsuccessful attempt to regain Zadar
in 1193, was to obtain it in 1203 when it turned the Fourth Crusade
against the city. Immediately after Manuel's death Nemanja declared
his independence.
Meanwhile the regency for young Alexius was unpopular, and an
elderly cousin named Andronicus Comnenus, who had long been a
dissident against Manuel and had been exiled all over the map, ap-
peared with an army in Asia Minor. At first he seemed appealing to
the population of Constantinople. He was willing to pose as being anti-
western (and the westerners under Manuel's widow held great influ-
ence) and anti rich; and he was to ride to power on the coattails of a
revolt in which hundreds of westerners in the city of Constantinople
were massacred. He awaited the end of the bloodbath, and then en-
tered the city, whose gates were opened to him. He became regent for
the little boy in 1183. He quickly had Alexius's mother murdered, then
made himself coemperor, and finally had Alexius strangled. As a result
he became the sole emperor. These murders gave Bela the opportunity
to step forward to avenge the victims. Bela's wife was the stepsister of
Manuel's murdered widow. Bela moved at once and occupied Beograd
and Branicevo, and then picking up the Serbs as allies, he headed
down the main invasion route (the Orient Express route), driving out
imperial garrisons from Nis and Sardika and sacking both towns. Six
years later passing Crusaders spoke of both towns being deserted and
partly in ruins. The allies then moved through the Balkans toward the
capital. The Hungarians were to keep control of this route and the
towns along it for the next three years.
Stefan Nemanja, meanwhile, if he had not earlier, began expand-
ing both to the south and west to annex all of Zeta which was now
incorporated into his state of Raska. Thus Raska and Zeta became a
single principality under him and no territory remained in the hands of
the old Dukljan-Zetan dynasty.
At home Andronicus was fighting corruption, but he also seems to
have been intent on eliminating the powerful and avenging himself on
those who had opposed him before. Falling victim to a persecution
mania, he unleashed a reign of terror in the city, leading to various
plots against him. The Hungarians, in occupation of much of the cen-
tral and eastern Balkans, were approaching the capital, and then in
1185 the Normans launched an attack on Durazzo. The commander
immediately surrendered the city to them, for he was opposed to An-
dronicus. The Norman army then moved across the Balkans toward
Thessaloniki while the Norman fleet occupied Corfu, and then sailed
around into the Aegean, occupying various other islands. In August
1185, this fleet finally reached Thessaloniki. The army arrived there at
about the same time and after a brief siege the Normans took Thes-
saloniki and sacked it. Part of the Norman army then moved on to-
ward Serres while the rest headed for Constantinople. This set off a
revolt in the city against Andronicus, who was overthrown and tor-
tured to death.
The revolt placed Isaac Angelus (1185-95), a cousin of the Com-
neni, on the throne. He soon succeeded in chasing the Normans out of
the Balkans. Bela then withdrew his troops as well, and recognized
Isaac as emperor. Shortly thereafter Isaac married Bela's daughter
Margaret. In the marriage agreement Bela consented to withdraw all
his troops beyond the Danube in exchange for Byzantine recognition
of Hungarian possession of the Dalmatian cities. In 1195, Bela was
prepared to aid Isaac against a rebellion in Bulgaria; but then, later in
1195, Isaac was deposed by his brother and the campaign never took
place.
Bela's death in the following year ended the period of cooperation
between Byzantium and Hungary. In the next decade this alliance was
totally disrupted, and communications were cut off by the emergence
of independent Slavic states in the territory between them-in Raska
(under Nemanja), in Bulgaria (which revolted successfully against the
Byzantines in 1185 and established once again an independent state
north of the Balkan mountains known as the Second Bulgarian Em-
pire), and in Bosnia (which though under theoretical Hungarian suzer-
ainty was able to establish an independent state in the 1180s under Ban
Kulin). These three states, all emerging at roughly the same time
(accompanied by the successful attempts of great magnates in Greece
and Thrace to secede from the empire and hack out independent petty
principalities) mark the beginning of a new period for the Balkans.
That period will be treated in the second volume.
NOTES
1. J. Ferluga, "Les insurrections des Slaves de Ia Macedoine au Xlc

siecle," in J. Ferluga, Byzantium on the Balkans (Amsterdam, 1976), pp. 379-
97.
2. V. Mosin, "0 periodizacii russko-juznoslavjanskih literaturnyh
svjazej X-XV vv," Trudy otdela drevnerusskoj literatury 19 (1963):54-69.
3. lstorija Crne Gore, vol. I, od najstarijih vremena do kraja XII vieka
[a collective work] (Titograd, 1967), p. 396.
4. Little attention is paid to the split between Rome and Constantinople
in this volume since in this early period it had little effect on the South Slav
states. The different states remained under the jurisdiction of their previous
church suzerain; their rulers on occasions carried on relations with both Rome
and Constantinople and showed no particular hostility toward either side on
this issue. Probably the majority of the population was unaware that the break
had even occurred. Readers interested in learning more about the background
and immediate causes of the schism which was to have such tremendous conse-
quences for Christians of both the East and the West are referred to S. Runci-
man, The Eastern Schism (Oxford, 1955).
5. B. RadojCic, "0 hronologiji ugarsko-vizantijskih borbi i ustanku Srba
za vreme Jovana II Komnina," ZRVJ7 (1961):177-86.
6. R. Browning, "A New Source on Byzantine-Hungarian Relations in
the Twelfth Century," Balkan Studies 2, no. 2 (1961):173-214.
7. Ibid.
CHAPTER 8
Croatia and Dalmatia
Sources on Medieval Croatia
Early medieval Croatian history fits the concluding line to the old
jingle: the more you study the Jess you know. When I was an under-
graduate studying Balkan history I thought I knew quite a bit about
Croatia; but as I study more about Croatia, one by one the "facts" that
I knew before turn out to be dubious, based on questionable sources
or no sources at all. Most of the existing literature in western lan-
guages on medieval Croatia is extremely poor; and frequently it is
marred by nationalistic bias.
A basic problem making early Croatian history difficult for every-
one-including the most serious scholars-is the scarcity of sources
and the question of the authenticity of some of the few that do exist.
Furthermore, the authors of most of the sources for early medieval
Croatia were distant from the events they described. Either they lived
in places distant from Croatia (e.g., Byzantium, Italy) or they lived
several centuries later. Byzantine writers knew little about Croatia.
Examples of the difficulties they had in understanding Croatia were
seen in chapter 2 when we discussed Constantine Porphyrogenitus's
treatment of the early history of the Croatians. Most Byzantine histori-
ans did not mention Croatia at all.
Much of the information about medieval Croatian history comes
from later (seventeenth- and eighteenth-century) narrative histories.
These were written by enthusiastic people but contain a mixture of fact
and legend; and since many of the documents they based their works
on are now lost, it is extremely difficult to judge whether their infor-
mation came from reliable sources or not.
Typical is a massive history of the South Slavic bishoprics, carried
out by three Jesuits (over three generations), which was published
between 1751 and 1819. The work is attributed to Farlati-the Jesuit of
the second generation-who brought out the first and next several
248
Croatia and Dalmatia 249
volumes. This project was far too ambitious, and though the attempt
was highly admirable, many of their results must be treated with scep-
ticism. Their method was to rapidly visit all the archives and monaster-
ies they knew of and to hire in them monks or scribes to copy docu-
ments for them while they rushed off to the next archive. Eventually
their volumes were compiled chiefly from these copies.
By now many of the original documents from which their copies
came are lost, so modern scholars cannot properly evaluate much of
their information. Some of their documents can now be shown to have
been forgeries. Farlati and his associates were not experts in the study
of documents and in addition when they were compiling their work
they were not working with the original documents but with copies,
which not only could contain copying errors but also lacked the exter-
nal features (handwriting, paper, watermarks, seals, etc.) that might
show that certain documents were not what they purported to be.
Thus, like most of the early historians of the seventeenth and eigh-
teenth centuries they were uncritical of their texts. They seem to have
concluded that each document was of equal value and as a result they
have presented a mixture of authentic sources and forgeries; in the
absence of the originals in many cases no way is provided for us to
judge which is which.
In fact, when we discover in secondary works very strange myths
and often impossibilities for which no medieval documentation exists,
the best place to seek their source is in Farlati and in some of the other
early narrative historians of the South Slavs. Thus these early historical
works are the basis for a vast number of errors, stories, and legends
passed off as history in subsequent works on Croatia and Bosnia and
the basis for much of the poor historiography of these regions.
One must treat these regions on the basis of existing documents
whose authenticity can be verified and not accept as certain anything in
these earlier historians that is not confirmed by other sources. Thus
one must rely on Byzantine contemporary writing (keeping in mind
Byzantium's distance from Croatian events), papal letters, Hungarian
letters, conciliar records and diplomatic reports from Dubrovnik, and
the existing charters. However, one must also beware of charters for
many of them are later fabrications; some are clearly so (though even
these are still used from time to time by various historians) while the
authenticity of others is in dispute among scholars.
Many Croatian documents, including the texts of certain charters
and church council acts, have not survived in the original but exist only
as they have been copied in later historical accounts. In some cases
these documents appear in Latin translations instead of Slavic origi-
nals. In others, documents appear in histories aimed at building up the

prestige of a family, city, or bishopric, e.g., Thomas the Archdeacon
of Split's History of Split. This history presents a vast number of prob-
lems. Its author died in 1268; his work survives in a short version and a
long version. The long version-known as Historia Salonitana maior
(HSM)-is a sixteenth-century expansion of Thomas by an unknown
author. Whether any of these additions go back to Thomas's time (or
close to it) or whether some or all were added in the sixteenth century
is not known. We also do not know what the documentary base for the
additions was and whether reliable sources about some or many of
these earlier events still existed in Split in the sixteenth century. Vari-
ous documents which these works-particularly HSM-provide are
given nowhere else; for example, HSM is the only source to describe
the important church councils in Split in 925 and 928.
Thomas's History and HSM were both written to glorify the city of
Split and its church. Both claimed that Split was a successor to the
ancient metropolitanate of Salona (which fell in 614). According to
HSM, the two church councils of 925 and 928 gave Split jurisdiction
over all the Adriatic cities from Kotor to !stria on the basis of this
historical succession. Thomas's work (the earlier source) ignores both
councils. Did they really take place? Most scholars conclude that they
did. If so, Thomas probably omitted them because their decisions gave
to Split what he claimed Split had possessed ever since the seventh
century (i.e., suzerainty over the Byzantine Dalmatian churches). But
if this conclusion is a correct one, can HSM's account of the councils
be trusted? Did the sixteenth-century author of HSM have accurate
sources to work with some six hundred years after the councils had
taken place? And, if he did have good sources, can the author of HSM
be trusted not to have altered certain canons to serve the interests of
his see?
Both authors-in particular Thomas-had contempt for the Sla-
vonic liturgy. Thomas gives an account of the 1060 Council of Split
which condemned this liturgy. No other text of this council's delibera-
tions has survived, though in this case a papal letter from 1063 con-
firms in general terms what Thomas says in more detail; both Thomas
and the pope claim that the 1060 council passed articles against Sla-
vonic. But Thomas reports that this council condemned Methodius as a
heretic, stating,
The council condemned the Service of God in Slavic and only

allowed it in Latin or Greek and stated that Gothic [sic] letters
were created by a certain heretic Methodius who wrote in the
same Slavic language many lies against the doctrines of the Ro-
man Catholic Church.
Could the council really have stated this? Methodius (in the mid-ninth
century) had had papal support at first and had even been appointed
bishop of Sirmium by the pope. Had the Roman Catholic view-or at
least the view of certain Catholic circles-of Methodius changed that
much by the 1060s? Or was Thomas inserting his own views and claim-
ing they were the views of the council?
The question of sources is basic for other major issues too; for
example, the so-called pact between the Hungarian king and the Croa-
tian nobility of 1102 which set up a dual monarchy under the king of
Hungary survives only in a fourteenth-century manuscript. Many
scholars feel this text reflects the fourteenth-century situation and not
the twelfth. Was there really any such agreement in 1102? If so, does
the fourteenth-century manuscript render its terms accurately or were
these terms altered in the fourteenth century to serve the purposes of
fourteenth-century figures?
These problems shall be discussed in the narrative that follows,
but it seems important to preface this discussion of Croatian history
with a word of warning about the nature of the sources and the prob-
lems connected with them.
Croatia from the Seventh Century to 969
Although some of the Croatians who lived in central Croatia and what
is now Bosnia threw off the Avars in the seventh century and lived in
independent groups under their zupans (Constantine Porphyrogenitus
listed eleven zupas), the Croatians to the north in Pannonian Croatia,
though under their own prince, seem to have remained in a position of
some dependence on the Avars. By the late eighth century the original
Iranian Croatians had become assimilated by the Slavs, and became
for all practical purposes Slavs speaking a Slavic language.
Franks Establish Overlordship over Pannonian and

Dalmatian Croatia
In 788 Charlemagne (Charles the Great, king of the Franks), having

conquered Lombardy, turned further east and subjugated !stria. This
brought him into contact with the declining but still existing A var
khaganate in Pannonia with its center on the Tisza River. Charles
launched his first campaign against the Avars in 791, and after gaining
various successes returned for a second campaign in 795-96, which

more or less destroyed Avar power. At least, it seems to have elimi-
nated an independent Avar state. A small khaganate, vassal to the
Franks, under Christian khagans, existed until at least 822. Bands of
Avar nomads are mentioned off and on in the ninth century. Krum
had dealings with them in the first decade of the ninth century and
Frankish troops defeated some Avars as late as 863. After that they
disappear from history. Charlemagne took possession of the incredible
booty amassed by the A vars over the centuries and needed fifteen
large wagons each with four oxen to cart the gold, silver, and gems
back to Aachen.
Refugees from the Avar khaganate-both Avars and Bulgars-
fled east, many settling in Bulgaria or in the regions near its western
borders, and it seems likely that the great Bulgar khan Krum had his
origin among these Bulgars from Pannonia. In any case when the dust
settled at the beginning of the ninth century the Franks were overlords
over the territory as far east as the Tisza River.
The Croatians of Pannonia and Slavonia were under a prince
named Vojnomir who had supported the soldiers of Charlemagne in
the Frankish campaigns against the Avars. After the defeat of the
Avars, in the 790s, he accepted Frankish overlordship. The Franks
placed these Croatians under the margrave of Friuli, who tried to
extend his rule over the Croatians of Dalmatia. Soon, with Frankish
blessing, missionaries began entering the territory of the Pannonian
Croatians from Aquileia. The Franks assigned this region to the bishop
of Aquileia, a city in the March north of Slovenia and on the northern
coast of the Adriatic in the border region between modern Italy and
Yugoslavia. Possibly some missionaries from Dalmatia had entered
Pannonian Croatia earlier; but probably most of their efforts had been
among the Slavs along the Dalmatian coast.
On Christmas Day 800, the pope crowned Charlemagne emperor.
According to the belief at the time, there was one God, one world,
one church, and one empire; hence there could be but one emperor.
Thus this coronation was a direct challenge to Byzantium's claim to be
the one-the Roman-empire. Charles's justification was that the Byz-
antine Empire was at the time being ruled by a woman (Irene) and a
woman could not be emperor. Thus he was the one emperor. At first
Byzantium simply ignored his pretensions but then in 802 Nicephorus
became emperor in the east; once again there was a man bearing the
title emperor on the Byzantine throne. At the same time Charles's
subordinates were pressing into Dalmatia which was theoretically Byz-
antine territory.
Dalmatia was chiefly in the hands of Slavic tribes. North of

Dubrovnik these came to be under Croatian zupans and eventually
came to consider themselves Croatians, while many of those to the
south of Dubrovnik were coming to consider themselves Serbs.
Many of these Slavs were active and successful pirates against the
settled Roman society which still existed in their midst. We have
noted that most of the islands and a small number of walled cities
held out (e.g., Budva, Kotor, Dubrovnik, Split, Trogir, Zadar).
They were Roman or Italian in character and language and still
nominally under Byzantine suzerainty, but administering themselves
under their own town councils and law. They maintained contact
with the Italian towns by sea and very rarely communicated with
Constantinople. After the fall of Salona, Zadar became the most
important city in Dalmatia from an administrative standpoint
whereas Split became the cultural center.
The more southerly coastal regions (Ionian) were being reclaimed
by the empire in the early ninth century and the Byzantines established
a theme in Durazzo. This was a small theme which included only the
city and its hinterland. It was established, probably in the first decade
of the ninth century, and was the only place on the Adriatic directly
under Byzantine rule. A fleet was based there and Durazzo was the
center for Byzantine activity for the whole Adriatic. From here expedi-
tions were sent out to patrol the coast, suppress piracy, and defend the
coast from the Arabs.
Meanwhile the Franks were pressing into Dalmatia. From 803,
Frankish overlordship was recognized in most of northern Dalmatia.
As a result of this expansion, Frankish missionaries under the jurisdic-
tion of the metropolitan of Aquileia appeared in Dalmatia as well.
Nin, a port near Zadar, became the residence of a Croatian prince
named Viseslav (ca. 800-ca. 810). He is spoken of as a Christian,
which reflects at least some success by the missionaries. Most of Croa-
tian Dalmatia (i.e., the towns and countryside settled by Slavs along
Dalmatia, but not including the Byzantine cities) was under Viseslav.
It seems his territory stretched from the Adriatic inland to the Vrbas
River and extended roughly from modern Rijeka down the coast as far
south as the Cetina River. Possibly he was pro-Frank and had obtained
their aid in extending his control over Dalmatia. In any case it makes
sense to conclude that the campaigns of the Franks, followed by their
recognition of a single Croatian prince (or duke) in Dalmatia, had
done much to unite under one Croatian leader the many Croatian
counties or tribes in Dalmatia, which previously had been separate and
under their own leadership. It is often said that the Franks established
a bishopric at Nin in about 803. However, there is little evidence for

this and probably the Nin see dates from the middle of the ninth
century.
The Roman Dalmatian cities, meanwhile, each had a bishop, who
presided over a tiny diocese including little more territory than the city
itself. They were, it seems, under the archbishop of Split, who, though
his city was politically under the Byzantines, was under papal jurisdic-
tion. (The act of Emperor Leo III which transferred the sees of Cala-
bria and Illyricum from Rome to Constantinople had not affected Dal-
matia which remained under the pope.) Thus Split and its suffragans
administered the churches in a limited number of coastal cities, but
prior to 925 did not control the Slavic hinterland in between. But
presumably missionaries from Split and the other old Dalmatian cities
were active in the Slavic interior along with the Frankish missionaries,
and surely there was no clear-cut border between those accepting
Christianity from one mission or the other.
Thus in the first decade of the ninth century the two Croatian
states of the future (Dalmatian Croatia and Pannonian Croatia) existed
each under Frankish suzerainty and each under its own native prince.
The Franks meanwhile gained possession of Venice in 810. The Joss of
Venice plus the accession to the Byzantine throne in 811 of the incom-
petent Michael I resulted in a Byzantine-Frankish treaty in 812 (the
Peace of Aachen). By it the Byzantines recognized Charles's title as
emperor (though as emperor of the Franks and not as emperor of the
Romans) in exchange for the return of imperial territory: Venice and
the Roman cities of Dalmatia (i.e., whichever of the Roman, non-
Slavic, walled cities the Franks had been able to subdue). The Franks
were allowed to retain !stria and suzerainty over some (I suspect all) of
the Slavic towns in Dalmatia (i.e., suzerainty over Croatian Dalmatia).
Thus the checkered map of Dalmatia with no single clear-cut border
continued. Almost all its territory, including some towns (e.g., Nin,
Sibenik, Omis, and Biograd [n.b., not Beograd]), was in the hands of
Croatians who recognized Frankish overlordship. Then within this ter-
ritory were a few walled coastal cities (named above) which remained
Roman-Italian in character. They and most of the islands off the coast
continued to recognize Byzantine suzerainty and in theory paid tribute
to the empire.
In both original sources and modern works the term Dalmatia can
refer to the whole coast or to just the Byzantine towns. Thus the
reader, coming across this term, should always be alert to the fact that
it can have either of these two meanings. By the ninth century Dalma-
tia was also coming to refer to a fairly narrow strip of territory along
the coast, whereas earlier it referred to the old Roman province which
included a wide inland hinterland, including much of Bosnia, as well as
the coastal territory. In Constantine Porphyrogenitus's account, Dal-
matia was still given the older and broader significance. Readers must
be alert to this distinction as well.
In 814 Charlemagne died. Some of the Croatians seem to have
considerably resented the behavior of Frankish officials and desired to
be independent from these overlords. At that time in lower Pannonia
(with his chief residence at Sisak) lived the Croatian prince Ljudevit
(ca. 810-23) who was a Frankish vassal. Concurrently Viseslav's suc-
cessor Borna (ca. 810-21), who resided at Nin and seems to have been
the ruler of most of the Croatians in northern Dalmatia, was also a
Frankish Vassal. Rivalry seems to have existed between the two Croa-
tian princes (who between them seem to have ruled over most all the
Pannonian and Dalmatian Croatians).
In 819, Ljudevit revolted against the Franks. He began his upris-
ing in Kranj, supported by the Slavic tribes in the vicinity. He was also
joined by some Slovenes and the Timok Slavs. This last group lived
between Vidin and Branicevo and in theory was under the Bulgarian
state of Omurtag. Initially the Timok Slavs had sought an alliance with
Ljudevit and the Franks against the Bulgarians, but then when Lju-
devit broke with the Franks they decided to stay with him. The Franks
took no action at first, so Ljudevit pressed on in his aim to unite to his
Pannonian state the Slavs of !stria and Dalmatia. This, of course, led
to an open conflict with Borna whom he defeated. Many scholars
assume that he gained control over Croatian Dalmatia after he de-
feated Borna. This assumption may be unwarranted. He next defeated
a couple of small Frankish armies sent out against him in 820 and 821.
Eventually in 822 a large Frankish army appeared and forced Ljudevit
to flee to a Serbian tribe and the Dalmatian and Pannonian Croatians
found themselves under the Franks again. Borna's nephew and succes-
sor in Nin, presumably in power as a result of the Frankish 822 cam-
paign and thus their vassal-the source states he was chosen by the
people and confirmed by the Franks-promised asylum to Ljudevit
who came to him only to be murdered in 823.
The Timok Slavs then found themselves under the Franks much to
the displeasure of the Bulgar khan Omurtag; having these tribesmen
on the Timok River loyal to the Franks meant that the Frankish border
(i.e., the borders encompassing the lands of people subject to the
Franks) was now extended much further east, beyond the Timok
River. Omurtag sent embassies to the Franks to settle the border
problem in 824 and in 826. They achieved nothing, so in 827 Omurtag
launched an attack to the west, penetrated this disputed territory and

pressed well into Pannonia. He expelled the local Slavic chiefs and
installed Bulgarian governors over these unreliable tribesmen. Further-
more, it seems that south of the Sava River, Bulgarian overlordship
was extended over territory which had until then been under Frankish
suzerainty. It is not clear where the actual borders ran after this cam-
paign, but Sirmium, Beograd, and Branicevo were now Bulgarian.
Some of these Bulgarian gains into Pannonian Croatia were to be
restored to Frankish overlordship by a treaty in 845, but the Bulgars
retained what is now northern Serbia and Srem (the region between
the Danube and Sava, including Sirmium from which the place-name
Srem is derived).
In 843 the Frankish empire was divided. Frankish Italy became
suzerain of !stria and Dalmatian Croatia while Frankish Germany di-
rected Pannonian Croatia and what is now called Slavonia. The But-
gars seem to have had a border not only with the Pannonian Croatians
but also one with the Dalmatian Croatians, since in 855 Khan Boris
attacked the Dalmatian Croatians. The attack presumably occurred at
a common border, and it has been proposed that it was somewhere
along the Bosna River. Presumably the Bulgarians had occupied all the
territory of northern Serbia and northern Bosnia as far west as the
Bosna (or wherever) bringing their western borders up to the two
Croatian states; the Pannonian state lay to their northwest and in-
cluded part of Slavonia, while the Dalmatian state lay to the south of
the Sava and stretched as far east as the Bosna (or wherever) where it
had a border with the expanding Bulgarian state. The Serbs lay to the
south of this western Bulgarian wedge. N. Klaic believes the Bulgar
borders extended even further west at the expense of the Pannonian
Croatians; she feels the Bulgars held Slavonia.
Meanwhile in the second quarter of the ninth century the Dalma-
tian Croatians, under Frankish suzerainty, began developing a navy.
The most active Slavic fleet in the Adriatic was that of the Neretljani,
who occupied the territory between the Cetina and Neretva rivers and
took to piracy, striking across the Adriatic at Italy, and especially
Venice. They, along with the Arab corsairs present in the Adriatic,
made shipping in that sea hazardous. The Neretljani were still pagan
and occupied a variety of villages in the marshes of the wide, multi-
channeled Neretva mouth. They had become so troublesome that fi-
nally in 839 the Venetians (their major victims) launched a major
campaign against them; in it the Neretljani were supported by the
Roman city of Dubrovnik (a commercial rival of Venice). The Vene-
tians succeeded in forcing a treaty upon the Neretljani, but it was to be
short-lasting and again in the 840s they are mentioned as dangerous

pirates irritating the Italian coast.
The Dalmatian Slavs' Relations with the Byzantines
These Slavs along the coast, though still remammg under Frankish
suzerainty, began developing friendly relations with the Byzantines in
the 830s. This was to pave the way for some of them to seek Byzan-
tine suzerainty later. One gets the impression that despite Frankish
overlordship, the Franks had almost no role in Dalmatia in the period
from the 820s through the 840s; the Dalmatian towns and sailors
seem to have acted pretty much according to their own wishes. Rela-
tions with the Byzantines greatly improved under the Dalmatian
Croatian prince Trpimir I (845-64) who moved the prince's main
residence from Nin to Klis. On his death in 864 he was succeeded by
his son Zdeslav-one of three sons. In the very year of his succession
Zdeslav was overthrown by a Knin nobleman, Domagoj (864-76),
and had to flee to Constantinople.
This was a period of intense Arab marauding along Dalmatia. By
then the Byzantines had restored their fleet. In 866, a major Arab raid
along Dalmatia struck Budva and Kotor and then in 867 laid siege to
Dubrovnik. That city appealed to Basil I, who responded by sending
over one hundred ships which rescued Dubrovnik after a fifteen-month
siege. After this success the Byzantine fleet sailed along the coast
collecting promises of loyalty to the empire from the (Byzantine) Dal-
matian cities. At this moment of increased Byzantine prestige various
of the local Slavic tribes of the southern Adriatic also accepted Byzan-
tine suzerainty-the Slavs of Trebinje, Duklja, and Zahumlje. Only
the Neretljani refused until finally in 871 the Byzantine fleet forced
them to end their resistance.
At this time Slavs from Dalmatia and Zahumlje are mentioned
participating in Byzantine military ventures against the Arabs in the
Adriatic and against the Arab-held ports in Italy (e.g., against Arab-
held Bari in 870-71). They seem to have served both on their own
ships and on regular imperial ships.
The Roman cities in Dalmatia had long been pillaged by the Slavic
tribes in the mountains around them. Basil, between 882 and 886,
allowed the towns to pay the tribute formerly owed to Byzantium (and
still owed at that moment) to the Slavic tribes; thus the raiding was
reduced by buying the Slavs off with protection money. Presumably a
large portion of this tribute went to the prince of Dalmatian Croatia.
The Byzantine Theme of Dalmatia
To the 870s must be dated the establishment of the theme of Dalmatia.

This included the Byzantine towns on the coast and most of the islands
off it. Though much is still unknown about this theme, Ferluga has
succeeded in demonstrating that it was different from all other themes.
In fact when the Byzantine fleet was not present in Dalmatia, even in
the late 860s (when the fleet was most active) and the 870s, there is no
sign of any real Byzantine authority there. The Byzantine towns and
islands continued to administer themselves as had been their custom.
In this period-and subsequently as well-Byzantine authority in the
general area was chiefly exercised from Durazzo, where the main Byz-
antine Adriatic fleet was based and where a strategos stood over not
only a fleet but thematic troops (which at least later could be supple-
mented with local levies). From Durazzo troops were sent inland to
deal with the neighboring Slavic states while its ships handled problems
of Adriatic security.
In the late 860s and 870s Byzantium was particularly active in the
Adriatic, preparing campaigns against the Arabs in Italy. But from the
late 870s this activity decreased and presumably Byzantine influence in
Dalmatia declined, leaving the Byzantine cities there to administer
themselves as they had previously. When war with Symeon of Bulgaria
broke out in the beginning of the tenth century, surely distant Dalma-
tia had to be left mainly to its own devices.
How was Byzantine Dalmatia organized? After the fall of Salona
in 614, Zadar had become the first Roman city in Dalmatia and capital
of the archonate of Dalmatia (under a leader called an archon). Zadar
is referred to as the capital of this Dalmatian archonate in the second
half of the eighth century. In the 820s the archon was a local figure and
the town of Zadar enjoyed autonomy under him. The other Roman
cities in Dalmatia were independent too, each responsible for its own
administration (with its own laws and town council) and for its own
defense. Despite the existence of the title archonate of Dalmatia, there
is no sign of any intercity organization.
From about 870 sources begin mentioning a theme of Dalmatia
with Zadar as its capital. A strategos is also mentioned there. Scholars
usually assumed that a Byzantine general had been sent there from the
capital to head a military-civil administration as strategoi did in the
other themes. And the sources show that for the rest of the ninth
century a Byzantine commander was in fact sent thither from the capi-
tal (since this was a period of intense naval activity there). It is not
certain, however, that this situation continued in the tenth century, for
between 900 and 950 no details about the strategos are given in any
source; no names are mentioned and nothing is known of his subordi-
nate officials.
During the period following 870 the Dalmatian theme seems to
have been very different from the other themes. There is no evidence
that the Dalmatian strategos ever had a civil role. The traditional local
institutions continued to exist and the strategos is found only with a
military role in the Byzantine naval campaigns along the coast against
the Arabs. Furthermore, though at first the strategos was sent from
Constantinople and at times commanded a Byzantine fleet also sent
from there, and did levy certain locals for campaigns, there is no
evidence that at any time there were regular thematic troops based in
Dalmatia. The sources also do not mention the territorial divisions
(tourma) seen in other themes or the subordinate commanders who
stood over these districts (the tourmarchs). Therefore it seems no the-
matic structure was established under the strategos.
The individual character of the Dalmatian theme increased be-
tween the late ninth century and the 950s when sources appear again.
The head of the town government of Zadar, who stood over the locally
elected town council, was a local citizen entitled the prior. From the
950s the prior was also recognized as the head of the Byzantine adminis-
tration in Dalmatia. Soon thereafter the prior acquired also the title of
Dalmatian strategos. Thus the institution of strategos had changed in
Dalmatia in the tenth century. Faced with other priorities and problems,
the empire had been forced to give up its naval presence in the Adriatic,
and in time, it ceased sending commanders (strategoi) thither and came
to recognize the headman of its main town there as that strategos.
When this recognition came is unknown, but it had happened by
the 950s; whether this had occurred shortly before that date or back
toward the beginning of the tenth century is not known. From here on
(except for roughly twenty years of Venetian rule later) the prior of
Zadar, also called strategos, was the imperial representative in Dalma-
tia. This continued until 1067, when the prior came to bear the title of
katepan (a change, however, of little significance because katepan is a
term equivalent to strategos and used often in Byzantine Italy). From at
least 950 when the Byzantines came to utilize this local figure as strate-
gos, there is no further direct Byzantine administration in Dalmatia.
The prior was more or less only an honorary head of the theme.
He had no role in any other Byzantine city in Dalmatia. Each city
continued to operate under its own councils and headmen; there was
no intercity administration. Each city had its own militia and ships;
there was no intercity military organization. The prior functioned only
in Zadar, and what role he had there seems to have been simply that
which he would have had anyway as prior or headman. Thus he was
responsible only for the defense and administration of Zadar. In terms
of the theme the prior's position as strategos was nominal and seems to
have simply symbolized Byzantium's theoretical overlordship over
these Dalmatian cities without entailing any actual duties or functions.
This situation (with the prior as strategos) is documented for the
period after 950. Some scholars have felt-with no evidence to prove
it-that from 870 until some point just before 950 the Dalmatian
theme had been like other themes. But because of the distance and the
decline of Byzantine interest and possibilities in Dalmatia, the Byzan-
tines had finally turned responsibilities over to the Dalmatians them-
selves. Yet Ferluga argues that under different names the situation in
the 950s and after was the same as it had been in the 820s. In both
periods each city was responsible for itself, there was nominal Byzan-
tine suzerainty, there was no intercity military or administrative organ-
ization, and Zadar was considered the capital of Dalmatia. Pre-theme
Dalmatia was headed by a locally elected man of Zadar called an
archon who was recognized as the head of Dalmatia and upon whom
was bestowed the honorary Byzantine court title of proconsul. Thus
the only difference in administration between 820 and the period after
950 seems to be one of titles; the archon became a strategos and the
archonate a theme.
Ferluga stresses with very strong arguments that from the start the
Byzantine theme of Dalmatia was different from other themes, lacking
the normal theme organization, the civil role of the strategos, locally
based thematic units, tourmarchs, and the like. Thus, what existed in
the 950s was the old system under new nomenclature. Though briefly
after 870 a man who was called strategos had been sent out from the
capital to head the fleet, his presence had not affected the local admin-
istration of any of the Dalmatian towns, and though he had com-
manded military operations briefly, he had not established any of the
other features of a theme in Dalmatia. When Byzantine activities in
Dalmatia ceased, no more commanders were sent from the capital.
The towns continued to function as they had previously under their
own administrations, but the Byzantines, to maintain a symbol of their
suzerainty, simply gave the title strategos to the prior of Zadar. Since
the pre-theme structure had not been altered by the establishment of
the theme, the earlier system still remained in its entirety in 950;
nothing was really new except for a couple of titular changes. What is
not known is when the prior acquired the strategos's title which he is
found holding in the 950s. 1
End of Frankish Suzerainty over Dalmatia
Since 843, as a result of the division of the Frankish empire, Dalmatian

Croatia had been under Italy. However, in 875 it found itself under the
suzerainty of Carloman (son of Louis the German), holder of the
German half. And like other states under Carloman (Bavaria, Bohe-
mia, Pannonian Croatia, Italy, etc.), the Dalmatian Croatians contin-
ued to have their own local ruler. In 875, the Franks, who had had
little role in Dalmatia for years, tried to reassert their authority and
regain a role there. Perhaps they were worried about the increased
Byzantine influence in Dalmatia. These Frankish actions led to a revolt
by Prince Domagoj and the Dalmatian Croatians in 876. The revolt
succeeded and the Dalmatians won their independence from the
Franks, whose overlordship in Dalmatia was now ended. Frankish su-
zerainty was to continue for a little longer over Pannonian Croatia.
Domagoj tried to liberate Istria too, but this attempt failed as the
Venetians drove his troops out.
Afterward the same general situation continued in Dalmatia, ex-
cept for the removal of Frankish suzerainty. The Dalmatian Croatians
(now independent), under their own prince, continued to rule over
most of the coast, while in their midst were scattered a few walled
cities, not part of their state, populated chiefly by Italian-speakers who
governed themselves but recognized Byzantine suzerainty and were
theoretically included in a Dalmatian theme.
Soon after eliminating Frankish suzerainty, probably still in 876,
Domagoj died and his son succeeded, only to be overthrown by Zde-
slav of the legitimate dynasty, who had close ties with Byzantium and
who had been living in exile in Constantinople. He may even have
briefly recognized Byzantine suzerainty. He was eventually replaced by
a nobleman named Branimir, who secured the throne in about 879 by
means of a revolt. In 879, under him, Dalmatian Croatia, now free of
Frankish suzerainty, received papal recognition as a state. In about
892, a representative of the legitimate dynasty, named Mutimir, suc-
ceeded in gaining the throne. Mutimir, who was the son of the earlier
ruler Trpimir (d. 864), ruled until about 910, when he was apparently
succeeded by Tomislav, probably his son. I shall avoid the controversy
as to whether Tomislav succeeded Mutimir directly in about 910
(which is the most widely accepted view) or whether Mutimir died in
about 900, to be succeeded by four different figures before Tomislav
came to the throne between 910 and 914. Scholars have written a great
deal about all sorts of political, diplomatic, and social motivations
behind alleged factions in regard to the various changes on the throne.
However, the sources are so meager that none of it is more than

speculation. In any case, after various rulers and enormous gaps in our
knowledge, Tomislav, the greatest of medieval Croatian rulers, gained
the throne of Croatian Dalmatia at some time between 910 and 914.
Tomislav
Tomislav set to work increasing the strength of both his army and
navy. Constantine Porphyrogenitus states, probably with considerable
exaggeration, that before the civil wars in the late 940s Croatia's
army included sixty thousand horsemen and one hundred thousand
foot soldiers while its navy included up to eighty galleys and one
hundred cutters. The Hungarians, who had moved into present-day
Hungary in the 890s, had immediately begun raiding far and wide as
well as expanding their territory. They had become the greatest
threat to the independence of the other states in the area. They
particularly threatened the Pannonian Croatians, still nominally under
Frankish suzerainty. The chiefs of Pannonian Croatia sought aid
against the Hungarians from Tomislav, who marched against them,
defeated them in several battles, and established a lasting border
between the Hungarians and Croatians along the Drava River. In so
doing he took over all of Pannonian Croatia and added it to his own
state, thereby eliminating all Frankish overlordship over Pannonian
Croatia. Some credit for ending Frankish suzerainty should also go to
the Hungarians, for in a sense their presence and activities had actu-
ally ended the Frankish suzerainty.
Tomislav now found himself master of both Croatian states, which
were united for the first time. Other than the Drava border, it is not
known exactly where his state borders lay. To the south of the Drava
he held what we think of as modern Croatia, Slavonia, northern and
western Bosnia, and the territory along the Dalmatian coast from what
is now Rijeka to at least the mouth of the Cetina River (excluding the
scattered Byzantine towns). His state was divided into three main re-
gions: (1) Slavonia, the most northern territory from the Drava ex-
tending beyond the Sava and Kupa rivers, seems to have retained
considerable autonomy, only rendering tribute to the Croatian ruler.
Constantine Porphyrogenitus calls it an archonate. It was to keep this
autonomous, but subordinate, position until the early eleventh cen-
tury; (2) the banovina of Lika, Krbava, and Gacka seems to have
maintained considerable autonomy-the ban of this region held a high
position at court and probably after Tomislav's death became a more
or less independent figure; (3) Tomislav's original Dalmatian lands,
including the northwestern Bosnian territory, which contained the elev-

en zupanijas (zupas) which Constantine Porphyrogenitus mentions.
Under their own local nobles, who presumably had less autonomy than
those of the other two regions, the eleven zupas were: Livno, Cetina,
Imotsko, Pliva, Pset, Primorje (the coast), Bribir, Nona, Knin, Si-
draga, and Nin. (Since Nona refers to Nin, controversy exists over
what the Nin he lists refers to.) Presumably within his state there were
actually more than eleven zupas. Of the Pannonian Slav territory only
Srem (with Sirmium) 1 still held by the Bulgars, remained outside of his
state. In the middle of the tenth century the Hungarians drove the
Bulgars out of Sirmium and annexed it to their state.
Tomislav had no permanent capital (like many other early rulers;
e.g., the Roman emperors of the late third and part of the fourth
century and the later medieval Serbian rulers) but traveled from one
royal residence to another (his chief residences being Biograd and
Klis), collecting taxes, assuring himself that things were in order, and
judging legal disputes. His household and retinue traveled with him.
This movement meant that no single locality would be responsible for
maintaining this expensive contingent, but, rather, that the burden
would be divided. Up to this time there had been no distinction be-
tween personal (or palace) finances and state treasury or between
palace servants and state officials. In fact most tasks which one asso-
ciates with state offices were charges assigned on specific occasions to
anyone in his retinue-soldier or servant-whom he appointed. Thus
servants were assigned to look after taxes, diplomacy, and the like.
Under Tomislav some specific offices and some sort of state adminis-
tration began to develop. He had a chancellery with permanent scribes
to draw up charters and issue decrees. He carried on diplomatic rela-
tions with his neighbors as well as with the pope.
In the course of the war between Byzantium and Symeon, in
about 923, the Byzantines sent an embassy to Tomislav and the two
concluded an alliance. It seems it was concluded at the moment the
Byzantines had Zaharije in their fold as ruler of Serbia and had hopes
of building a large coalition against Symeon. But then, as we saw, in
924 Symeon invaded Serbia and Zaharije fled to Croatia. It is fre-
quently stated that at this time, hard-pressed by the Bulgarian threat
and with no manpower to intervene in Dalmatia, the Byzantines sur-
rendered the administration of the Dalmatian theme to Tomislav.
However, there is no evidence for this view.
Tomislav was clearly a power in Dalmatia and surely was influen-
tial even in the Byzantine cities; but if the argument is correct that the
Byzantine Dalmatian theme was different from other themes, and that
by this time no strategos was sent thither from Constantinople, but

instead the locals ran their own cities with the prior of Zadar holding
the strategos's title, then there was no reason for the Byzantines to call
in Tomislav. Most likely the Byzantines simply allowed the prior to
continue through this period to be strategos as well. Even if the prior
did not yet hold that title but acquired it nearer 950, as some think,
still there would have been little reason to invite Tomislav in. Why
assign a powerful figure, even if presently an ally, a role in one's
possessions? Maybe he could not be removed later. The only apparent
reason to have brought Tomislav in at this time would have been to
defend Dalmatia from a direct attack by Symeon; but there is no
reason to suspect Symeon had such an attack in mind or that the
Byzantines believed he was planning one. And presumably if he had
attacked, as an ally whose territory lay all around the Byzantine cities,
Tomislav would have opposed Symeon with or without a position in
Byzantine Dalmatia. Finally, and most importantly, no source states
that Tomislav was given this role.
However, as we have noted, relations were cordial between Byz-
antium and Tomislav and they formed an alliance against Symeon,
who was a threat to both states. In concluding the alliance the Byzan-
tines granted Tomislav the court title of proconsul. However, this was
an honorary title which in itself had no functions. It also was not an
uncommon title, so no particular significance should be drawn from
the fact that the earlier archon of Dalmatia (the leader of Zadar who
stood over the archonate of Dalmatia) also held it. Thus there is no
evidence that the Byzantines ever recognized the loss of their rights in
the theme to Tomislav.
As a result of the alliance, which led to Symeon becoming
alarmed about being caught between Croatia and Byzantium, plus
Tomislav's asylum to Zaharije, Symeon attacked Tomislav. Symeon's
invasion of Croatia was an utter disaster for him and Tomislav
soundly defeated the invading Bulgarian troops. This success demon-
strates Tomislav's ability as a military leader and also shows that he
had created in Croatia a truly powerful military force.
It is generally said that Tomislav was crowned king in 924 or 925;
like most other things about medieval Croatia this is not certain. It is
not known when or by whom he was crowned. The only piece of
evidence about this is a letter-whose authenticity has been ques-
tioned-from Pope John X allegedly written in 925 calling him king.
It seems that Tomislav died in 928, though Farlati, whose informa-
tion is frequently questionable, on the basis of an unknown source has
him live on to 940. Farlati and Constantine Porphyrogenitus each gives
a totally different list of rulers after Tomislav, just as each gives a

different list of his predecessors and different dates for Tomislav's
accession. This issue is debated at great length among scholars but we
need not concern ourselves with it since there is no way to resolve it.
Moreover (except for Tomislav between 915 and 928) nothing is
known about any of these rulers or their policies; so even if the lists
could be straightened out, there would be only an accurate list of
names and dates which would have no real significance. After all, it is
only important that a Mutimir rather than a Trpimir was king if some-
thing is known about the two men and what they represented.
Constantine Porphyrogenitus says a civil war broke out in 949 in
which an important nobleman, Pribina (the ban of Lika, Krbava, and
Gacka), overthrew and killed a ruler named Miroslav and put Mira-
slav's brother Kresimir II (949-69) on the throne. Thus in the period
after Tomislav, this ban had great influence in the state, perhaps the
strongest Croatian military force, and had risen to become a king-
maker. However, since he was the most powerful nobleman, the ruler
of three districts, he may have been a special case. Thus one probably
should not infer from this, as some scholars have, that the nobles in
general had increased their power. However, the civil wars after Tomi-
slav's death most probably did hasten the decline of central authority.
Various peripheral territories took advantage of unsettled conditions
to secede. The Neretljani broke away and returned to their old pirati-
cal ways (if they ever had stopped and ever were really subdued); they
were joined in this activity by sailors from the islands of Hvar, Brae,
and Vis.
Furthermore much of Bosnia was lost to Caslav's revived Serbia.
However, Caslav was to die in ca. 960. This led to unsettled conditions
among the Serbs which allowed Kresimir of Croatia to regain western
(if not all) Bosnia in the 960s. Through all these events the Pannonian
Croatian lands between the Drava and Sava seem to have remained
unaffected and under the Croatian state.
Those who argue that Tomislav had taken actual control of the
Byzantine theme in Dalmatia now argue that as a result of the chaos of
the 949 civil war, Croatia lost control there and direct Byzantine suzer-
ainty was restored. However, the Byzantines were in no position to
take a direct role, so now-according to this view-in ca. 950 the Byz-
antines recognized the prior of Zadar as strategos of Dalmatia. Thus
these scholars believe it is only from ca. 950-when sources for the
first time mention him in this role-that the Zadar prior became the
strategos also. However, though documents referring to the prior as
strategos are found only from the 950s, I still find Ferluga 's theory that
the prior actually had this double position and title throughout the
tenth century more convincing.
The loss of part of Croatia's territory in the period after Tomi-
slav's death, like the breaking away of Serbia after Symeon's death or
of parts of Duklja after the death of its stronger rulers, all illustrate the
weakness of these early Slav states. The core areas might be retained
but the outlying regions, annexed by the strongmen, did not become
integrated into the states owing to the absence of any serious adminis-
trative structure. The retention of outlying territories by these states
was dependent on the local nobles in these lands rendering obligations.
It seems that only rarely did rulers send more than a governor (often a
royal cousin or brother)-presumably accompanied by some retain-
ers-into these areas to keep order. This was obviously insufficient to
create lasting large territorial units, loyal to a given dynasty.
The Church in Dalmatia in the Tenth Century
Now let us turn to the controversial church affairs. The most discussed
and supposedly best-known events of this period are the church coun-
cils held in Split in 925 and 928. The first, in particular, was a major
affair attended by clerics and laity including Tomislav of Croatia and
Michael of Zahumlje. It was under the chairmanship of a papal legate
and attended by clerics from both Croatian and Byzantine Dalmatia.
Yet, despite the importance of these councils, almost everything about
them turns out to be uncertain.
Ecclesiastical Jurisdictions in Dalmatia
Before Tomislav, politically there were two Dalmatias (Byzantine and

Croatian). Yet despite Byzantine political suzerainty over its cities and
islands it seems that the churches in Byzantine Dalmatia remained
under the jurisdiction of the pope throughout. Dvornik convincingly
argues that though Sicily, Calabria, and Illyricum were transferred to
the patriarch of Constantinople in 732, Dalmatia was not. The chief
ecclesiastic in Dalmatia was the bishop (probably archbishop) of Split.
Despite Zadar's political and administrative importance, Split was the
cultural center of Dalmatia and Dvornik believes its bishop had au-
thority as suzerain archbishop over the other Byzantine Dalmatian
towns. However, he did not have authority over the Croatian Dalma-
tian towns. But though Split had no jurisdiction over the Croatian
territory, Dvornik believes-and produces evidence to support his con-
tention-that some of the missionary activity into the Slavic hinterland

originated from Split (or churches under Split) and therefore some of
the early Christian communities in the Slavic hinterland were under
Split's jurisdiction.
The original Dalmatian cities, the old Roman-Italian towns whose
populations had long been Christian, had Italian-speaking majorities
and maintained ties with Italy. Not surprisingly as part of the Italian
world the language of their church services was Latin.
In the Croatian regions of Dalmatia, despite some proselytism
from Byzantine Dalmatia, the chief missionary activity had been from
the Franks, under the direction of the metropolitan of Aquileia; these
efforts dated from the beginning of the ninth century. The Frankish
mission seems to have been centered in the princely residence of Nin
where in roughly 850-60 a bishopric was established by the pope for
Frankish Dalmatian Croatia. Dvornik believes Nin was directly under
the pope; other scholars have considered Nin a suffragan of Aquileia.
The Pope Summons a Council
In 924 or early 925-if the texts of two letters given in HSM are
authentic-Pope John X sent a legate with a letter to call a church
council. In the letter he referred to Tomislav as a king and attacked
the Slavonic liturgy. Thus, though the Franks clearly had not spread it,
the Slavonic liturgy had entered Dalmatia; presumably it had entered
from Pannonian Croatia (which had been under the bishopric of Sir-
mium, a post held previously by Methodius until his deposition and
during whose episcopate that liturgy had been favored) or from the
Byzantine theme (which though ecclesiastically under Rome still could
have had in it Slavs loyal to the Slavonic liturgy which the Byzantine
government supported). Since actual Frankish influence on the Croa-
tians was slight, one might expect that by 925 Slavonic letters would
have been quite widespread in both Dalmatia and Pannonian Croatia.
Various early Slavonic texts have survived from these regions.
The contents of Pope John X's letters are given in the long version
of Thomas (HSM) from the sixteenth century. Various other later
manuscripts giving their text exist as well. But in no case is it known
where the copiers of these manuscripts or the author of HSM found
the texts. Various views as to the letters' authenticity exist. Some
scholars believe they are forgeries, others believe they are totally genu-
ine while still others consider them later reworkings of genuine letters.
But since the original texts have not survived and since the letters'
authenticity is questioned in varying degrees, the letters cannot be

used as proof to confirm the existence of the 925 council; this is espe-
cially true since the only sources about the council-the two letters of
Pope John about it and the council's edicts-are contained only in the
same sixteenth-century history. However, if authentic and rendered
accurately, the papal letters would be confirmation for the existence of
the 925 council and would show that Tomislav was already a king, Split
was already an archbishopric, and that the pope wanted action against
Slavonic in Dalmatia. But though the pope may have wanted such
action, it does not mean that the council necessarily took this action.
The Need to Establish a Rational Hierarchy
Meanwhile another problem existed in Dalmatia which was probably

far more important than that of the language of the liturgy. The patch-
work political geography of Dalmatia has been discussed; this pattern
carried over to the church. The bishop of Nin headed a new see re-
sponsible for a large territory, including the Croatian Dalmatian cities
and the hinterland of Croatian Dalmatia (i.e., of Tomislav's Dalmatian
lands). At the same time in each of the old Roman towns, which had
been Christian for centuries, there was a bishop. Each of these urban
bishops stood over little more than his town itself, plus whatever mis-
sionary communities the town may have established among the Slavs
in its hinterland. Dvornik shows evidence of such missionary communi-
ties being loyal to mother churches in the old Roman cities; thus some
of the Slavic communities might have looked to a Roman town bishop
or to Split rather than to Nin. This resulted in there being overlapping
jurisdictions between Nin and Split, assuming, as most scholars do,
that Split was an archbishopric already and stood over the dioceses of
the old Roman towns.
Now if we can believe HSM, the pope, following canon law, did
not favor major bishoprics in new and minor places (like Nin). There-
fore it made sense to establish a rational hierarchy for all Dalmatia
where two separate churches then existed-Nin (for Croatian Dalma-
tia) and Split (for Byzantine Dalmatia)-whose jurisdictions probably
overlapped in places. To do this it was necessary to create a metropoli-
tan see for all Dalmatia. Clearly it was impossible to have subordi-
nated the old Latin sees (with their ancient traditions) to the new
Slavic see in Nin; the older churches would never have accepted that
and, moreover, since each of the older cities had a bishop they could
have outvoted Nin at any council.
Decisions of the Council of Split, 925
When the council met, Tomislav supported the archbishop of Split

against Nin, and the council therefore made the archbishop of Split
metropolitan for all Dalmatia (both Byzantine and Croatian). Nin and
the other sees were subjected to Split. According to HSM, historical
justification for this decision was presented: Salona had been the met-
ropolitan for all Dalmatia. When Salona fell in 614, its population fled
to Diocletian's palace at Split, creating a definite continuity between
Salona and Split. Hence the bishop of Split was the bishop of Salona.
(Throughout the Middle Ages the archbishop of Split called his seat
"Salonitana" [Salona].)
Split thus at the council received jurisdiction over Croatian Dal-
matia; and assuming Split already was suzerain archbishop of the Byz-
antine cities and islands, it was confirmed in its jurisdiction over them.
The council recognized Split's possession of the hereditary rights of the
Salona church, which the council stated had been founded in apostolic
times by Saint Dujam (a disciple of Saint Peter). Split was thus given
jurisdiction over the territory from the Rasa River in lstria to Kotor.
Sisic points out that the Saint Dujam story was entirely legendary;
however, it was at the time accepted by the pope, Split, and, it seems,
all of Dalmatia.
Thomas's History of Split does not mention the council at all.
According to Thomas, Split's succession to Salona went back to the
seventh century and from that time Split had had hereditary rights over
all Dalmatia though it had exercised them only over Byzantine Dalma-
tia. The council appeared to give these rights to Split, thereby contra-
dicting Thomas's claim that they had been acquired in the seventh
century. Presumably Thomas ignored the council so as not to under-
mine this claim.
Why did Tomislav support the Split bishop living in Byzantine
territory against the Croatian bishop residing in his own town of Nin?
We do not know. Possibly Tomislav had received his crown shortly
before the council from the pope, who had demanded support of Split
as a condition for the crown. Perhaps he wanted the support of the
older bishoprics to further his own coastal ambitions; this was a time of
Byzantine weakness, and if Tomislav, as is likely, wanted to acquire
the older Roman towns, possibly he felt it sensible to woo the churches
in these towns. And, of course, if Byzantium had in fact given Tomi-
slav the position of head of the Dalmatian theme-which I doubt but
Dvornik believes-then all the Dalmatian towns were already under
Tomislav and it made sense to unite all his cities under one bishop to
rationalize the hierarchy; and since the older towns, newly under him,
would not have accepted Nin, he might have hoped to gain their accep-
tance of his political leadership by supporting Split against the preten-
sions of his bishop in Nin.
Grgur of Nin's Reaction and the Split Council of 928
Nin under Bishop Grgur protested vehemently against the council's

decision, and as a result a second council was held in 928 which abol-
ished the see of Nin. Grgur was then given a new appointment as
bishop of Skradin. According to HSM, the archbishop of Split was now
placed over the whole Croatian state and the bishop of Sisak, the
leading bishop in Pannonian Croatia, was subjected to Split. This
would mean that in 925 Dalmatia, with two political loyalties, Byzan-
tine and Croatian, but one religious loyalty (the pope) was all put
under the metropolitan of Split under the pope and then in 928 all
Croatia (Dalmatian and now Pannonian) was subjected to Split. N.
Klaic, however, believes that the subjection of Sisak and Pannonian
Croatia to Split was an invention by the author of HSM.
Was the Slavonic Liturgy an Issue at the Councils?
The discussion of the Split councils, which stresses the jurisdictional

issue, has followed the emphasis of recent scholarship. However, until
the middle of the twentieth century most scholars had depicted these
councils primarily as the scenes of a language battle where Grgur of
Nin, the great defender of Slavonic, was crushed by the establishment.
This older view claimed that as a result of his struggle for Slavonic,
Grgur's see of Nin was placed under Split and then, when he continued
the fight, the second Council of Split, in 928, abolished his see and
condemned Slavonic as a religious language. The older view thus made
the language question the major issue of the councils and saw the
jurisdictional change as a result of the language fight: i.e., to effec-
tively crush the Slavonic language championed by Nin, it was necessary
to subordinate and eventually abolish the see of Nin.
This view of Grgur became popular in the nineteenth century
when the Croatians had to fight for their own language and culture
against the threat of magyarization. Not surprisingly Grgur then be-
came a great national symbol for the Croatians. His struggle was de-
picted not only in historical writing but also in literature and art. This
image of Grgur has remained popular in this century; it is reflected by

MestroviC's magnificent statue of Grgur which stands in Split.
Over the last thirty years or so this romantic story of an early fight
for nationality and language has been replaced by a less dramatic but
more realistic one which describes a jurisdictional fight between the
ancient see of Split and the ambitious Croatian bishop in Nin. Accord-
ing to this recent view, language, if it was an issue at all at the councils,
was a very mmor one.
If HSM accurately gives the contents of the pope's letter, it is
evident that the pope sought to condemn Slavonic (something the
author of HSM believed in condemning). But this is not necessarily
something that the local bishops were interested in doing. In fact,
Article Ten of the 925 council (by N. KlaiC's corrected version) specifi-
cally allows Slavonic for secular priests and monks, though it bars the
advancement of Slavonic-liturgy priests to better positions. This shows
that the members of the council did not share the pope's wish to ban
Slavonic entirely. At this council, the language issue, though meriting
discussion, was clearly less important than the jursidictional one. The
material given by HSM on the council of 928 never touches on the
issue of Slavonic, which suggests that the 928 council made no signifi-
cant pronouncement on the language question. Thus the recent view,
emphasizing a jursidictional quarrel rather than a language one, should
be accepted.
Scholarly Debate on the Councils and Their Cause
Even though most of the leading contemporary scholars of Croatian

history share the view that emphasizes the jurisdictional fight, they still
disagree among themselves on all sorts of particular issues. These dis-
putes all arise from the unsatisfactory sources; for, as noted, there are
no contemporary sources on the 925 and 928 councils. The only infor-
mation existing about them is that given by the author of the long
version of Thomas (HSM) who compiled his work in the sixteenth
century. It must be asked in what documents did this author, writing
six hundred years after the councils, find his material? No satisfactory
answer to this question has been found. But those scholars who believe
that reliable sources on the tenth-century councils still existed in Split
in the sixteenth century must still ask whether this author's biases
caused him to alter the information given by his documents. There is a
wide range of opinion on this question, from those saying that Thomas
and HSM are not to be trusted at all, to those saying that despite their
passions and editorial comments they faithfully recorded their sources.

Let us examine two examples of scholarly opinion.
Dvomik's Interpretation
Dvomik (with whom I more or less agree and have basically followed)
believes that Thomas is accurate when he claims that in the seventh
century (ca. 640) Split was raised to an archbishopric and succeeded to
the position of Salona. Dvomik notes a recently discovered inscription
referring to an Archbishop John-the name given by Thomas for the
first Split archbishop in the mid-seventh century. Dvomik notes the
archaic style of its writing and declares the inscription is certainly
pre-tenth-century and could well be seventh-century. Thus here and
elsewhere he finds evidence to support Thomas's account of the early
history of Split, an account which many scholars have rejected as fic-
tion. Dvomik thus believes that from the mid-seventh century Split
was an archbishopric over the Byzantine Dalmatian cities and under
the pope. Then, in the middle of the ninth century a bishopric at Nin
was established for Croatia by the pope and also placed under the
pope. Rivalry, owing to overlapping jurisdictions over various Croa-
tian communities, followed, so the council of 925 met to solve this
issue. The council put Nin and all Croatian Dalmatia under Split and
of course left Byzantine Dalmatia under Split. 2
Klaic's Interpretation
Nada Klaic takes a totally different view; and though I do not share
various of her conclusions, I applaud her work. She is one of the most
critical historians of medieval Croatian history and has done a marvel-
ous job in showing how weak many of our sources are.
Klaic rejects all the information about Split in the seventh century
given by Thomas. She believes Split was just a bishopric, one among
many in Byzantine Dalmatia. The bishop of Zadar (in the administra-
tive center) was probably more important. But no city stood over the
others. Thus there existed a collection of more or less equal and sepa-
rate bishoprics without a suzerain archbishop. She believes they were
subject to the patriarch of Constantinople, not to Rome. She believes
an 879 letter of Pope John VIII to the Dalmatian bishops under him is
not to be taken literally. Though most scholars have seen this letter as
proof that the Byzantine cities were under the pope, Klaic sees it as
advancing a claim rather than expressing reality. She feels that until
879 or so Split was just a bishopric and that it probably received the
higher rank of an archbishopric about then, though this is not entirely
certain. But despite the higher title, Split received no authority over
the other cities.
In the early 920s, according to Klaic, during their negotiations with
Tomislav, the Byzantines transferred the churches of Byzantine Dalma-
tia from the patriarch of Constantinople to the pope. Now having ob-
tained superior jurisdiction over all Dalmatia, the pope wanted to set up
a sensible hierarchy there. There were three contenders for the metro-
politan position: Split, Zadar (which Klaic feels was a serious rival), and
the Croatian see of Nin, which from its creation in about 860 to 925
Klaic believes was not directly under the pope but under the Frankish
metropolitan of Aquileia. Only after the 925 council did Split obtain
authority over any other Dalmatian city. This is a fact that Thomas the
Archdeacon intentionally hid; for this reason he did not mention the
two tenth-century councils, instead implying that the decisions the coun-
cils reached had been in effect over the previous three hundred years.
To mention the councils would have refuted what he had already written
about the earlier history of Split. And since he had misrepresented that
to so great an extent, Klaic believes his general account of the earlier
history of the Split church is most unreliable. Thus she concludes that
Split's suzerainty over the Dalmatian churches-both Byzantine and
Croatian-was established in 925 and was based on historical succession
to Salona; however, this succession was created by the council and,
despite Thomas's claims to the contrary, had not previously been re-
cognized or been in effect. She also believes that HSM is not to be
trusted when it states that the 928 council placed Sisak (a bishop for
much of Pannonian Croatia) under Split. 3
Position of Split's Archbishop after 928
In any case, most scholars agree that if Split had not had some bishop-
rics as suffragan sees before 925, at least after 928 Split had all Dalma-
tia (and maybe Pannonian Croatia) under it. The following bishoprics
were under Split: Osor, Krk, Rab, Zadar, Skradin (to which Grgur
formerly of Nin had been sent), Ston (bishop of Zahumlje), Dubrov-
nik, Kotor, Duvno, and Sisak. The list of suffragan bishoprics has
generally been accepted (except for Klaic's doubts about Sisak). In
time new bishoprics were to be created within this broad territory
(Trogir before 1000, Knin after 1042, Biograd replaced Skradin in
about 1058, and Nin was restored in 1074). Furthermore certain bish-
oprics were to be raised to archbishoprics and gain their independence
(e.g., Dubrovnik).
Croatia, 969-1075
Croatia and Byzantium in the Late Tenth Century
In the second half of the tenth century Byzantium was involved in a

series of major campaigns which utilized the state's military energies to
their capacity; these campaigns were all basically land wars, comprising
expansion to the east, suppression of the rebellious magnates in Ana-
tolia, and the Bulgarian wars. As a result, the navy and Adriatic affairs
took a low priority and the empire soon found itself in no position to
participate in defending the Adriatic towns against the Saracens or
pirates. When Byzantium withdrew its forces from that area, it left
responsibility for the Dalmatian theme to the individual cities and
appointed the prior of Zadar as the imperial representative there.
Very little is known about either part of Croatia in the late tenth
century. Stjepan Drzislav ruled Croatia from 969 to 997, and was
crowned king in about 988. Some scholars, including Sisic, have
claimed that the Byzantines recognized Drzislav as the head of their
Dalmatian cities. The mid-to-late 990s, of course, was the time of
Samuel's westward expansion when he reached Dalmatia, after making
client states out of Duklja and Zahumlje. Byzantium needed allies
against him; and since his activities threatened Croatia, Croatia was a
natural ally. However, this does not mean that Drzislav was made
head of the Byzantine theme. This theory is based on the fact that in
addition to the patrician rank awarded him, the Byzantines granted
him the title of eparch of Dalmatia. However, the title of eparch was
not one ever given by Byzantium to one holding authority in its Dal-
matian towns and the title is not attested in any Byzantine theme.
More likely it was an honorary title or, less likely, one connected with
Ddislav's rule over his own Croatian Dalmatian towns.
Ddislav died in 997 and left his lands to be divided among his
three sons (another case of the Slavic division of lands among heirs
rather than primogeniture); the sons were ordered to cooperate with
each other and the eldest, Svetoslav, was to have primacy over the
younger two (Kresimir and Gojislav). This situation did not last long
and troubles broke out from several directions. First Svetoslav, it
seems, tried to oust his brothers and assert his sole authority, causing
his brothers to rise up in revolt. At the same time marauding by the
Neretljani against the Latin towns and Venetian ships increased; these
pirates had close ties with Svetoslav. These relations turned the Latin
Dalmatian towns and Venice against Svetoslav. Moreover, to support
the Slavic Dalmatian sailors and merchants (his allies and vassals),
Svetoslav tried to limit the privileges of the Venetian merchants in his

towns. Byzantium, occupied with Samuel, needing allies and seeing
Croatia becoming weaker as a result of these troubles, allowed the
angry Venetians to intervene themselves.
Period of Venetian Overlordship in Dalmatia, 998-1024
Since the beginning of the ninth century, the Venetian merchant and
fighting fleet had grown in size and become increasingly powerful. By
the second half of the tenth century it had become a major force in the
Adriatic. Its active opposition to piracy was appreciated by the Byzan-
tines. In 997 Samuel conquered Durazzo. He then raided up the coast
as far as Zadar; but though his troops did a great deal of damage they
did not occupy any Dalmatian territory. However, the Byzantines,
already at war with Samuel, saw these western activities as a threat to
the empire while it found itself helpless to oppose him there. Its troops
were fighting him in the eastern Balkans. Because its fleet was weak
and its Croatian ally was in the midst of a civil war, not surprisingly,
the empire turned to Venice for aid in defending Dalmatia.
In 998 Basil II recognized the doge of Venice as his official repre-
sentative in Dalmatia, giving him the title of dux of Dalmatia and the
court rank of proconsul; Byzantine suzerainty remained but it was now
to be exercised through Venice. No Venetian representatives entered
any of the Dalmatian cities yet; the cities continued to administer
themselves but now they took oaths of loyalty to Venice. The doge
added "et Dalmatiae" to his title. Thus the de facto situation remained
unchanged. It is worth stressing here that changing overlords had little
effect on these towns; they continued to administer themselves as be-
fore, simply taking an oath to the new power and at times supplying
sailors to whichever power it was.
However, many of the Dalmatian towns were suspicious of Ven-
ice; for unlike Byzantium, Croatia, or the early Franks, Venice was a
sea and trading state like the Dalmatian towns. Thus Venice was a
rival, and increased Venetian authority in the area could threaten Dal-
matian interests and give Venetians commercial advantages over the
Dalmatians. This was not a serious danger yet; but Venice was to
realize their fears in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. As a result
of these worries some Dalmatian towns became more assertive of their
independence and some even refused to submit to Venice. Dubrovnik,
for example, continued to remain directly under Byzantine suzerainty.
At this time Dubrovnik was developing as a commercial power with a
growing fleet. To avoid falling prey to Venetian influence, Dubrovnik
strengthened its ties with the empire and in so doing increasingly sepa-
rated itself from the rest of Byzantine Dalmatia. In a few decades it
was to be officially separated from the Byzantine Dalmatian theme and
made into a small theme in its own right.
In 998, then, Venice was exercising suzerainty over the Byzantine
Dalmatian towns in the name of the emperor while the Croatians of
Dalmatia were in the throes of a civil war and the semi-independent
Neretljani pirates were marauding along the Adriatic (particularly
against Venice). Because the Venetians had gained increased authority
in Dalmatia, some of the Dalmatian towns, feeling threatened. allied
themselves with the Neretljani against Venice. Venice then intervened
and won a decisive naval battle over the Neretljani and their Croatian
allies. In consequence the Neretljani entered a period of decline.
Whether Venice had had any role in supporting either side in the
Croatian dynastic war to this point is not clear-though many scholars
have suggested that they supported Kresimir; this would have made
sense considering Svetoslav's policy and the allies he had. In any case
in 1000, Svetoslav was ousted, and, needing support, he turned to his
ex-enemy Venice. He recognized Venetian overlordship over Dalmatia
(which of course was just a nominal act since his brothers by then
actually held Dalmatia) and as an ally of Venice obtained a promise
from the doge to support him in regaining his lost throne. His son
Stjepan went off to Venice, more or less as a hostage. Svetoslav then
disappears from the sources; possibly he died. But his son Stjepan
remained in Venice and soon married the doge's daughter. Thus the
doge seems to have been building up a potential ally who could be
useful if Stjepan could be restored to the Croatian throne. This meant
that Kresimir III (1000-1030) and Gojislav (1000 to ca. 1020) had to
worry about Venice and oppose all Venetian activity in Dalmatia.
The Venetians meanwhile were increasing their involvement in
the area and were trying to convert the titles given them by Basil II
into something of substance. The doge, though verbally retaining his
loyalty to the empire, sent envoys into various Byzantine Dalmatian
towns to extract oaths of loyalty to himself. Zadar, Trogir, Split, and
the isles of Krk and Rab submitted in this way. As far as we can tell,
this brought about no changes in the internal affairs of these towns,
and presumably the prior continued to administer Zadar. Most proba-
bly, however, during this period of Venetian overlordship he lost the
title of strategos.
As tensions increased between Kresimir and the Venetians, Ven-
ice directed its attention to some of the Croatian ports. Soon Venice
became overlord over Biograd, the important Slavic port which had
been the favorite coastal residence of Tomislav. Very likely various

other Slavic ports came under Venice as well. However, even in the
Slavic towns it seems no direct Venetian rule followed. No Venetian
representatives entered them; these towns too just swore allegiance to
Venice and went on administering themselves. But the towns were
unhappy with the Venetian presence and, in the years that followed,
various Dalmatian towns, when the opportunity presented itself, re-
jected Venetian suzerainty. The Croatian rulers then asserted their
suzerainty over them. Who was overlord over a given town and for
how long is usually not clear and we need not trouble ourselves with
the details.
In 1018, the Venetians returned to Dalmatia for a major offensive
and drove the Croatian leaders from various towns; but then, in 1019,
Basil II, having triumphed over Samuel, asserted his own authority in
Dalmatia. He now claimed and took direct suzerainty (minus the doge
as middleman) over the central Dalmatian Byzantine towns.
At the same time Kresimir, the Croatian ruler, fearing the Hun-
garians who were becoming more active to his north and also fearing
Basil who was now interesting himself in Dalmatia, sent his submission
to Basil. Basil accepted it and gave Kresimir the patrician title and left
him as ruler of Croatia, which meant that he was now a vassal prince
of Byzantium. Kresimir was to rule until 1029 or 1030. The Venetian
role in Dalmatia was thus reduced, though it seems that Byzantine
authority over some of the northern Dalmatian towns was still exer-
cised through Venice. Moreover the quarrels between Venice and
Kresimir over the Slavic towns in northern Dalmatia continued.
Byzantine Dalmatia after 1024
In 1024 a civil war erupted in Venice which encouraged Kresimir to

take advantage of Venice's problems to reassert himself. But Byzan-
tium intervened immediately and succeeded, by the end of 1024, in
regaining all of Byzantine Dalmatia. Venice had lost its role as Byzan-
tine representative. Very likely the prior of Zadar regained his former
position immediately in 1024. However, documentation of this comes a
bit later. In 1029 the prior is again mentioned as the Byzantine repre-
sentative in Dalmatia and in 1036 he is referred to as strategos. He
continued to be called strategos until 1067 when he came to be called
katepan ( a title with the same meaning, then regularly used in Byzan-
tine Italy). So the prior regained his old role which, as before, seems
to have been entirely symbolic; he exercised no actual functions in any
of the other towns.
Meanwhile Dubrovnik increasingly separated itself from the rest

of Dalmatia. It had never accepted any Venetian overlordship, and
throughout the preceding period had recognized Byzantium directly. It
increased its ties with Basil between 1016 and 1018. By 1030 (and
possibly as far back as 1018) it is found as a separate theme under its
own strategos. Thus two so-called themes had come into existence in
Dalmatia; that of Dalmatia, including all the Roman towns and islands
under their own leaders with nominal authority belonging to the prior
of Zadar as strategos of the theme, and that of Dubrovnik, including
Dubrovnik and environs. Dubrovnik, though tiny, was more like a
typical theme for it received its strategos from Constantinople and he
most frequently was a Greek. Dubrovnik retained close ties with the
empire. It sent sailors regularly to serve on imperial campaigns and its
strategos had a role in coastal patrols.
Croatia, 1025-75
Kresimir, still a Byzantine vassal, also took advantage of the Venetian

civil war of 1024 to restore his rule over the Croatian Dalmatian towns.
After 1025, when Basil II died, the Byzantines became less concerned
with military projects. The civil bureaucracy acquired a greater role in
setting policy and took little interest in distant Dalmatia. Kresimir now
ceased to pay homage to Byzantium and became an independent ruler
again in theory. He suffered some loss of territory to his nephew
Stjepan (the son of Svetoslav). After the overthrow of the doge, his
father-in-law, in ca. 1024 Stjepan had fled to Hungary. The Hungarian
king had then seized part or all of Slavonia, which he gave to Stjepan
to rule as an appanage.
Under Kresimir's son and successor Stjepan I (1030-58) (not to be
confused with Svetoslav's just-mentioned son Stjepan), the Croatians
increased the size of their navy. They had successes against both the
Venetians and Byzantines, and maintained control over the Dalmatian
Croatian towns. Stjepan I also expanded his authority to the north-
west, annexing Carinthia; the jurisdiction of his bishop of Knin was
extended up to the Drava.
But though tensions existed between Stjepan I and Byzantium,
Byzantium was to reestablish and maintain cordial relations with his
son Peter Kresimir (known as Kresimir IV) who succeeded to the
throne in Croatia in 1058 and ruled until 1074 or 1075. The Byzantine
empire was declining militarily, while the Croatians were coming to be
the major power in their area. By the 1060s the Byzantines were tied
down by two major enemies, the Seljuks in the east and the Normans
in Italy. They were in no position to act in Dalmatia, which was now
threatened by the Normans. The Croatians were in a position to
threaten the Byzantine cities there as well. Thus it made sense to
cultivate good relations with Kresimir.
Finally in 1069 the empire made him imperial representative in
Dalmatia (i.e., over the Dalmatian theme; not including the theme of
Dubrovnik and the duchy of Durazzo). The katepan Leo (presumably
the prior of Zadar who had been the Byzantine representative in 1069)
was allowed to remain in his post and retain his title, but now he was to
serve Kresimir. Thus it seems that no changes occurred in Zadar; the
prior continued his administrative role there and possibly even retained
some sort of titular role for the rest of Byzantine Dalmatia. Kresimir
respected the autonomy of the towns. Thus Byzantine suzerainty was
not renounced but was just wielded for the empire by Kresimir.
In the 1060s Croatia included three banovinas: (1) Bosnia, (2) a
coastal banovina mentioned between 1060 and 1069 under Ban Gojco,
(3) Slavonia, between the Sava and the Drava under Zvonimir. Very
little is known about them. How independent were the first two? Were
the bans local figures or were they appointed by the Croatian ruler?
Since the coastal banovina is mentioned for only that one decade,
possibly it was a very temporary affair. The third, Slavonia, between
the Sava and the Drava, was administered by the autonomous ban
Zvonimir, son-in-law of the Hungarian king Bela I. Zvonimir was
found as an autonomous ruler in Slavonia by 1065. In the course of the
next four years he came to accept Croatian suzerainty. It seems he
accepted this in an agreement by which his region (Slavonia) was re-
stored to the Croatian state but in such a way as to retain its auton-
omy, leaving him as its ruler. It also seems that the region which the
Croatian king confirmed as Zvonimir's banovina was more extensive
than his initial territory, which suggests he was given further lands by
the Croatian king.
Zvonimir joined his territory to Croatia in exchange for continued
local independence, an important role in general Croatian state affairs,
and for his own succession to the Croatian throne should Kresimir be
childless. (Kresimir had had a son named Stjepan who predeceased
him.) Croatian charters were issued in the names of King Peter Kresi-
mir and Ban Zvonimir. After late 1074, Kresimir disappears from the
sources. A year later, in the fall of 1075, his junior coruler Zvonimir
was crowned king of Croatia.
Some studies state that a nobleman named Slavac succeeded, but
the only source for this is Lucius-a late Renaissance historian. Slavac,
it seems, was in reality an early-twelfth-century figure from the Ne-

retva who had no connection with the Croatian throne.
The Slavonic Liturgy Becomes an Issue in the 1060s
In the mid-eleventh century the Slavonic liturgy became an issue in

Croatian Dalmatia. Written in Glagolitic, it was widely used particu-
larly in northern Dalmatia, where its chief centers were on the islands
lying in the Gulf of Kvarner, formed by the Istrian peninsula. In this
regard the island of Krk was the most important. In the 1060s, when
the pope was demanding general church reform, many high clerics in
the old Roman towns of Dalmatia, which had always used the Latin
liturgy, wanted to prohibit Slavonic and standardize church practices.
Kresimir IV, a religious man who had founded a Benedictine monas-
tery at Biograd, his favorite residence, sympathized with the latinizers.
One wonders why: perhaps he wanted papal support; perhaps he
sought support from the Latin Dalmatian cities, toward which he may
already have had ambitions; perhaps it was a result of his Venetian
upbringing. (His mother was a Venetian and he had been educated in
Venice.)
In any case the reformers or latinizers were upset by the situation
in the Croatian church; many priests (like the Greeks) married and
wore beards. Many of them did not know Latin. A synod was held in
Split in 1060 which declared that priests must know Latin and declared
it the language of the church. The council condemned Slavonic. It also
banned priestly beards and marriages. Some churches were closed as a
result and there seems to have been a degree of unrest. Parties devel-
oped for and against Latin, with the high clergy and nobles tending to
support Latin. In 1063 the pope demanded application of these deci-
sions and he too called Slavonic heretical.
In 1064 a rebellion for the Slavic church broke out on the isle of
Krk under a man named Vuk. He set up an autonomous church under
its own bishop and wrote the pope. Various misunderstandings fol-
lowed and envoys from each side were rebuffed by the other. Kresimir
then sent a naval expedition against Krk (whose church was branded
heretical by the pope). By the end of 1064 Vuk's rebellion was crushed
and Latin clerics were in control of the church of Krk. Thus the na-
tional church organization suffered a further blow and its organization
rapidly died out. Surely, however, in inland villages Slavonic priests
continued to function over the next several centuries, owing to the lack
of an educated clerical class there. In addition, though the established
church opposed it, Slavonic seems to have survived in places along the
coast presumably because the local population tolerated it. Glagolitic

manuscripts from Croatia survive from each subsequent century
throughout the Middle Ages. But as an established accepted move-
ment the Slavonic church collapsed and the main reason for its collapse
was that the leading Croatian political and religious figures opposed it.
In 1074 a second council was held in Split which reissued the edicts of
1060 against Slavonic. This second council also reestablished the bish-
opric of Nin.
Norman Balkan Activities in the Late Eleventh Century
Meanwhile in the 1060s the Normans were completing their conquest

of Byzantine Italy and Sicily. In 1071 Bari, an important port in Apulia
and the last Byzantine possession in Italy, fell to them. They next
began looking toward the Byzantine Empire, and the first step in that
direction was clearly the Balkans.
During this period, Duklja was the leading Balkan power opposed
to Byzantium. Its ruler, Michael, eventually concluded an alliance with
Rome, bringing him a crown from the pope in 1077. He also ex-
changed embassies with the Normans in Apulia and in 1081 a marriage
took place between Michael's son Constantine Bodin and an Italian
princess of Bari. The girl's father was a leader of the pro-Norman
party in Bari. Thus the possibility of the Normans acquiring allies
inside the Balkans increased Byzantium's dangers.
The Normans struck first against northern Dalmatia in 1074; they
briefly made themselves overlords over Split, Trogir, Biograd, Zadar,
and Nin. But within the next three years the Venetians sent a fleet to
Dalmatia and drove them out. The doge of Venice again took the title
of dux of Dalmatia (the title given an earlier doge in 998 by Basil II
which had expired in the 1020s when Venice ceased to be the imperial
representative in Dalmatia). Venice was now using Basil's 998 grant as
a basis for its Dalmatian claims. Venice was growing ever stronger.
Despite its close ties with Byzantium and its supposed vassal status,
Venice was truly an independent force in the Adriatic.
The focus of the next Norman attack was directed further south,
where Byzantium was still active, against Durazzo. Here a Byzantine
dux was present. Durazzo was the city from which Byzantine reinforce-
ments had been sent to relieve the siege of Bari in 1071 and from
which any Byzantine attempt to recover parts of Italy would be most
probably launched. In 1081 a Norman joint land-sea attack was sent
against Durazzo. When the new emperor, Alexius I Comnenus,
marched out to meet the invaders his armies included Serbs from
Duklja under Bodin. Bodin, though allied to the emperor, had just
married the daughter of the leader of the pro-Norman faction in Bari.
Bodin also had had hostile relations with the Byzantines before. He
had actively supported the Bulgarian rebellion in the 1070s and had
then been carted off to Constantinople as a captive after the Byzan-
tines had defeated him in battle. The Byzantines, however, had serious
support from Venice. Since the Byzantine navy had so greatly de-
clined, Venice's strong fleet was vital to oppose the Norman sea at-
tack. In fact, the Venetians defeated the Norman fleet and broke the
naval part of the Norman siege.
For its services Venice in 1081 or 1082 gained a large number
of privileges; duty-free trade throughout the empire; the right to
establish colonies and warehouses in any port it wanted, the right to
have its own administration for its colonies; the right to use its own
laws and judges for its people; and various gifts and titles for the
doge. The Venetian merchants, enjoying these privileges, came to
acquire great advantages over the Byzantine merchants who had to
pay duties. Soon the Venetians acquired an economic stranglehold
over Byzantium and came to dominate the carrying trade of the
empire. In addition, as the Byzantine fleet was allowed to deterio-
rate, the Venetian fleet came more and more to replace it. This
process continued until it was too late. Then the Venetians were
able to demand further privileges; if rebuffed, they could and did
raid the poorly defended Greek islands and ports to force the Byz-
antines to capitulate. Thus the long-run effect of these 1081 capitula-
tions was the ruin of Byzantine commerce and the further decline of
its already poor navy.
Despite their naval defeat, the Norman land attack continued and
in a critical battle in October 1081, the Normans defeated the Byzan-
tines and took Durazzo. In this battle Bodin and his Dukljans sat on
the sidelines and watched. According to the Byzantine sources, their
nonparticipation was an important factor in the Norman victory. The
Normans then, from their base in Durazzo, pushed on into imperial
territory. They marched through Epirus and Macedonia into Thessaly,
where they laid siege to Larissa. At this moment an uprising broke out
in Italy and the Norman leader, Robert Guiscard, had to return to
quell it. In his absence the emperor Alexius was able to clear Thessaly
of the Normans. By 1085 things were settled in Italy and Guiscard was
ready to return to recover his recently lost conquests; but the plague
carried him off first and confusion followed in Italy. As a result, the
Byzantines were to be spared the Normans for a while, and in 1085 the
empire regained Durazzo.
Croatia, 1075-1102
Zvonimir of Croatia
Meanwhile Zvonimir (1075-90), upon succeeding Kresimir IV as ruler

of Croatia, turned to the pope and received papal blessing to be
crowned king of Croatia. He was crowned in late 1075 or early 1076 by
a papal legate at Split. He then accepted the status of papal vassal and
thereafter maintained close ties with Gregory VII-the reform pope.
Since the old Dalmatian city bishops regularly supported the reform
papacy, and since a Croatian ruler, who wanted to hold power over
these cities, needed the bishops' support, it made sense for Zvonimir
to support a reform line and agree with the papal policy against the
Slavonic language in church. In addition it made sense to have good
relations with the pope since the Normans, who were now threatening
Dalmatia, were papal vassals. The pope might be able to hold them
back. Zvonimir found himself opposed by Byzantium and Venice. The
Venetians, allied to Byzantium, had all sorts of ambitions in Dalmatia
which Zvonimir stood in the way of.
Zvonimir aimed to subdue the nobility-the independent hered-
itary provincial nobles, the old zupans, who for generations had been
governing the provinces (zupanijas, zupas). They had their own local
power bases and great internal independence; according to some later
sources, the king had even been forced to recognize a diet of the
nobles. This diet, however, may not have existed that early. It may
have been a fourteenth-century institution projected back on this ear-
lier time by fourteenth-century authors. In any case, it seems that
Zvonimir sought to gain firmer control of his state by ousting various
local nobles from local administration and replacing them with his own
supporters-court nobles and high clerics. His use of clerics in admin-
istrative positions was a natural outgrowth of his close ties with the
papacy; he could count on the church to support his centralizing activi-
ties. Needless to say, his policy was opposed by the local nobles.
In 1089 or 1090 Zvonimir died. Legend has him killed in a brawl
during a council. He had been married to the sister of the king of
Hungary; they had had one young son-his heir-but that boy died
almost immediately afterward in 1090. The deceased son was the last
of the Trpimirovic dynasty, and with its end, a "Time of Troubles"
began. The widow took over, but she was unpopular with the nobles
who had hated her husband. This was a moment of weakness for the
forces of centralization, and a perfect chance for the nobles to reassert
their traditional rights in their own counties. In addition, as some
scholars point out, the queen was a foreigner, a Hungarian. However,

it is not certain that her nationality really mattered to anyone then.
Hungarian Intervention in Croatia in the 1090s
The Hungarian king quickly intervened to protect his sister's interests

(a fine excuse for what were probably his own ambitions) and occupied
much of Croatia, including part of Dalmatia. However, some ''wild
people" (Pechenegs, according to Sisic, but more probably Cumans as
argued by N. Klaic) then attacked Hungary, causing a partial with-
drawal of the Hungarians. They pulled out of Dalmatia, but kept
inland (Pannonian) Croatia. Between the Drava River and the Gvozd
mountain they created a special Croatian banovina ruled by Almas,
the nephew of the king. Almas was to hold this territory from 1091 to
1095. The Hungarians also established a bishopric in Zagreb in 1094
whose borders coincided with Almas's banovina. To separate the
church in Pannonian Croatia from Split, the Zagreb bishopric was
placed under a Hungarian archbishop in Ostrogon. Later Zagreb was
to be subjected to another Hungarian archbishopric, Kalocsa.
What was left of Croatia (primarily Dalmatia and any part of the
interior not included in the Hungarian-occupied banovina of Almas)
was then taken over by a certain Peter (1093-97), whose main resi-
dence was in Knin. He soon recovered Croatia, expelling Almas in
1095. Then, late in 1095, Koloman (1095-1116) succeeded to the Hun-
garian throne. Immediately in 1096 his armies retook Pannonian Cro-
atia and pushed into Dalmatia. Peter was killed in this warfare on the
Gvozd mountain which was to be renamed Petrova gora after him.
Peter was to be the last independent Croatian king. The Hungarians,
who had long needed a port, occupied Biograd in 1097. The other
Dalmatian cities, now alarmed, quickly turned to Venice. The Hun-
garians, having just won their first port, had no navy yet, and needed
naval help against Venice. They turned to the Normans and made an
alliance with them. But soon Koloman concluded it was a poor idea to
press matters against the Venetians, and he signed a nonaggression
treaty with them.
The Hungarian Annexation of Croatia, 1102, and Its Aftermath
Croatia
In 1102 Koloman moved against Croatia again but this time he stopped
at the Drava and there, a late source reports, he met with twelve
leading Croatian nobles. As a result of this meeting, he obtained Cro-

atia by agreement (the so-called Pacta Conventa). He then proceeded
to occupy the Dalmatian towns (Zadar, Trogir, Split) one by one;
probably his conquest of them (or possibly more accurately his obtain-
ing submission from them) was completed between 1105 and 1107.
There seems to have been no attempt at common action by the Dalma-
tian cities. Koloman allowed them to keep their former autonomy and
issued them charters guaranteeing this.
Thus by 1107, Koloman had annexed Croatia and secured his
overlordship over Dalmatia. But, though it is certain that he acquired
these territories, the circumstances surrounding his annexation of
Croatia remain problematical. Therefore let us examine more closely
Koloman's dealings with the Croatian nobles. Koloman is said to
have met with the Croatian nobles and obtained their acquiescence in
his taking the Croatian crown by promising to respect their ancestral
privileges. Having received these promises, the nobles elected him
king of Croatia and Dalmatia. The Croatian diet was retained, with
representatives from each of the twelve Croatian tribes. It is implied
that at some point this diet or assembly had become a regular Croa-
tian institution.
However, before going into detail on this important agreement it
is worth noting that our source for Koloman's relations with the Croa-
tian nobles is no older than the fourteenth century. In addition, that
document is probably not even a copy of a lost twelfth-century origi-
nal. Evidence of these twelve families as class representatives exists
only from the middle of the fourteenth century. The earliest reference
to them as an "institution" is in 1350/51 and the earliest text of the
1102 pact (the Trogir manuscript) dates from 1387/88. N. Klaic thinks
that probably some sort of surrender had occurred in 1102 by which
the Croatians were given light terms. But what the Trogir manuscript
contains is not the text of that surrender but a fourteenth-century
legend, which described contemporary relations between king and no-
bility and then traced that current fourteenth-century reality back to an
initial agreement. Some of the features mentioned in the document did
go back to 1102, but other items (including the diet) could have been
later developments which were then attributed to 1102 to give them an
aura of tradition. To formalize a present-day reality which was satisfac-
tory to the fourteenth-century Croatian nobles and base it on a binding
treaty would have increased their security in dealing with the king.
Thus, even if there had been an original agreement, as most scholars
believe, this fourteenth-century text probably does not contain its
original text.
Although the text probably includes some questionable historical

events and various later features, much of its contents does depict the
situation that actually was created in 1102. A summary of its germane
points, therefore, is a fitting introduction to a discussion of Croatia
under Hungarian rule.
The document stipulates that the two kingdoms were not to be
merged; they were to remain separate kingdoms with a common king.
Thus Croatia was still an independent state; however, the Hungarian
dynasty had succeeded the Croatian kings. Each Hungarian king would
have to come to Croatia for a separate coronation. The separate coro-
nation in Croatia lasted until it was dispensed with in 1235. Latin was
made the official language of state. This basic situation was to last
from 1102 (with an interruption for much of Croatia by the Ottoman
period) to 1918.
The Croatian nobles (i.e., the hereditary provincial leaders and
landlords) were thus recognized in their positions by the Hungarian
king and they in turn recognized him as king of Croatia (by a separate
coronation). These nobles were probably relatively content since they
had just escaped from an attack by the Croatian rulers (particularly
Zvonimir) on their positions and privileges. Thus they were allowed to
remain as basically independent lords on their lands and as local
leaders. They were to continue in this position throughout the medi-
eval period up to the Ottoman conquest of most of Croatia.
By owing loyalty to a Hungarian king who was also crowned king
of Croatia they sacrificed little: (1) Foreign affairs were in the hands of
the king of Hungary. (2) The king was the commander-in-chief of the
army and the nobles owed him military service when summoned (but
this had been owed earlier to the Croatian ruler); however, if they had
to cross the Drava, the Hungarian king had to pay. And the king had
the mutual obligation to defend Croatia from attack. (3) The Hungar-
ian king appointed a ban of Croatia; but it seems that other than being
a military leader for campaigns this ban interfered little in local affairs.
Later, some of these local bans would be Croatian noblemen. General
Croatian matters were to be discussed at the Croatian diet (whenever
this section of the treaty appeared, be it originally or later). The king
did have to confirm decisions of the diet before they became law. But
if the diet did exist prior to 1102, the Croatian ruler presumably would
have had to confirm its decisions too. And the Hungarian king con-
firmed these decisions as king of Croatia.
Other than these few items everything else was left in the hands of
the nobles: internal administration, judicial matters, land policy, and
the like. There was no integration of the Croatian state with the Hun-
garian. Except for the ban, no Hungarians were sent to administer in

· Croatia. In fact, there was very little integration in Croatia at all.
Power remained basically on a county level under local nobles, which
was how matters had been until then. Though the king seems to have
received some taxes and customs duties in Croatia, it seems that the
nobles owed no tax to the king. They rendered him only military
service. The king, however, did receive for his personal use the estates
of the extinct Croatian royal family.
Occasionally later, individual nobles were to try to break away
from Hungary. For example, some of those near Bosnia later ac-
cepted the suzerainty of the king of Bosnia instead of the Hungar-
ian king. Some succeeded for a while, and at times the Hungarian
kings had to send troops thither to reassert their authority. At
times there also were civil wars over the Hungarian throne. On
these occasions the Croatian nobles often split, some for each rival,
and civil wars were then fought throughout Croatia. There also
were to be cases of civil wars within Croatian families or between
different Croatian families for local power. Thus despite the long-
lasting system established by the Hungarians, there often was any-
thing but tranquility in Croatia. But despite these stormy events,
Croatia remained a region in the hands of its nobles, not inte-
grated into the Hungarian state.
Just as almost no Hungarians came to Croatia-excluding Slavo-
nia-few Croatians went to Hungary. In the following centuries a few
Croatians, along with members of other nationalities, could be found
at the Hungarian court; but it is necessary to emphasize again that
Hungary was constructed like other medieval empires (e.g., like Byz-
antium), having multinational populations united around a common
religion (in this case Roman Catholicism). Though the largest element
at the Hungarian court was Hungarian, all the nationalities of the
kingdom could be found there; and little favoritism along national lines
existed.
A second unifying factor was Latin, which was dominant in the
whole kingdom as the official church and court language. Almost all
documents (including nearly all the medieval royal letters) in Hungary
until the middle of the nineteenth century were to be in Latin. (Clearly
vernacular dominated among the people, and presumably even at
court among Hungarians; but Latin did give members of the different
nationalities at court a common language in which to communicate.) In
addition almost all Croatian documents, charters, and land grants were
in Latin. Whether the nobility all spoke Latin well may be doubted-
though presumably those resident at the Hungarian court did-but
there existed a large number of scribes (many of whom were priests) to

draw up documents.
Thus was established a dual monarchy with the king of Hungary
monarch for two states originally with two coronations. At home in
Croatia the local nobles retained their local independence, caring more
about their own privileges and local power than about maintaining an
independent Croatian state. This "contract" of 1102-regardless of
whether it actually took place as claimed-became the legal basis not
only for the Hungarian king's rule in the Middle Ages, but also for the
Hungarian claim-which was allowed-that Croatia be in the Hungar-
ian part of the Habsburg Dual Monarchy in 1867.
The verdict given in the previous paragraph, which is seen in most
Croatian works, is seriously criticized by N. Klaic. She believes that
the events of 1102 did not consist of a loss of Croatian independence.
Since the Croatian nobles kept their autonomy, Croatians continued to
rule Croatians in the counties. The peasants remained under Croatian
nobles. Feudalism was a tie to a dynasty and not to a nation. The
change in 1102 was one of dynasties-accepting the Hungarian-and of
capitals. But the nation remained. The aim of the nobility had been to
keep the ruler weak, and it was unimportant what language he spoke.
Why should a nobleman or any other Croatian have supported a dy-
nasty just because it originated from his own region and its represen-
tative had a common language with him? The nobles after 1102 were
able to keep their autonomy and life remained unchanged for their
villagers, who knew neither dynasty. Thus, Klaic concludes, there was
a change of dynasty but not the end of the Croatian nation. One
should not, as many later historians have, see 1102 as a national col-
lapse or the end of the state. The Croatian nation survived throughout
the Hungarian period, as did the ethnic consciousness of its people.
Bosnia in the Twelfth Century
It was only Pannonian Croatia which remained permanently with Hun-

gary. Two other regions also went to Hungary: Bosnia in 1102, and
Dalmatia by 1107. Bosnia as a distant region was hard to control and
soon is found under its own ban who in theory remained under Hun-
garian suzerainty. In the 1150s, its ban, Boric, was to lead Bosnian
troops to Beograd to aid the Hungarians against the Byzantines. In the
1180s Bosnia for all practical purposes became an independent state,
though through much of its independent period suzerainty was to be
claimed by the Hungarians.
Dalmatia in the Twelfth Century
Dalmatia was too important for other powers to sit back and allow
Hungary to keep. Right after the death of Koloman in 1116, Venice
attacked Hungary's Dalmatian holdings. The Dalmatian cities seem to
have been unhappy with Hungary for one after another they opened
their gates to the Venetians (who were working with the Byzantines).
Zadar, Split, Trogir, Biograd, and much of the rest of Dalmatia came
over to Venice. In 1117 Hungary invaded Dalmatia to try to regain its
lost cities, but the attack failed even though the doge of Venice was
killed in the fighting. Again in 1124 the Hungarians attacked the Dal-
matian cities, which were still held by Venice. But though the Hungari-
ans found the Dalmatians more friendly to them now, they still could
not regain Dalmatia.
By the 1150s Hungary had reestablished cordial relations with the
German empire which freed it once again to give its attention to Dal-
matia which was still under Venice. Geza led an attack which re-
covered Zadar in 1158. In the course of the wars between Manuel and
Hungary, noted earlier, the Byzantines invaded Hungarian Dalmatia
in the mid-1160s. In 1167 after the major Byzantine victory at Zemun,
the Hungarians recognized Byzantine rule over the empire's former
Dalmatian towns. After the mass arrest of the Venetians resident in
the empire in 1171 set off a ten-year Venetian-Byzantine war, Venice
in 1172 took certain of these Dalmatian towns, including Trogir and
Dubrovnik; but Byzantine action and an epidemic led to a quick Byz-
antine recovery.
In 1180, while the Venetian war was still in progress, the emperor
Manuel died, leaving a weak regency. It was apparent that Dalmatia
would fall to either Venice or Hungary, and clearly, since the empire
was at war with Venice and since the Hungarian ruler was Bela III,
with whom the empire had close ties, Hungary was preferable. Thus
seemingly without bloodshed and with imperial consent Bela recovered
the Dalmatian cities in 1181. The Venetians had already occupied
Zadar, however, and the Hungarians had to take that city by force in
February 1181. Since Zadar was in danger from a Venetian counterat-
tack, a Hungarian governor was established in Zadar. The Venetians
made an unsuccessful attempt to recover Zadar in 1193. They gained it
only in 1203 when they utilized the Fourth Crusade to take it from the
Hungarians. The Venetians insisted that the Crusaders do this service
for them to pay for their transport east. The fact that the Hungarian
king was a Catholic who had already pledged himself to take the Cross
for the crusade was immaterial. But by this time we are in the midst of
the subject matter of the next volume. As the present volume draws to
a close in the 1180s, the Hungarians were once again in possession of
Dalmatia with the Venetians hovering in the wings, with their ships
dominating the Adriatic, just waiting for a chance to regain the Dalma-
tian towns.
Summary
In this work we have traced the history of the Balkans from the sixth
century to the 1180s. We have seen established the foundations of the
contemporary Balkans. The Greeks and Albanians were already old-
timers there in the sixth century-when this volume began. They were
jolted by the arrival of the invaders who were to establish the Slavic
states in the Balkans. We have traced the development of the Slavs
into different ethnic groups and have seen how each (except the Mace-
donians) acquired an ethnic consciousness that has lasted to the pres-
ent time. These developments, as well as the first state formations of
all these Slavic peoples, occurred in this critical period. We have also
seen the conversion of the new peoples to Christianity and have seen
that whether a region was to be Catholic or Orthodox (after the church
split) had been determined for everyone but the Albanians and Bos-
nians in the period we have covered.
We have examined the states which these different peoples estab-
lished in the early medieval period. Except for the Bulgarians all pro-
duced relatively short-lasting and unstable states. The proximity to
Bulgaria of Byzantium, both as a model and as an enemy to unite the
Bulgarians to defend themselves against, was a major factor in the
greater stability of the Bulgarian state. But now as we enter the end of
the twelfth century, we see that the Byzantine Empire was declining in
strength. We shall see in the next volume how separatism by powerful
noblemen in various provinces of the imperial Balkans was increasing.
And, as the empire succumbed to feudalism and as its central govern-
ment became less and less able to control its provinces, the Bulgarians
got a chance to liberate themselves from the empire and recreated an
independent Bulgarian state. At the same time the Serbs were able to
shed their vassalage to Byzantium and assert their full independence.
These two developments-along with the establishment of an autono-
mous Bosnian state (in theory under Hungarian over lordship )-were
features of the 1180s. With the establishment of these new states-
each of which was to develop and increase in power-we enter a new
period of medieval Balkan history. The history of these independent
states will be dealt with in the second volume of this history.
NOTES
1. This section is heavily indebted to the conclusions of J. Ferluga,

Vizantiska uprava u Dalmaciji, Serbian Academy of Sciences, posebna izdanja,
291, Vizantoloski Institut, knj. 6 (Beograd, 1957).
2. For Dvornik's views see F. Dvornik, Byzantine Missions among the
Slavs (New Brusnwick, N.J., 1970).
3. For KlaiC's views see N. Klaic, Povijest Hrvata u ranom srednjem
vijeku (Zagreb, 1971).
APPENDIX
Medieval Rulers
Byzantine Emperors to 1204
324-37 Constantine I
337-61 Constantius
361-63 Julian
363-64 Jovian
364-78 Val ens
379-95 Theodosius I
395-408 Arcadius
408-50 Theodosius II
450-57 Marcian
457-74 Leo I
474 Leo II
474-75 Zeno
475-76 Basiliscus
476-91 Zeno (again)
491-518 Anastasius I
518-27 Justin I
527-65 Justinian I
565-78 Justin II
578-82 Tiberius I Constantine
582-602 Maurice
602-10 Phocas
610-41 Heraclius
641 Constantine III and Heraclonas
641 Heraclonas
641-68 Constans II
293
668-85 Constantine IV
685-95 Justinian II
695-98 Leontius
698-705 Tiberius II
705-11 Justinian II (again)
711-13 Philippicus
713-15 Anastasius II
715-17 Theodosius III
717-41 Leo III
741-75 Constantine V
775-80 Leo IV
780-97 Constantine VI
797-802 Irene
802-11 Nicephorus I
811 Staurakios
811-13 Michael I Rangabe
813-20 Leo V
820-29 Michael II
829-42 Theophilus
842-67 Michael III
867-86 Basil I
886-'-912 Leo VI
912-13 Alexander
913-59 Constantine VII
920-44 Romanus I Lecapenus
959-63 Romanus II
)63-69 Nicephorus II Phocas
969-76 John I Tzimiskes
976-1025 Basil II
1025-28 Constantine VIII
1028-34 Romanus III Argyrus
1034-41 Michael IV
1041-42 Michael V
1042 Zoe and Theodora
1042-55 Constantine IX Monomachus
1055-56 Theodora (again)
Medieval Rulers 295
1056-57 Michael VI
1057-59 Isaac I Comnenus
1059-67 Constantine X Ducas
1068-71 Romanus IV Diogenes
1071-78 Michael VII Ducas
1078-81 Nicephorus III Botaneiates
1081-1118 Alexius I Comnenus
1118-43 John II Comnenus
1143-80 Manuel I Comnenus
1180-83 Alexius II Comnenus
1183-85 Andronicus I Comnenus
1185-95 Isaac II Angelus
1195-1203 Alexius III Angelus
1203-04 Isaac II (again) and
Alexius IV Angeli
1204 Alexius V Murtzuphlus
Bulgarian Rulers
From the arrival of the Bulgars in the Balkans to the Byzantine conquest in 1018
House of Dulo
670s-701 Isperikh (Asparukh)

701-18 Tervel
718-25 (unknown)
725-39 Sevar
Rulers during "Time of Troubles"
739-56 Kormisos
756-ca. 761 Vinekh
ca. 761-ca. 764 Telec
ca. 764-67 Sabin
767 Umar
767-ca. 769 Toktu
ca. 770 Pagan
ca. 770-77 Telerig
777-ca. 803 Kardam
House of Krum
ca. 803-14 Krum

814-31 Omurtag
831-36 Malamir
836-52 Persian (Presiam; possibly same as Malamir)
852-89 Boris I
889-93 Vladimir
893-927 Symeon
927-67 Peter
967-71 Boris II
Descendants of Count Nicholas (The Cometopuli)
from 976 Four brothers (Samuel, Aaron, Moses, David)

986-1014 Samuel (ruling alone)
1014-15 Gabriel Radomir
1015-18 John Vladislav
Rulers of Croatia
Dalmatian Croatia
ca. 800-ca. 810 Viseslav

ca. 810-21 Borna
821-? Barna's nephew
(gap)
845-64 Trpimir I
864 Zdeslav
864-76 Domagoj
876 Domagoj's son
876-79 Zdeslav (again)
879-92 Branimir
892-910 Mutimir (possibly Mutimir died ca. 900 and was
succeeded by several rulers with brief reigns to 910)
Medieval Rulers 297
Dalmatian Croatia United with Slavonia
ca. 910-28 Tomislav (king by 925)

ca. 928-49 (somewhat confused situation follows Tomislav. in-
cluding rule by a Kresimir I)
949-69 Kresimir II
969-97 Stjepan Dr2:islav (king from ca. 988)
997-1000 Svetoslav (with brothers Kresimir and Gojislav)
1000-30 Kresimir III (with Gojislav to 1020)
1030-58 Stjepan I
1058-74/5 Peter Kresimir IV
1075-89/90 Zvonimir
1090-93 "Troubles"
1093-97 Peter
After Stjepan Drzislav's coronation in 988 all Croatian rulers had the title of
king.
Serbian Rulers
mid-ninth century Vlastimir

mid-ninth century (succeeded by 3 sons: Mutimir, Strojimir. and
Gojnik)
? -891 Mutimir (sole rule)
891-92 Prvoslav
892-917 Peter Gojnikovic
917-21 Pavel Branovic
921-24 Zaharije Prvoslavljevic
924-ca. 927/28 (Bulgaria annexes Serbia)
ca. 927/28-ca. 960 Caslav Klonimirovic
Rulers of Duklja (Zeta)
late-tenth century-1016 John Vladimir

(thereafter possibly annexed by Byzantium or possi-
bly a vassal state under a local prince whose name
has not survived)
ca. 1034-43 Vojislav (or Stefan Vojislav)
1043-ca. 1046 (joint rule by several family members)
ca. 1046-1081/82 Michael (king from ca. 1046)

1081/82-ca. 1101 Constantine Bodin (but see chapter 7 for other
views on Bodin's reign-dates)
ca. 1101-02 Michael and Dobroslav
ca. 1102-03 Kocapar
ca. 1103-18 Vladimir
ca. 1118 Juraj
ca. 1118-25 Grubesa
ca. 1125-27 Jura j (again)
ca. 1127-46 Gradinja
1146-? Radoslav (with title knez)
The dates for the successors of Bodin are all approximate and it is possible,
since our source is based on oral tradition, that even the list of names might
have inaccuracies. The rulers from Michael in ca. 1046 through Gradinja ( dy-
ing in ca. 1146) all bore the title king.
Raska
1083/4-ca. 1122 Vukan (governor of Raska for Zeta, who became

independent ruler of Raska with title grand zupan
in early 1090s)
by 1125-early 1140s Uros I
by 1145-early 1160s Uros II (Desa briefly replaced Uros II, 1150, 1155)
ca. 1162 (possibly brief rule by a Primislav and/or Belos)
ca. 1162-ca. 1166 Desa (again)
ca. 1166-67 Tihomir (brother of Stefan Nemanja)
ca. 1168-71 Joint rule (Tihomir, Stefan Nemanja, Stracimir.
Miroslav)
ca. 1171-96 Stefan Nemanja
Hungarian Rulers Discussed in Text
1095-1116 Koloman
1116-31 Stephen II
1131-41 Bela II
1141-62 Geza II
1162-72 Stephen III (throne briefly lost twice to rival
Stephen IV, 1163 and ca. 1165)
1172-96 Bela III
Glossaries
Terms
Adoptionists: People who believed that Jesus was a man adopted by God as
the "Son of God." This current (associated with Paul of Samosata) was
widespread in Syria, Armenia, and the Greek East in the third and fourth
centuries and probably survived as the theological basis for the Paulicians
(active in the empire from the eighth to the eleventh century). Adoption-
ism was considered a heresy by the Orthodox church.
"Adulterer": A term of abuse used by Extremist Byzantine clerics for their
Moderate opponents in the eighth and ninth centuries. It goes back to the
Moderates condoning a second marriage, while his first wife was still alive
(hence adulterous), for the emperor Constantine VI in 793.
Albigensians: The dualist (or Cathar) heretics of southern France derived from
the town of Albi, one of their main centers.
Appanage: A large land grant by a ruler to a member of his family. Usually
not hereditary. Holder usually has rights of internal administration but
owes military service to his superior, and is allowed no independence in
foreign affairs.
Archon: A leader; used in a variety of ways by the Byzantines, e.g., the ruler
of Bulgaria, the leader of their Dalmatian holdings in the eighth century,
etc.
Archonate of Dalmatia: The cities held by the Byzantines along the Dalmatian
coast from the late seventh century through the first half of the ninth
century. The archonate had no overall intercity organization; Zadar was
the capital of the archonate, the seat of the archon. who was a local
Zadar leader.
Arians: Followers of Arius, an Alexandrian theologian, who taught that Jesus
Christ was neither fully God (consubstantial with God) nor coeternal but
a subordinate creature. This view was condemned at the Councils of
Nicea (325) and Constantinople (381). However, the Germanic Goths
were converted by an Arian missionary and Arianism survived as the
dominant form of Christianity among them while they resided in the
Balkans (fourth to late fifth century).
Ban: A ruler or governor of a large province, usually a subordinate of a king.
The title was found used in the western Balkans, in Bosnia, Croatia, and
Slavonia. On occasions the ban-ship became hereditary. Bans also some-
times were able to achieve considerable, if not complete, autonomy.
299
Banovina (sometimes banate): The territory ruled by a ban.

Basileus: A Greek term for king which under the Byzantines came to signify
emperor, and was the term used in the title of the Byzantine emperor.
Basilica: A type of building used for Roman official buildings taken over by
the church in the fourth century to become the major form of early
Byzantine churches. A basilica was a rectangular-shaped church with a
semicircular apse at the end and three aisles separated by two rows of
columns. Basilicas were common in the Balkans prior to the Slavic inva-
sions and this style was also used by the Slavs after their conversion.
Bogomilism: A heretical current arising in Bulgaria in the mid-tenth century,
believing in two principles (i.e., dualistic) which spread beyond Bulgaria
into the Byzantine Empire and from there along the Mediterranean to the
south of western Europe.
Boyar (bojar): A member of the military aristocracy in Bulgaria. In the early
period the boyars were drawn from leading Turkic Bulgar families. The
term was also used in Russia.
Caesar: The second title (after emperor) in the Byzantine Empire until the late
eleventh century, frequently given to the heir to the throne.
Cathars: Dualist heretics found in southern France.
Cometopuli: The four sons of Count Nicholas in Macedonia who rose in 976 to
unite Macedonia. By 986 only one, Samuel, survived. He created a brief
but powerful state centered in Macedonia, but called Bulgarian, which
was eventually conquered by Basil II for Byzantium.
Count palatine: The highest figure below the king at the Hungarian court who
governed in the absence of the king.
Cyrillic: The alphabet used for the Slavic languages of the Orthodox Slavs
(e.g., Bulgarians, Serbs [including Montenegrins], Macedonians, and
Russians). It was named for Saint Cyril (Constantine), one of the two
apostles to the Slavs who worked out the first Slavic literary language
(what we now call Old Church Slavonic).
Despot: An honorary court title of the Byzantine Empire, introduced in the
twelfth century to be the second highest title (after that of basileus).
Doge: The title for the ruler of Venice.
Dragovica: (Church of) a dualist (Bogomil) church based in Thrace in the
thirteenth century; (tribe of) a Slavic tribe found in Macedonia and
Thrace in the seventh and eighth centuries.
Dualist: Religiously, one who believes in two opposing gods or principles:
generally good vs. evil (or spirit vs. matter). Under this heading one finds
the Manichees, Gnostics, the medieval Bogomils, and their western off-
shoots (Patarins, Cathars, etc.).
Dulo, house of: The ruling house of the Onogur Bulgars, ruling north of the
Sea of Azov early in the seventh century, one branch of which conquered
the territory of modern Bulgaria in the 670s. The dynasty died out in 739.
Dux: A Roman military commander. In the Byzantine period the title was
given to the military commander of a small theme (military province),
such as Durazzo or a frontier duchy in the east, such as Antioch. The
doge of Venice was also recognized as dux of Dalmatia in 998. This
signified Venice was to represent Byzantium in Dalmatia.
Emir: A prince or governor of an Islamic territory.
Glossaries 301
Emirate: The territory ruled by an emir.

Emperor of the Romans: The Byzantine emperor's title, and believed to be
the only true and rightful emperor on earth.
Eparch: A Greek title used for a governor (and in the church for a bishop). It
was granted to Ddislav of Croatia (eparch of Dalmatia) in the 990s. In
his case it was probably an honorary title.
Exarch: A high military commander, generally standing over a large province,
an exarchate; e.g., Ravenna (Byzantine Italy), Carthage (Byzantine
North Africa). Also occasionally used in Byzantine sources for a tribal
military leader.
Extremists: A group of Byzantine clerics in the late eighth and ninth centuries
who believed in rigorously observing church laws and were frequently in
opposition to Byzantine state policy.
Federates: Barbarians settled within the Roman Empire, under their own
leaders, who were responsible for the defense of the region of their settle-
ment.
Fibula: In archaeology, a buckle or clasp.
Filioque: "And the Son," an addition to the Nicene Creed, making the Holy
Spirit descend from the Father and the Son. Arising in Spain in the sixth
century, by the ninth it had become regular usage by the western (Cath-
olic) church. After the 1054 break it became the major theological point
of difference between the Orthodox and Catholic churches.
Glagolitic: The first alphabet worked out by Cyril and Methodius for Slavic. It
was soon replaced in most places by the Cyrillic alphabet. However, it
survived for many centuries in Croatia.
Hellene: A Greek; however, since the term connoted a pagan, the Greeks did
not call themselves Hellenes in the Middle Ages, but Romans (since they
considered themselves citizens of the Roman Empire).
Hippodrome: A stadium for horse races. In this book, it generally refers to the
great stadium in Constantinople.
Icon: A religious picture.
Iconoclasm: The belief that there should not be religious pictures, generally
seeing them as a form of idolatry. The term literally means icon-breaking.
This view was state policy in the Byzantine Empire from 730 to 787 and
from 815 to 843.
Iconoclast: One practicing Iconoclasm, an opponent of icons.
Iconodule: One supporting icons, literally a slave (servant) of icons.
Immunities: Exemptions, usually attached to an estate. They could be financial
(from certain taxes) or judicial (allowing the landlord to judge his tenants
for certain types of crimes or law suits).
Inner (or Interior) boyar: A term used for certain Bulgarian boyars in Byzan-
tine sources. It most probably refers to the boyars based at court as
opposed to those resident on estates in the provinces.
Katepan: A Byzantine title arising in Italy for the commander of a military
province. The katepan was the equivalent of a strategos, and in addition
to his military duties also had certain civil functions.
Kavkhan: Bulgarian title; second title in the state. Held by the leading military
commander, excluding the ruler himself, and possibly also regent in the
absence of the khan.
Khagan: Turkish title for a supreme chief used, e.g., by the Avars and
Khazars.
Khan: The same word as khagan; however, scholars usually use the form khan
when describing the pre-Christian rulers of the Bulgars.
Knez (in Serbian or Croatian; knjaz in Bulgarian): Prince.
Libellus: A written declaration; often the basis for a prosecution's case. The
term is a Latin diminutive of liber (book).
Limitanei: Roman troops settled on a border and responsible for its defense.
Logothete: In the Middle Byzantine period, a high Byzantine court secretary
standing at the head of a bureaucratic office.
Manichee: A member of a dualistic religion (opposing light against darkness)
based on the teaching of a third-century Persian named Mani. Damned as
a heresy by the Christian church.
Massalians (or Messalians): Members of an enthusiastic Christian sect. They
believed salvation came from prayer and asceticism and not sacraments.
Little is known about them since all that survive are highly slanderous
attacks by their enemies (accusing them of licentiousness). They arose in
the fourth century in Syria and seem to have died out in the seventh
century. However, attacks upon the later Bogomils frequently use Mas-
salian as a label of abuse for the Bogomils.
Metropolitan: A major bishop, standing over a major diocese, ranking below
the patriarch and above the archbishops.
Moderates: In the eighth and ninth century, the Byzantine church party op-
posed to the Extremists. The Moderates were willing to interpret canons
flexibly. They were willing to tolerate repentant ex-Iconoclasts in church
positions and were willing to bend church canons for the needs of state.
Nicea, Council of: The first ecumenical (universal) church council held at
Nicea in 325 to condemn Arius. It passed the Nicene Creed.
Nicene: One who accepts the creed of the Council of Nicea.
Obscina: The village commune in early modern Russia, a taxable unit.
Old Church Slavonic (OCS): The name recently given by scholars to the Slavic
language devised by Constantine (Cyril) and Methodius in the middle of
the ninth century. The first written Slavic language, they translated the
Bible into it and it became the language of church services for the Ortho-
dox Slavic churches. It was based upon a spoken Macedonian dialect to
which various Greek features were added. The words Old Church distin-
guish it from the various literary languages that evolved from it on the
basis of local spoken languages, e.g., Bulgarian Slavonic, Russian Sla-
vonic, etc.
Orthodox: Correct belief. A term used for the mainstream church in East and
West until the church split. Subsequently the term came to refer to the
eastern churches in communion with Constantinople, while the term Cath-
olic, also originally used to refer to the church both in the East and West,
came to refer solely to the Roman Catholic church.
Outer boyar: A term used for certain Bulgarian boyars in the Byzantine
sources. It most probably refers to the boyars resident on their estates in
the provinces as opposed to those resident at court.
Pallium: A cloak worn by a bishop which was considered a major symbol of his
office.
Glossaries 303
Patarin: A name used for the dualist heretics in Italy, who were part of the
Cathar movement.
Patriarch: A major bishop who was the independent head of a major diocese.
In the early church (from the mid-fifth century) there were five recog-
nized patriarchates: Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Je-
rusalem. After their conversions the various Slavic churches sought (and
at times unilaterally assumed) this title for the heads of their various
churches, sometimes even achieving recognition of this title from the
Constantinopolitan patriarch. The first Slavic patriarch was the Bulgarian,
probably declared by Symeon, recognized by Byzantium in 927. When
Byzantium conquered Bulgaria this patriarch's title was reduced to arch-
bishop.
Patriarchal family: A family unit, often a large one including several genera-
tions, which is autocratically run by the family "patriarch" (usually the
eldest male).
Patrician: Member of an order of high nobility in Byzantium appointed by the
emperor; on occasions foreign princes were honored with this rank by the
Byzantine emperor.
Paulicians: Members of a religious sect, seen as heretical by the Orthodox
church, arising in Armenia and eastern Anatolia. Long considered to be
dualist, but more recently shown to be adoptionist. Many Paulicians, after
suffering military reversals at Byzantine hands, were then transferred to
the Balkans to defend the border with Bulgaria where (centered in Philip-
popolis) they continued to retain their individuality.
Perfectus: A Cathar who had received spiritual baptism and thus was con-
sidered to possess the Holy Spirit. As such he could be considered clergy
as opposed to the larger number of unbaptized (lay) followers.
Perun: The Slavic god of thunder.
Philhellenes: The Europeans and Americans who actively supported the
Greeks in their war of independence against the Turks, 1821-33.
Prefectures: The late Roman-early Byzantine Empire was divided into huge
administrative provinces called prefectures, each under a Praetorian pre-
fect.
Prior of Zadar: The head man of the city of Zadar who, when the Byzantines
in the tenth century were no longer able to take an active role in their
Dalmatian theme, was given the entirely nominal title of strategos of
Dalmatia.
Proconsul: Derived from the title of a Roman governor, this term in the
Byzantine period became an honorary rank which was granted at times to
important foreign leaders.
Pronoia: In the Byzantine empire (and later Bulgaria and Serbia), a grant of a
source of income (usually land) given in exchange for service (usually
military) to the state. The grant was temporary and reverted back to the
state when the holder died or ceased to carry out the duties for which it
was given.
Protostrator: A high Byzantine court title which occasionally was granted to
foreign leaders.
Protovestijar: The title of a Byzantine palace official in charge of the imperial
wardrobe which was taken over by the Slavs. Though it is not certain
what the early Slavic protovestijar's functions were he seems to have been
some sort of financial official.
Sbornik: A collection of texts.
Solidus: A Byzantine coin. Seventy-two of them equaled a Roman pound of
gold. (A Roman pound equaled about twelve American ounces.)
Stefanos: The wreath-shaped crown worn by a Byzantine caesar.
Stemma: The crown worn by the Byzantine emperor.
Strategos (pl. strategoi): A Greek term for "general"; from the seventh cen-
tury used, however, specifically for the military commander of a theme
(military province). He not only commanded the local troops but was also
more or less the governor of the province.
Studites: Monks of the great monastery of Studios in Constantinople. They
were very influential in Byzantine church politics and usually a bastion of
support for the Extremist faction.
Suffragan bishopric: A lesser bishopric subordinate to a greater one.
Synod: A Church council.
Synodik: A text presenting the decisions of a synod.
Theme: Originally a Greek term for an army corps, it came in the seventh
century also to refer to a Byzantine military province defended by that
corps. Soon thereafter the whole Byzantine Empire was divided into
these themes (military provinces) each under the direction of a strategos.
Toponym: A place name.
Tourma: A military district within a theme. Each theme was divided into two
to four such districts, each commanded by a tourmarch.
Tourmarch: The military governor of a tourma.
Tsar: The Slavic translation of the Greek basileus, emperor. The Slavs used
the title when referring to the Byzantine emperor. In time when certain
Slavic rulers (starting with Symeon in Bulgaria in the 910s) claimed for
themselves the imperial title they called themselves tsars.
Zadruga: A scholarly term for the South Slavic extended family, i.e., a house-
hold where several generations of the same family lived together.
Zupa: A territorial unit (roughly equivalent to a county) found in Croatia,
Bosnia, and Serbia.
Zupan: The lord of a county.
Peoples
When a people is referred to below as, e.g., Indo-European or Turkic, it refers

to language spoken rather than to race or ethnicity.
Albanians: An Indo-European people, probably descended from the ancient

Illyrians, living now in Albania as well as in Greece and Yugoslavia.
Antes: An ancient tribe. Though their name is of Iranian origin, by the time
they came into contact with the Byzantine Empire, the Antes were Slavic-
speaking. They appeared from the Steppes in the fifth century in what is
now eastern Rumania and Bessarabia.
Armenians: An Indo-European people living in the Caucasus and in parts of
eastern Anatolia. In the course of the Middle Ages many migrated or
Glossaries 305
were transferred to other regions of Anatolia and the Balkans. They had
their own church which, owing to an interpretation of how the human and
divine were mixed in Christ which differed from that of the Orthodox
church, was considered heretical by the Byzantines.
Arnauts: Another name for the Albanians.
Avars: A Turkic people who migrated into what is now Hungary in the late
sixth century and established through their dominance of other peoples
(including Bulgars and Slavs) a huge empire that included most of what is
now the Ukraine, Rumania, Hungary, Yugoslavia. and Czechoslovakia.
Their empire began declining after successful rebellions by various subject
people in the second quarter of the seventh century. Their independent
power was destroyed by Charlemagne in the 790s.
Belo Croats (White Croats): The Croatians of a Croatian state existing in the
seventh century north of the Carpathians whence, according to Constan-
tine Porphyrogenitus, the Croatians who migrated into the Balkans in the
seventh century came.
Bulgars: A Turkic people, divided into various tribes, found north of the Black
Sea and Sea of Azov. In the late seventh century some of them migrated
across the Danube into what is now northern Bulgaria, where they con-
quered the Slavs already settled there. By the late ninth or early tenth
century the Bulgars had become slavicized. However, their name was
given to the Slavic people (and its language) that resulted. From the tenth
century on the term refers to a Slavic people.
Byzantine: A term invented by scholars to distinguish the later Roman Empire
beginning with Constantine in the 320s, after the empire became centered
in the East and Christian, up to its fall in 1453. However, throughout this
period those we now call Byzantines called, and considered, themselves
Romans even though most of them were Greek-speakers.
Celts: An ancient people which included the Britons, Gauls, and modern Irish.
On their migration west in the fourth century B.c. some settled for a time
in the Balkans, leaving behind certain cultural influences.
Croats: A people, probably of Iranian origin, who migrated into the western
Balkans in the seventh century and subjected the Slavs settled there. In
time they became slavicized but gave their name to the Slavic people (and
its language) of what is now Croatia, Dalmatia, and part of Bosnia. From
the ninth century, if not earlier, they are clearly a Slavic people.
Cumans (Also called the Polovtsy): A Turkic people who appeared in the
Steppes in the eleventh century after the decline of the Pechenegs. They
were a problem for the eastern Balkans for the next two centuries owing
to their raids. However, others settled in Bulgaria and provided a valu-
able portion of the armies of the Second Bulgarian Empire.
Dacians: An ancient Indo-European people settled in what is now Rumania,
northern Bulgaria, and northeastern Yugoslavia. They were scattered by
the Slavic invasions but survived to become the ancestors of the modern
Rumanians and Vlachs.
Dragovica Slavs: A Slavic tribe settled in Thrace and parts of Macedonia noted
in sources of the seventh and eighth century, who gave their name to a
region of Thrace in the Middle Ages.
Ezeritae: A Slavic tribe in the mountains of the Peloponnesus which unlike
most of the other Slavs of Greece did not become hellenized but retained
its identity and remained Slavic-speaking throughout the Middle Ages
into the Ottoman period.
Fatimids: A Muslim dynasty in North Africa founded early in the tenth cen-
tury. In 969 they conquered Egypt and ruled their empire from Cairo.
Franks: A Germanic tribe which conquered most of Gaul and eventually es-
tablished a powerful state centered in what is now France and Germany,
but whose borders extended well beyond. Charlemagne, the greatest
Frankish ruler, in 800 won recognition from the pope that his state was an
empire. In this period the Franks were active in the northwestern Bal-
kans, and for a while were overlords over most of the Croatians.
Gepids: A Germanic tribe found in the fifth and sixth centuries in the north-
western Balkans, and what is now Hungary.
Ghuzz Turks: A Turkish tribe that swept across the Steppes and raided the
Balkans in 1064.
Goths: Germanic tribes, consisting chiefly of Ostrogoths and Visigoths, who
raided and then settled in large numbers (causing considerable chaos) in
the Balkans from the fourth century until the very end of the fifth.
Greeks: The ancient settlers of Greece who also lived along the Thracian coast
and existed in large numbers in Anatolia. They became the dominant
people of the Roman Empire in the period after Constantine moved its
center to the east.
Huns: Asiatic nomads who dominated the Steppes and the Hungarian plains
and raided central Europe and the Balkans during the fifth century. Their
famed leader was Attila.
Hungarians (or Magyars): A Finno-Ugric nomadic people who moved into
what is now Hungary at the end of the ninth century. They established a
powerful state that has survived to the present.
Illyrians: An ancient Indo-European people dominating the western Balkans
(what is now Dalmatia, Bosnia, Albania, Epirus), though conquered by
Rome, until the Slavic invasions. They have survived in a much more
restricted area as the Albanians.
Khazars: A Turkic tribe dominating the Steppes with centers on the lower
Volga and Don. They were a major power in that area from the seventh
century until their destruction by Svjatoslav of Kiev in 965. They were
generally allies of the Byzantines.
Kutrigurs: A Bulgarian tribe noted in the late fifth and sixth centuries living
north of the Black Sea and in what is now Bessarabia.
Lombards: A Germanic people living in the northern Balkans and Pannonia in
the sixth century who migrated into Italy in the late sixth century when
the Avars appeared on their borders.
Magyars: See Hungarians.
Melingi: A Slavic tribe in the mountains of the Peloponnesus which unlike
most of the other Slavs of Greece did not become hellenized but retained
its identity and remained Slavic-speaking throughout the Middle Ages
into the Ottoman period.
Neretljani: A Slavic people, living between the Neretva and Cetina rivers, very
active as sailors and pirates from the ninth through eleventh centuries.
Normans: By the time they hit the Balkans they were French-speaking, having
Glossaries 307
come from Normandy. Most of those active in campaigns in the Balkans

were based in southern Italy which they had conquered in the course of
the eleventh century.
Onogur Bulgars: A Turkic Bulgar tribe first mentioned in the early seventh
century living north of the Black Sea and Sea of Azov. From this group,
led in the 630s by Kovrat, emerged various Bulgar groups including those
led across the Danube by Isperikh in the 670s to found the Bulgarian state
in the Balkans.
Ostrogoths (East Goths): One tribe of Goths which was active in the Balkans
in the fourth and fifth centuries until, led by Theodoric, they conquered
Italy in the 490s, which they ruled until conquered by Justinian in the
550s.
Ottomans (Osmanlis): A Turkish tribe ruled by the dynasty founded by Os-
man (1299-1326) which expanded from a small principality in northwest
Anatolia to conquer the whole Byzantine Empire during the late four-
teenth and fifteenth centuries.
Pechenegs (also Patzinaks): A Turkic tribe which dominated the Steppes from
the end of the ninth to the end of the eleventh centuries. They were
frequently raiders of the Balkans and also participated as mercenaries or
allies in various wars in the Balkans.
Polovtsy: See Cumans.
Roman: A citizen of the Roman Empire. In the Byzantine period (324-1453)
the citizens of that empire, though chiefly composed of Greek-speakers,
continued to call themselves Romans.
Sarmatians: An Iranian tribe originating in the Steppes but settled in the
territory north of the Danube in the third, fourth, and fifth centuries.
Saxons: Germans from Saxony; however, in time many migrated to Hungary
where some became active as miners. Some came from Hungary into
various Balkan regions between the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries,
where they were known as Sasi.
Scythians: An Iranian people which dominated the Steppes during the first
millennium B.c.
Seljuks: A Turkish dynasty establishing itself in Iraq (Baghdad) in the middle
of the eleventh century as protectors of the caliph. Their tribesmen (with
other Joyal Turkish tribes) expanded to control almost all of Anatolia by
the 1080s.
Serbs: A people, probably of Iranian origin, who migrated into what is now
southeastern Yugoslavia in the first half of the seventh ce'ntury and sub-
jected the Slavs settled there. In time they became slavicized but gave
their name to the Slavic people and its language of what is now Serbia,
Montenegro, part of Bosnia, and most of Hercegovina. From the ninth
century, if not earlier, they are clearly a Slavic people.
The Seven Tribes: A group of Slavic tribes (probably having formed some sort
of confederation) existing in Bulgaria in the 670s who were conquered by
the invading Bulgars.
The Severi: A Slavic tribe in Bulgaria which even after the arrival of the
Bulgars still was found maintaining considerable independence during the
eighth century.
Slaveni: A Slavic tribe mentioned living north of the Danube in the fifth and
sixth centuries which provided much of the manpower which over-

whelmed the Balkans in the sixth and early seventh centuries.
Slavs: A major Indo-European group of people speaking one of several Slavic
languages. In this study we are concerned with South Slavs: the Bulgari-
ans, Serbs, Croats, Macedonians, and Slovenes.
Slovenes: The South Slavic people found occupying what is now Slovenia and
speaking Slovenian.
Smoljane: A Slavic tribe mentioned living in the vicinity of the Struma River
in the ninth century.
Thracians: An Indo-European people living in Thrace and much of what is
now Bulgaria prior to the Gothic and Slavic invasions. In the period after
the Slavic invasions they disappeared completely.
Timok Slavs: Slavs settled on the Timok River who were active politically,
trying to assert their independence from the Bulgarians, in the ninth
century.
Turkomen (or Turcomen): Turkic nomadic tribesmen from Central Asia who
began pouring into Anatolia in the eleventh century. Many were asso-
ciated with the Seljuks.
Turks: A major linguistic group of people originating in Central Asia, many of
whom swept across the Steppes, some migrating as far west as the Hun-
garian plain. They had impact on the Balkans as raiders or as overlords of
people settled within the Balkans. The major Turkic people discussed in
this study were the original Bulgars, Avars, Khazars, Pechenegs, Cu-
mans, and Ghuzz. In Byzantine sources the term Turk was regularly used
for the Hungarians (Magyars), though they are not really a Turkish
people.
Utigurs: A Bulgarian tribe living north of the Black Sea in the late fifth and
sixth centuries.
Uze: See Ghuzz.
Varangians: Originally a particular Scandinavian people who were active in
Russia. The term soon came to mean a military servitor hired for service
in Kiev an Rus (and subsequently hired via Kiev for service in the Byzan-
tine Empire). Varangians formed a famous bodyguard corps in Constanti-
nople in the eleventh century.
Visigoths (West Goths): A Gothic tribe that carried out raids in the fourth
century in the Balkans before moving further west.
Vlachs: A pastoral people, related to the Rumanians and presumably de-
scended from the Dacians, found in large numbers in certain parts of the
Balkans. In the Middle Ages so many were found in Thessaly that that
region was known for a while as Valachia. Many others were found in
Macedonia, Bulgaria (where they played an important role in forming the
Second Bulgarian Empire), Hercegovina, and northeastern Serbia.
West Turks: A group of Turks based in western Central Asia who were over-
lords over the Utigur Bulgars in the second half of the sixth century.
White Croats: See Bela Croats.
Sources and Authors of Sources
Referred to in the Text
Anna Comnena (1083-ca. 1148): Daughter of the Emperor Alexius I Comne-

nus (1081-1118) and author of a history of her father's reign, The Alex-
iad; the work was completed in 1148.
Arethas: Byzantine author and churchman active in the late ninth and early
tenth centuries. Bishop of Caesarea, exiled to Greece, owing to his oppo-
sition to the fourth marriage of Leo VI in 906. His letters from exile are a
valuable source on early-tenth-century Athens. He was also involved in
copying classical manuscripts.
Baril's Synodik: The results of the synod held by Tsar Boril of Bulgaria against
the Bogomils in 1211.
"On the Bulgarian Peace": An anonymous Byzantine court oration from ca.
927 which discusses Nicholas Mysticus's dealings with Symeon of Bul-
garia.
Choniates, Niketas (died 1210): Byzantine historian whose history deals with
the period from the death of Alexius Comnenus in 1118 to 1206.
Chronicle of the Priest of Dioclea: See Dioclea, Chronicle of the Priest of.
Constantine Porphyrogenitus: Byzantine emperor, born 905, died 959, who was
a coemperor with his father, Leo VI, from 907, was titular emperor under
various regencies 913-19, shared the throne with Romanus I Lecapenus
(919-44), and then ruled alone from 944 to 959. Since Romanus I ran the
state, Constantine was diverted into literary activities, which he continued
even after 944. His three major works are De administrando imperio (an
unfinished work from the 950s) dealing with the foreign policy of the
empire, diplomatic techniques, and sketches of the neighbors with whom
the Byzantines had to deal-the most important of his works for this study;
the Book of Ceremonies; and the Book of Themes (describing the Byzan-
tine military provinces, known as themes).
Cosmas the Priest: A Bulgarian priest and author of a tract against the Bogo-
mils. Written in about 970, it is the most important source we have on the
beliefs of the Bogomils in Bulgaria.
Court Law for the People [Zakon sudnyi ljud'm]: A legal text in Slavic, based
upon the Byzantine law code known as The Ecloga, adapted to Bulgarian
conditions, appearing during the reign of Boris I (852-89). Scholars are
not agreed on whether it was compiled in Moravia and brought from
there to Bulgaria or whether it was compiled in Bulgaria.
309
Demetrius, St., Miracles of: See Miracles of Saint Demetrius.

Dioclea (Duklja), Chronicle of the Priest of: A mid-twelfth-century chronicle,
possibly originally written in Slavic, but surviving only in Latin transla-
tion. Much of it is based on oral tradition and thus there is considerable
debate about the reliability of much of its contents. It is, however, the
most detailed source we have for the early history of Duklja, what is now
Montenegro, and Hum (Zahumlje~which roughly consists of modern
Hercegovina). It also has information on the history of Bosnia, Croatia,
and Macedonia.
Ecloga, The: Byzantine law code issued by Leo III (717-41).
Euthymius, Life of: Saint's life of Euthymius, an ascetic made patriarch by
Leo VI when Nicholas Mysticus refused to accept the emperor's fourth
marriage. It is an important, but biased, source for Byzantine events,
particularly church-related ones, during the reigns of Leo VI and Alex-
ander.
Evagrius: Byzantine church historian who died near the end of the sixth cen-
tury. His history covers the period 431-593.
Farlati, D. (1690-1773): A Jesuit historian of the church in the western Bal-
kans. His work (done in conjunction with two other Jesuits, but published
under Farlati's name) lllyricum Sacrum was published in Venice in nine
volumes between 1751 and 1819. Though basically a work of synthesis
(thus a secondary work rather than a primary source), it does contain
many no-longer-extant documents, some of which are of doubtful authen-
ticity, about the history of the church in Bosnia, Croatia, and Dalmatia.
Farmer's Law, The: A Byzantine legal text (though probably only a guide for
judges in a particular province of the Byzantine Balkans) issued in the
late seventh or early eighth century. It almost entirely treats issues that
might arise within a village and is a major source for village conditions at
that time. A controversial document, it is discussed in detail in chapter 3.
Fredegar's Chronicle: A late-seventh-century Frankish chronicle.
Gregory the Decapolite, Life of: A ninth-century saint's life which has some
information on conditions in and communications across the Balkans of
that time.
Hambarli Inscription: An inscription in Greek found in a village of that name
in Thrace put up by Krum's occupation authority describing how the
territory he had taken from Byzantium in 812-13 was to be administered.
Hincmar (806-82): Frankish churchman and chronicler writing the period 861-
82 of the Annates Bertiniani. Though primarily a source on western
events, he does give information on the establishment of Christianity in
Bulgaria.
Historia Salonitana maior (HSM): A sixteenth-century expansion of Thomas
the Archdeacon of Split's History of Split (written in the middle of the
thirteenth century). Since it is not clear when and under what circum-
stances these additions came to be added to Thomas's text the HSM is a
controversial source. It is discussed in some detail in chapter 8.
Hrabr's Defense of Slavic letters: A defense of Slavic letters written by an
anonymous Bulgarian monk (writing under the pseudonym of Hrabr [the
Brave]) in the early tenth century. It is discussed in detail and quoted
from at length in chapter 5.
HSM: See Historia Salonitana maior.

Isidore of Seville (ca. 560-636): Spanish churchman, encyclopedist, historian,
and theologian. In one of his historical works he refers to the Slavic
presence in Greece at the time of Heraclius.
John of Ephesus (ca. 505-ca. 585): Syrian church historian, writing in Syriac,
whose Ecclesiastical History has a detailed description of the Slavic pene-
tration of the Balkans after 578.
John the Exarch: Bulgarian churchman and author from the time of Symeon
(893-927), whose major work, the Sestodnev (the Six Days) is an account
of creation based heavily on Saint Basil's Hexaemeron. Its preface, how-
ever, is original; a panegyric addressed to Symeon, it also praises (and
briefly describes) his capital of Preslav.
John of Rila: Born ca. 880, founder of the Rila monastery, medieval Bulgaria's
greatest monastic center, and author in about 941 of a Spiritual Testament
which established a rigorous monastic rule for his monastery.
Kekaumenos: An eleventh-century Byzantine general who in the 1070s wrote
a military manual (Strategikon), which not only has descriptions of mili-
tary tactics but also describes particular military events including ele-
venth-century uprisings in the Balkans.
Kinnamos: Byzantine historian, born after 1143, disappearing from the sources
after 1185. Author of a history covering the period 1118-76.
Leo Choerosphaktes: Byzantine envoy to Symeon during the Bulgarian-
Byzantine war (894-97) whose letters survive and are a major source on
the war and on Symeon.
Leo the Deacon: Tenth-century Byzantine historian whose history covers the
period 959-76 and is the major source for the war of Svjatoslav against
Nicephorus Phocas and John Tzimiskes in Bulgaria.
Liutprand of Cremona: Western envoy who twice visited Constantinople, once
during the reign of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus and once during the
reign of Nicephorus Phocas. He wrote up both these embassies.
Logothete, Chronicle of the: A chronicle written by a tenth-century high court
official (bearing the title of logothete) covering the period 813 to 948. A
large portion of the chronicle known as the Continuator of Theophanes
consists of the Logothete's chronicle.
Lucius (1604-79): A historian from Dalmatia who wrote about Croatia and
Dalmatia.
Al-Mas'udi: A tenth-century Arab geographer (died 956) whose wide travels
included Russia. Among other things he confirms the existence of the
White Croatians whom Constantine Porphyrogenitus discusses.
Menander: A sixth-century Byzantine historian whose history covers the pe-
riod 559-82 and provides considerable information about the Antes, Sla-
veni, and A vars. His work only partially survives in extracts incorporated
in the works of later authors.
Miracles of Saint Demetrius: A collection of tales concerning miracles per-
formed by Saint Demetrius after his death for the benefit of Thessaloniki.
The Miracles were compiled in that city in the seventh century and are a
major source for the history of the Slavic settlement in that region and the
relations Thessaloniki had with these Slavs and with the Bulgar Kuver.
Monemvasia, Chronicle of: A late-tenth- or early-eleventh-century anonymous
chronicle from Monemvasia (on the southern tip of the Peloponnesus)

which Charanis has shown to be based partially on earlier written sources.
It provides considerable material on the Peloponnesus from the seventh
to the ninth centuries.
Nicephorus (ca. 758-ca. 829): Byzantine churchman, patriarch of Constantino-
ple (806-15), opponent of iconoclasm, wrote a history of the empire
covering the years 602-769.
Nicholas III: Patriarch of Constantinople (1084-1111). Some letters of his
survive including one to Alexius I referring to Slavic control of Greece
during the late sixth to ninth centuries. His information was clearly de-
rived from some other source.
Nicholas Mysticus: Patriarch of Constantinople (901-07, 913-25). Many of his
letters survive, including his side of the correspondence with Symeon
during the long Byzantine-Bulgarian war (913-27). His letters are a major
source on Symeon and the war.
Philotheus's Kletorologion (899): A guide listing whom to invite to imperial
ceremonies and the order of precedence of different positions. A major
source for the administration and social hierarchies of the empire.
Procopius: Byzantine historian, contemporary of Justinian (527-65). His
works are the major source on Justinian's reign: History of the Wars,
Secret History, and On Buildings. A very opinionated writer whose views
differed from work to work. He has considerable material on the Slavs of
his time.
Pseudo- Maurice, Strategikon: A military manual attributed, perhaps correctly,
to the emperor Maurice (582-602). If he was not the actual author he
may well have ordered the work done. Among other things it discusses
methods of warfare against the Slavs and contains information on their
way of life.
Rayner Sacconi: An Italian inquisitor of the mid-thirteenth century who wrote
a tract on the Cathars, which also presents information about the organi-
zation of the dualist churches of the east in his day. Having been a
Cathar in his youth, Rayner is considered a more accurate authority
about the heretics than many other Catholic inquisitorial sources.
Russian Primary Chronicle (Povest' vremennyh let): A chronicle compilation
from the early twelfth century, containing both oral and earlier written
material. I have used it chiefly for the information it contains on Svjato-
slav's warfare in Bulgaria (965-71) and on the condition of Bulgaria at
the time.
Skylitzes: A Byzantine official who at the end of the eleventh century wrote a
chronicle covering the period 811 to 1057. The work is original only from
944; his coverage of the years prior to that date is chiefly from the Contin-
uator of Theophanes. Recent scholarship is showing Skylitzes to contain
many inaccuracies.
Strabo, Abbreviator of: A medieval (eighth- to tenth-century) editor of the
classical geographer Strabo (ca. 63 B.C.-A.D. 21) whose comments note
the presence of the Slavs in Greece.
Strategikon, attributed to Maurice: See Pseudo-Maurice, Strategikon.
Svjatoslav's Sbornik: Svjatoslav's collection. A collection of texts, probably a
translation of a popular Byzantine encyclopedia. Usually named after
Prince Svjatoslav II of Kiev (1073-76) since the text survived in his copy,
the work actually goes back to Symeon of Bulgaria.
Taktikon of Uspenskij: A military manual from the ninth century, compiled
between 842 and 846. It contains considerable information about the
themes (military provinces) that existed in the empire at the time it was
composed. It is named for the Russian Byzantinist who edited its text.
Theophanes: Byzantine monk and chronicler who compiled his chronicle be-
tween 810 and 814. His chronicle covers the period from 284 to 813. His
work is the major source for Byzantine events of the seventh and eighth
centuries.
Theophanes Continuatus (or the Continuator of Theophanes): A compilation
drawn up in the middle of the tenth century at the orders of Constantine
VII Porphyrogenitus. It picks up where Theophanes ends (813) and contin-
ues the history to 961. It is not the work of a single author but a collection
of different works stuck together: e.g. Constantine VII's Life of Basil, the
Chronicle of the Logothete.
Theophylact, Patriarch of Constantinople (933-56): His letter to Peter of Bul-
garia from ca. 940, and presumably based on a no-longer-extant letter
from Peter, is the earliest source about the Bogomils in Bulgaria and
sheds some light on the heresy itself.
Theophylact of Ohrid: A Greek who was bishop of Ohrid (ca. 1090-1109),
many of whose letters from Ohrid survive and are a major source for
conditions in Bulgaria at his time.
Thomas the Archdeacon of Split: Thomas died in 1268. He was the author of a
History of Split which is a most important but biased source for the
history of Split from the seventh to the thirteenth centuries. An expanded
version of his work from the sixteenth century, known as His to ria Saloni-
tana maior, also exists.
Willibald: Bishop of Mainz and a pilgrim to Jerusalem in the 720s who refers
to Monemvasia being a Slavic land.
Yahya ibn Said of Antioch (ca. 980-1066): An Arab Christian living in Anti-
och who wrote in Arabic a chronicle covering the period 936-1034. In
addition to eastern events, he has considerable material on Byzantine
events including the warfare between Samuel of Bulgaria and Byzantium.
Zakon sudnyi ljud'm: See Court Law for the People.
Selected Bibliography
Ashburner, W. "The Farmer's Law." Journal of Hellenic Studies 30 (1910):85-

108; 32 (1912): 68-83. Includes an English translation.
Balcanoslavica. Vol. 1. Beograd, 1972. Contains a variety of important papers
on the results of archaeology.
Barisic, F. "Car Foka (602-610) i podunavski Avaro-Sloveni." Zbornik radova
Vizantoloskog Instituta (Serbian Academy of Sciences) 4 (1956):73-86.
- - - . Cuda Dimitrija solunskog kao istoriski izvori. Serbian Academy of
Sciences, posebna izdanja, 219, Vizantoloski lnstitut, knj. 2. Beograd,
1953.
- - - . "Proces slovenske kolonizacije istocnog Balkana." In Simpozijum
predslavenski etnicki elementi na Balkanu u etnogenezi juinih Slovena,
edited by A. Benac. Sarajevo, 1969. Pp. 11-27. See also Barisic's re-
marks in the general discussion, ibid., pp. 122-23.
Barker, J. Justinian and the Later Roman Empire. Madison, Wis., 1966.
Benac, A., ed. Simpozijum predslavenski etnicki elementi na Balkanu u etnoge-
nezi juinih Slovena. Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Her-
cegovina, posebna izdanja, knj. 12, Centar za Balkanoloska ispitivanja,
knj. 4. Sarajevo, 1969.
Birnbaum, H. "The Original Homeland of the Slavs and the Problem of Early
Slavic Linguistic Contacts." Indo-European Studies 1, no. 4 (Winter
1973):407-21.
Bon, A. Le Peloponnese byzantin jusqu'en 1204. Paris, 1951. Especially pp. 1-
76.
Brand, C. Byzantium Confronts the West, 1180-1204. Cambridge, Mass.,
1968.
Browning, R. Byzantium and Bulgaria. Berkeley, Calif., 1975.
- - - . "A New Source on Byzantine-Hungarian Relations in the Twelfth
Century." Balkan Studies 2, no. 2 (1961): 173-214.
Bury, J. A History of the Later Roman Empire. New edition covering the
period 395-565. 2 vols. London, 1923.
Cankova-Petkova, G. "Bulgarians and Byzantium during the First Decades
after the Foundation of the Bulgarian State." Byzantinoslavica 24, no. 1
(1963):41-53.
- - - . "Contribution au sujet de Ia conversion des Bulgares au Christian-
isme." Byzantinobulgarica 4 (1973):21-39.
- - - . "0 territorii bolgarskogo gosudarstva v VII-IX vv." Vizantijskij vre-
mennik 17 (1960):124-43.
315
Charanis, P. "The Chronicle of Monemvasia and the Question of the Slavonic

Settlements in Greece." Dumbarton Oaks Papers 5 (1950):141-66.
- - - . "Kouver, the Chronology of His Activities and Their Ethnic Effect on
the Regions around Thessalonica." Balkan Studies 11, no. 2 (1970):229-
47.
- - - . "Nicephorus I, The Savior of Greece from the Slavs (810 A.D.)."
Byzantina-Metabyzantina 1, no. 1 (1946):75-92.
- - - . "Observations on the History of Greece during the Early Middle
Ages." Balkan Studies 11, no. 1 (1970):1-34.
- - - . "The Significance of Coins as Evidence for the History of Athens and
Corinth in the Seventh and Eighth Centuries." Historia 4 (1955):163-72.
Cremosnik, I. "Die Chronologien der aeltesten slavischen Funde in Bosnien
und der Herzegovina." Archaeologia lugoslavica (Beograd) 11 (1970):99-
103.
Constantine Porphyrogenitus. De Administrando Imperio. Vol. 1, Greek text
and English translation, edited by Gy. Moravcsik and R. Jenkins. Dum-
barton Oaks Texts, vol. 1. Washington, D.C., 1967. Vol. 2, Commentary.
edited by R. Jenkins. London, 1962.
Cosmas, Presbyter. Le Traite contre les Bogomiles de Cosmas le Pretre. Edited
and Translated by H-C. Puech and A. Vaillant. Travaux publies par
l'Institut d'Etudes Slaves, no. 21. Paris, 1945.
Dewey, H. W., and Kleimola, A.M. Zakon sudnyi ljudem (Court Law for the
People). Michigan Slavic Materials, no. 14. Ann Arbor, Mich., 1977.
Diaconu, P. Les Coumans au Bas-Danube aux XI" et XII" siecles. Bucharest.
1978.
- - - . Les Petchenegues au Bas-Danube. Bucharest, 1970.
Dujcev, I. "La Chronique byzantine de !'an 811." Travaux et memoires 1
(1965):205-54.
- - - . Medioevo Bizantino-slavo. 3 vols. Rome, 1965-71.
- - - . "Protobulgares et Slaves." In I. Dujcev, Medioevo Bizantino-slavo.
Vol. 1. Rome, 1965. Pp. 67-82.
Dvornik, F. Byzantine Missions among the Slavs. New Brunswick, N.J., 1970.
- - - . "Deux inscriptions Greco-Bulgares de Philippes." Bulletin de Corre-
spondance Hellenique 52 (1928):140-43.
- - - . The Making of Central and Eastern Europe. London, 1949. Appen-
dices, pp. 268-304, discuss the Serb and Croat states beyond the Carpa-
thians.
- - - . The Photian Schism in History and Legend. Cambridge, 1948.
Farmer's Law, The. For this text see Ashburner, W. "The Farmer's Law.''
Journal of Hellenic Studies 30 (1910):85-108; 32 (1912):68-83.
Ferjancic, B. Vizantija i juini Sloveni. Beograd, 1966.
Ferluga, J. Byzantium on the Balkans. Amsterdam, 1976.
- - - . "Drac i Dracka oblast pred kraj X i pocetkom XI veka. ,. Zbornik
radova Vizantolo§kog Instituta (Serbian Academy of Sciences) 8, no. 2
(1964): 117-30.
- - - . "Les insurrections des Slaves de Ia Macedoine au XI" siecle." In J.
Ferluga, Byzantium on the Balkans. Amsterdam, 1976. Pp. 379-97.
- - - . "Sur Ia date de Ia creation du Theme de Dyrrachium." In J. Ferluga,
Byzantium on the Balkans. Amsterdam, 1976. Pp. 215-24.
Selected Bibliography 317
- - - . Vizantiska uprava u Dalmaciji. Serbian Academy of Sciences, posebna

izdanja, 291, Vizantoloski Institut, knj. 6. Beograd, 1957.
Fine, J. The Bosnian Church: A New Interpretation. East European Mono-
graphs, vol. 10, East European Quarterly, distributed by Columbia Uni-
versity Press. Boulder and New York, 1975.
- - - . "A Fresh Look at Bulgaria under Tsar Peter (927-969)." Byzantine
Studies 5, pts. 1-2 (1978):88-95.
- - - . "The Size and Significance of the Bulgarian Bogomil Movement."
East European Quarterly 11, no. 4 (Winter 1977):385-412.
Garsoian, N. The Paulician Heresy. The Hague, 1967.
Georgiev, V. "The Genesis of the Balkan Peoples." Slavonic and East Euro-
pean Review 44, no. 103 (July 1966):285-97.
Gimbutas, M. The Slavs. New York, 1971.
Gjuzelev, V. Knjaz Boris P"rvi. Sofija, 1969.
lstorija Crne Gore. Vol. 1. Titograd, 1967. A collective work covering the
period from prehistory to the end of the twelfth century.
Jenkins, R. Byzantium: The Imperial Centuries A.D. 610-1071. New York,
1966.
- - - . "The Peace with Bulgaria (927) Celebrated by Theodore Daphno-
pates." Polychronion, Winter 1966, pp. 287-303.
Jirecek, K. lstorija Srba. Translated into Serbo-Croatian and updated by J.
Radonic. 2 vols. Beograd, 1952.
Jones, A. H. M. The Later Roman Empire. 2 vols. Norman, Okla., 1964.
Karlin-Hayter, P. "The Emperor Alexander's Bad Name." Speculum 44, no. 4
(1969):585-96.
Kinnamos, John. Deeds of John and Manuel Comnenus. Translated by C.
Brand. New York, 1976.
Klaic, N. Povijest Hrvata u ranom srednjem vijeku. Zagreb, 1971.
Kolias, G. Leon Choerosphactes. Athens, 1939.
Kovacevic, J. A varski Kaganat. Beograd, 1977.
Lemerle, P. "Invasions et migrations dans les Balkans." Revue historique 211
(1954):265-308.
Liutprand of Cremona. The Works of Liutprand of Cremona. Translated by
F. A. Wright. London, 1930. See in particular Liutprand's Legatio.
M., F. "Dukljanska kraljevina." Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja (Sarajevo) 11
(1899):237-315, 611-97: 12 (1900):1-63. The initials by which the article
is signed stand for F. Milobar.
Mosin, V. "0 periodizacii russko-juznoslavjanskih literaturnyh svjazej X-XV
vv." Trudy otdela drevnerusskoj literatury 19 (1963):28-106.
Nicholas I, Patriarch of Constantinople. The Letters of Nicholas I, Patriarch
of Constantinople. Edited and translated by R. Jenkins and L. G.
Westerink. Greek text with English translation. Corpus Fontium Histo-
riae Byzantinae 6. Dumbarton Oaks Texts, vol. 2. Washington, D.C.,
1973.
Obolensky, D. The Bogomils. Cambridge, 1948.
- - - . The Byzantine Commonwealth. New York, 1971.
Ostrogorsky, G. [Spelled Ostrogorski in Yugoslav publications]. "A vtokrator i
samodrzac." In G. Ostrogorski, Vizantija i Sloveni. Beograd, 1970. Pp.
281-364. Discussion on Bulgaria, pp. 303-21.
- - - . "The Byzantine Empire in the World of the Seventh Century.·· Dum-

barton Oaks Papers 13 (1959):3-21.
- - - . History of the Byzantine State. 3d ed. New Brunswick. N.J., 1969.
- - - . "Postanak Tema Helada i Peloponez." Zbornik radova Vizantoloskog
Instituta (Serbian Academy of Sciences) 1 (1952):64-75.
- - - . Vizantija i Sloveni. Beograd, 1970.
Pundeff, M. "National Consciousness in Medieval Bulgaria." Sudost-
Forschungen 27 (1968):1-27.
Radojcic, B. "0 hronologiji ugarsko-vizantijskih borbi i ustanku Srba za
vreme Jovana II Komnina." Zbornik radova Vizantoloskog Instituta (Ser-
bian Academy of Sciences) 7 (1961):177-86.
Runciman, S. The Eastern Schism. Oxford, 1955.
- - - . A History of the First Bulgarian Empire. London, 1930.
Russian Primary Chronicle, The. Edited by S. H. Cross. Cambridge, Mass.,
1953.
Sisic, F. Pregled povijesti hrvatskoga naroda. Zagreb, 1962.
Stokes, A. D. "The Background and Chronology of the Balkan Campaigns of
Svjatoslav." Slavonic and East European Review 40 (1961):43-57.
- - - . "The Balkan Campaigns of Svjatoslav lgorevich." Slavonic and East
European Review 40 (1962):466-96.
Sullivan, R. E. "Khan Boris and the Conversion of Bulgaria: A Case Study of
the Impact of Christianity on a Barbarian Society." Studies in Medieval
and Renaissance History (University of Nebraska) 3 (1966):51-139
Swoboda, V. "L'origine de !'organisation de l'eglise en Bulgarie et ses rap-
ports avec le patriarcat de Constantinople (870-919)." Byzantinobulgar-
ica 2 (1966):67-81.
Vaklinov, S. Formirane na starob"lgarskata kultura. Sofija, 1977.
Vasiliev, A. A. History of the Byzantine Empire. 2 vols. Madison. Wis., 1958.
Venedikov, I. "La population byzantine en Bulgarie au debut du IXe siecle."
Byzantinobulgarica l (1962):261-77.
Zakon sudnyi ljudem. For this text see Dewey, H. W., and Kleimola, A. M.
Zakon sudnyi ljudem (Court Law for the People). Michigan Slavic Materi-
als, no. 14. Ann Arbor, Mich., 1977.
Zlatarski, V. Istorija na b"lgarskata d"riava prez srednite vekove. Vol.l, pt. 1.
Vol. 1, pt. 2. Vol. 2. Vol. 3. Sofija, 1938-40.
- - - . "Politiceskijat zivot na B"lgarite pri car Simeona 893-927." B"lgarija
1000 godini 927-1927. Sofija, 1930. Pp. 3-49.
Index
For major events, see the Contents. Since C, S, and Z are the equiva-
lents of Ch, Sh, and Zh, words using these letters are alphabetized as if
they were written Ch, Sh, and Zh. Italicized numbers in the index
refer to items referred to, but not by name (e.g., Constantinople being
referred to as "the capital," Jakvinta being referred to as "Bodin's
wife"). The limited number of topical headings are not complete; they
are intended to pick up more sustained discussions and do not attempt
to include all passing references.
Aachen (town), 252; Peace of, 254 Comnenus), Byzantine emperor,

Aaron (brother of Samuel), 188, 243, 245, 246
189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 198, 204, Alexius III Angelus (Byzantine em-
205 peror), 247
Abydos (town), 197; map 4 Almas (brother of King Koloman of
Adrianople (city), 79, 88, 98, 99, Hungary), 234, 235, 236, 238, 284
102, 104, 108, 148, 152, 197, 210, Alusianus (son of John Vladislav),
226; maps 3, 4 204, 205-06
Adriatic Sea, 3, 4, 5, 83, 195, 200, Anatolia (also Asia Minor), 2, 6, 12,
201, 237, 250, 252, 253, 256, 257, 15, 18, 41, 63, 65, 66, 70, 71, 84,
258, 259, 274, 275, 276, 281, 290; 86, 88, 95, 151, 173, 176, 177, 180,
maps 1, 2 184, 188, 192, 193, 199, 205, 209,
Aegean Sea, 4, 14, 34, 140, 195, 246; 214, 225, 226, 227, 234, 235, 243,
maps 1, 2 245, 274; map 2
Africa, North, 14, 22, 152, 153 Anchialos (town), 104, 149, 150;
Agatha (wife of Samuel), 195 Battle of, 149, 150; map 3
Albania, Albanians, 1, 2, 3, 7, 9-12, Andronicus I Comnenus (Byzantine
13, 37, 59, 60, 64, 193, 195, 290; emperor), 245, 246
maps 2, 6 Anna Comnena (Byzantine princess
Albigensians (French heretics), 176 and author), 223, 225, 228
Alexander (Byzantine emperor), 142, Antes (tribe), 25-26, 29, 36, 57, 66
143 Antioch (city), 181, 190
Alexander II, Pope, 216 Apulia (region in southern Italy),
Alexius I Comnenus (Byzantine em- 281; map 2
peror), 221, 225, 226, 227, 228, Aquileia (city with important bishop-
230, 231, 232, 281, 282 ric), 252, 253, 267, 273; map 5
Alexius II Comnenus (son of Manuel Arabs, also Saracens, 15, 56, 58, 61,
319
320 Index
Arabs, also Saracens (continued) Bar (town), 206, 215, 216, 221, 223-
65, 66, 75, 83, 103, 118, 122, 139, 24; Bishop of, 215, 216, 221, 223-
140, 152-53, 163, 180, 181, 188, 24; maps 3, 5
190, 253, 256, 257, 258, 259, 274 Bardas (strategos), 104, 105
Arcadiopolis (town), 185, 186, 188; Bardas (uncle of and regent for Mi-
Battle of, 185, 186, 188; maps 3, 4 chael III), 115
Arethas (archbishop of Caesarea and Bardas Phocas. See Phocas, Bardas
author), 83 Bari (town in Italy), 214, 222, 257,
Arians, Arian dispute, 16-17, 18 281, 282; map 2
Armenia, Armenians, 6, 12, 43, 67, Barisic, F. (scholar), 34, 39, 46
71, 80, 104, 119, 149, 162, 169, Basil I (Byzantine emperor), 83, 89,
173, 188, 189 122-23, 124, 125-26, 132, 257
Armeniak theme, 71 Basil II (Byzantine emperor), 180,
Ashot (son of Gregory Taronites), 182, 183, 192, 193, 194, 197, 198,
194-95, 197 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 206,
Asia Minor. See Anatolia 207, 208, 218, 219, 275, 276, 277,
Asparukh. See Isperikh 278, 281
Athanasius (abbot of Mount Athos Basil of Caesarea, Saint, 133
Lavra), 180 Bavaria, 47, 50, 261
Athens (city), 3, 18, 61, 71, 82; map Bela I (king of Hungary), 279
4 Bela II (king of Hungary), 234, 236,
Athos, Mount (monastic center), 238
180-81; map 4 Bela III (king of Hungary), 238, 240,
Attica (region in Greece), 71; map 2 241, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 289
Attila the Hun, 66 Bela Croats. See White Croats
Augustus (Roman emperor), 12 Belos (brother of Uros II), 236, 237,
Avars (tribe), 2, 14, 23, 25, 29-37, 239, 240
38, 39, 41-43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, Benjamin (son of Symeon), 160, 163
49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, Beograd (town), 3, 31, 32, 36, 37,
58, 59, 65, 66, 67, 78, 94, 95, 96, 53, 107, 204, 211, 227,235, 246,
97, 99, 101, 251, 252 256, 288; maps 3, 6
Avlona (town), 237; map 4 Berrhoia (town), 104, 197; map 3
Awv,&acl,~,~.«,~.~ Bessarabia (region), 44, 67, 139; map
2
Backa (region), 26; map 2 Bijeljina (town), 39; map 6
Bajan (son of Symeon). See Benjamin Biograd (town), 254, 263, 273, 276,
Balkan Mountains, 1, 2, 44, 46, 67, 280, 281, 284, 289; map 5
72, 74, 100, 106, 118, 186, 209, Bitola (town), 45; map 6
247; maps 1, 2, 3 Black Sea, 13, 14, 29, 43, 44, 66, 67,
Ban of Croatia and Dalmatia, title 68, 69, 74, 97, 98, 103, 106, 118,
and role of, 236, 240-41, 242, 286, 149, 195; maps 1, 2
287; banovina of, 240-41, 242, Bodin, Constantine (king of Duklja),
284; ban, banovina of Bosnia, 279, 214, 215, 220-24, 228-30, 231,
288; banovina of [Pannonian] 232, 281-82
Croatia, 284; banovina of Lika, Bogomil, pop (heretic), 173, 175
Krbava, and Gacka, 262, 265; Bogomilism, Bogomils (a heresy),
banovina of the Coast, 279; bano- 163, 164, 170, 171-79, 189, 196-97
vina of Slavonia, 279 Bohemia, 184, 261
Banat (region), 26; map 2 Bohemund (Norman leader), 231
Index 321
Bon, A. (scholar), 60, 61 219-20, 240, 245, 246, 247, 252,

Boric (ban of Bosnia), 288 255, 256, 258, 263, 264, 274, 282,
Boril (tsar of Bulgaria), 172, 175, 290; maps 2, 6
178; Synodik of (1211), 156, 172, "Bulgarian Peace, On the" (Byzan-
175-76, 178 tine oration), 143, 145, 146, 147
Boris I (khan of Bulgaria), 52, 107, Bulgars (refers to the original Turk-
108,111,112,113,117-31,132,134, ish tribesmen or those of Turkish
136, 141, 144, 164, 165, 168, 256 origin subsequently in Bulgaria),
Boris II (tsar of Bulgaria), 182, 183, 2,22,3,~.~.~.~.~-M,
184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 192 46, 47, 48, 49, 57, 65, 66-69, 71-
Born a (Croatian prince), 255 72, 73n, 74-78, 79, 82, 83, 94, 95,
Bosna River, 148, 256; maps 1, 5 99' 101' 102, 103, 104, 106, 107'
Bosnia (region and later country), 1, 108, 109, 118, 119, 128-29, 130,
3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 32, 34, 38, 39, 131, 161, 164, 165, 166, 191, 252
40, 50, 51, 53, 148, 160, 195, 196, Bulgarophygon, 139; Battle of, 139;
201, 206, 222, 223, 224, 225, 228, maps 3, 4
231, 236, 242, 244, 245, 247, 249, Byzantine Empire, Byzantium, Byz-
251, 255, 256, 262, 263, 265, 279, antines, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 14-24, 27,
287, 288, 290; map 2 30, 31, 32-33, 36, 39, 42-43, 44,
Bosphorus, 33; map 1 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55,
Bouga (Croatian leader's sister), 50 56, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66,
Boyars (Bulgar nobles), 69, 75, 100- 67, 68, 69-72, 74-78, 79-83, 84,
101, 102, 103, 107, 108, 109, 112, 85, 86, 87-88, 89, 92, 93, 95-99,
118, 119-20, 121, 130, 131, 141, 100, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108,
160, 161, 162, 163, 164-68, 184, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115,
188; Inner (Interior), 104, 120, 116-17, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122,
165; Outer, 120, 165 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129,
Brae (island), 265; map 5 130, 131n, 132, 133, 134, 137-40,
Bran Mutimirovic (Serb prince), 150 141, 142-57, 159, 160, 161, 162,
Branicevo (town), 107, 234, 235, 163, 164, 165, 166, 168, 169, 170,
246, 255, 256; map 3 171, 172, 173, 175, 176, 178, 179,
Branimir (Croatian prince), 261 180, 181-201, 202, 203, 204-06,
Branislav (of Duklja, son of Voji- 207, 208-11, 212, 213-15, 216-19,
slav's son Radoslav), 221, 229, 220, 221-22, 223, 224, 225-28,
231, 232 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234-42,
Bribir (town), 263; map 5 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249,
Browning, R. (scholar), 240, 243 250, 252, 253, 254, 257' 258-60,
Budva (town), 35, 253, 257; maps 3, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267,
5 268, 269, 270, 272, 273, 274-80,
Bug River, 25 281-82, 283, 287, 288, 289, 290
Bulgaria, Bulgarians (latter referring
to people of territory of Bulgaria Caesar, title of (significance and use
or the Slavic people of Bulgaria of), 74, 145-46, 147, 151, 156, 243
after the assimilation of the Bul- Calabria (region in southern Italy),
gars), 1, 2, 3, 10, 17, 28, 30, 34, 83, 116, 254, 266; map 2
36-37, 44, 46, 50, 52, 57, 59, 64, Cankova-Petkova, G. (scholar), 72,
66-69, 74-78,94-131, 132-58, 74, 94, 111
159-201, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, Carinthia (region), 278; map 2
208, 209, 210, 211, 214, 216, 217, Carloman (Frankish king), 261
322 Index
Carpathians, 55, 56, 57, 58, 67, 78, Clement, Saint, 128, 134, 136, 220;
95, 99; maps 1, 2 Life of, 128, 220
Cathars (French heretics), 176 Cometopuli, the (sons of Count Nich-
Caucasus, 29, 44, 56, 66, 75, 201 olas), 189, 190, 192. See also Sam-
Celts (a people), 12 uel
Cetina River, 253, 256, 262; map 1 Commerce, 3, 4, 5, 9, 12, 14, 19, 35,
Cetina zupa (region), 263; map 2 36, 39, 40, 61, 65, 68, 75, 89, 133,
Chalcidic Peninsula, map 2 137, 139-40, 164, 169-70, 181,
Charanis, P. (scholar), 46, 60-61, 62, 183-84, 187, 197' 234, 256, 274-
64, 80 75, 282
Charlemagne (Frankish king/ "em- Comnena, Anna. See Anna Com-
peror"), 44, 78, 251, 252, 254, nena
255 Comneni emperors, 219, 246. See
Caslav Klonimirovic (Serb ruler), also Alexius I; Andronicus I; John
154, 159-60, 193, 265 II; Manuel I
Chatzon (Slavic tribal leader), 41, Constans II (Byzantine emperor), 45,
44, 46 61, 66
Cherson (town), 181, 182, 187 Constantine I (Byzantine emperor),
Choniates, Niketas (Byzantine histo- 14, 16, 17, 19
rian), 234, 235 Constantine IV (Byzantine emperor),
Cremosnik, I. (scholar), 39 67, 70
Christianity, conversions to, 16-18, Constantine V (Byzantine emperor),
20, 36, 44, 63, 64, 82, 83, 113-14, 62, 63, 76-78
208, 290; of Bulgarians, 99, 107- Constantine VI (Byzantine emperor),
08, 113-14, 116, 117-21, 127-30, 78, 115
132, 164, 165, 168, 171, 172; of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus
Croatians, 51, 52, 55, 252, 253, (Byzantine emperor and author),
254, 267, 268; of Serbs, 53, 55, 34-35, 36, 49-59, 62-63, 70, 80-
141-42, 159. See also Church, or- 81, 89, 108, 110, 112, 120, 142,
ganization of 143, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150-
Christopher Lecapenus (son of 51, 153, 159, 165, 179, 248, 251,
Romanus I), 161 255, 262, 263, 264, 265
Chrobatos (Croatian tribal leader), Constantine VIII (Byzantine em-
50, 56 peror), 180, 182, 183
Chronicle of the Priest of Dioclea. Constantine IX Monomachus (Byz-
See Dioclea, Chronicle of the antine emperor), 208-10, 213
Priest of Constantine (bishop of Bulgaria),
Church, organization of: Bulgarian 134
church, 113, 118-19, 120, 121, Constantine Bodin. See Bodin, Con-
123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 134, stantine
156, 161, 171, 179, 188, 191-92, Constantine-Cyril (apostle to the
196, 199, 203-04, 219-20; Byzan- Slavs), 113-14, 124, 126, 134, 135,
tine church, 17, 20, 63-64, 80, 82, 136
83, 89, 114-17, 120, 122, 123, 124, Constantine Pabikos. See Pabikos,
125, 126, 156, 217 (see also Patri- Constantine
arch of Constantinople); Dalma- Constantinople (city), 3, 9, 14-15,
tian and Croatian church, 253-54, 17, 18, 20, 31, 32, 33, 42, 43, 44,
266-74, 280-81; Dukljan church, 65, 70, 71, 74, 75, 77, 97, 98, 99,
215-16, 221, 223-24, 229 102, 105, 106, 113, 117, 121, 122,
Index 323
Constantinople, (city) (continued) 272-281, 283, 284, 285, 288, 289-

123, 124, 125, 126, 132, 137, 139, 90; Archonate of, 258, 260, 264;
140, 141, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, Theme of (also Byzantine Dalma-
150, 151, 152, 153, 155, 157, 162, tia after 867) 258-60, 261, 263,
163, 165, 170, 176, 180, 182, 183, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270,
184, 186, 188, 195, 199, 203, 207, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278,
208, 209, 214, 215, 216, 217, 219, 279, 280, 281, 283; map 2
223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 229, 230, Dalmatian Croatia, 51, 252, 253,
231, 232, 233, 234, 238, 241, 243, 254, 255, 256, 257, 261, 262, 266,
244, 245, 246, 247n, 253, 254, 257, 267, 268, 269, 270, 272, 273, 274,
259, 260, 261, 264, 266, 272, 273, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280-81, 283,
278, 282; Council of (867), 122, 284, 285
123; Council of (869), 123-24, Damian (Bulgarian bishop), 191-92,
125; maps 3, 4 196
Corfu (island), 236, 246; maps 2, 4 Danielis, the widow (Peloponnesian
Corinth (town), 29, 60, 61, 63, 79, landowner), 89
80, 81, 82, 83, 236; Gulf of, 150; Danube River, 2, 3, 12, 13, 15, 22,
map 4 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33,
Cosmas the Priest (Bulgarian church TI.~.M.~.%.~.~.~.~.
author), 172, 173-75, 178 68, 78, 95, 99, 105, 107, 112, 113,
Court Law for the People (Slavic law 138, 139, 164, 169, 182, 183, 184,
code), 129 186, 187, 188, 191, 195, 197, 208,
Cres (island), 35; map 5 209, 210, 211, 225, 226, 234, 238,
Crete (island), 180 246, 256; maps 1, 2, 3
Crimea (region), 181 David (brother of Samuel), /88, 189,
Croatia, Croats, 34, 35, 37, 38, 43, /90
49-59, 66, 78, 94, 107, 112, 141, Delfin, Nikulica. See Nikulica Delfin
154, 157, 159, 160, 161, 193, 201, Deljan, Peter. See Peter Deljan
228, 234, 236, 241, 242, 243, 244, Demetrius, Saint, Miracles of. See
245, 248-90; map 2 Miracles of Saint Demetrius
Crusades, 3, 226-28, 246; First, 211, Dendra (appanage granted to Desa
226-28; Third, 246; Fourth, 14, near Nis), 238. For location of
217, 227, 242, 245, 289 Nis, see map 3
Cumans (Turkish tribesmen), 2, 25, Desa (Serbian grand :Zupan), 237,
211, 225, 226, 234, 236, 284 238, 239, 240, 244
Cyril, Saint. See Constantine-Cyril Despot, title of (significance and use
Cyrillic (alphabet), 114, 136-37 of), 241, 243
Czechs, Czechoslovakia, 43, 49, 114, Develtus (town), 97-98, 104, 106,
139. See also Bohemia; Moravia 108, 118; map 3
Diaconu, P. (scholar). 225
Dacia, Dacians, 2, 9, 10-11, 26, 42, Dinaric range, 1; map 1
68 Dioclea (Roman town just outside
Dagobert (ruler of Bavaria), 47 modern Titograd), 35. 53, 193,
Dalmatia, Dalmatian coast, 1, 4, 5, 223, 242; maps 3, 6 (see Titograd).
9, 11, 12, 18, 22, 32, 34, 35, 36, See also Duklja
41, 50, 51, 53, 64, 65, 78, 85, 116, Dioclea, Chronicle of the Priest of,
160, 176, 195, 200, 222, 228, 231, 193, 194, 195, 198, 202. 203, 207,
234, 236, 240-46, 250, 252, 253, 211-12, 213, 221, 223, 228, 229,
254, 255, 257, 258-60, 261-270, 231' 232, 233' 237
324 Index
Diocletian (Roman emperor), 14, 19, theme, duchy, or strategos of, 83,
34, 269 148, 200, 202, 203, 204, 207, 226,
Dnepr River, 25, 95, 138 253, 258, 279, 281; maps 3, 4
Dobroslav (son of King Michael of Dusan, Stefan (Serbian ruler), 5
Duklja), 230, 231, 232 Duvno (town), 273; map 5
"Dobroslav" referring to Vojislav, Dvornik, F. (scholar), 111, 131n,
203. See also Vojislav 266, 267, 268, 269, 272
Dobrudja (region), 68; map 2 Dvorovi (village near Bijeljina), 39.
Domagoj (Croatian prince), 257, 261 For location of Bijeljina, see map
Domanek (Trebinje nobleman), 212 6
Don River, 43, 56 Dyrrachium. See Durazzo
Dragimir (uncle of John Vladimir),
194, 202, 203 Ecloga (Byzantine law code), 129
Dragomir (Bulgarian envoy), 102 Egypt, 12, 42
Dragovica: church of, 45, 178; tribe Emperor (Tsar) of the Bulgarians,
of, 45 title (significance and use of), 145,
Drava River, 3, 262, 265, 278, 279, 146, 147, 148, 154, 155, 156, 161,
284, 286; maps 1, 2, 5 190, 191, 195, 214
Drina River, 3, 39, 236; maps 1, 5 Emperor (Basileus) of the Romans
Drivast (town), 223; maps 3, 5 (significance and use of title), 117,
Drustur (Dorostol, Durostorum). See 126, 144, 145, 146, 147, 151, 153,
Silistria 154-56, 252, 254
Drzislav, Stjepan. See Stjepan Enravota (Bulgarian prince), 108
Ddislav Eparch, title of (significance of),
Dualism: Christian dualism 171-79; 274
question of Slavic pagan dualism, Epidaurus (classical town near Du-
28. See also Bogomilism brovnik), 35. For location of Du-
Dubrovnik (town), 3, 5, 35, 200, brovnik, see maps 3, 5
215, 229, 245, 249, 253, 256, 257, Epirus (region), 9, 11, 62, 83, 193,
273, 275-76, 278, 279, 289; theme 195, 205, 282; map 2
of, 200, 276, 278, 279; maps 3, 5 Estates, large, 20-21, 87-89, 90,
Dujam, Saint, 269 130, 165, 166, 168, 169, 181, 213,
Dujcev, I. (scholar), 46, 69, 96, 136, 214, 215, 217-19, 286, 287
165 Euthymius (patriarch of Constantino-
Duklja, Dukljans, 2, 6, 35, 53, 83, ple), 142; Life of, 142, 158n
149, 193-94, 195, 198, 200, 201, Evagrius (church historian), 31
202-03, 206-07, 211-13, 214, Extremists (Byzantine church party),
215, 216, 220-24, 225, 226, 228- 98, 114-15, 123, 124, 125, 126
33, 235, 236, 237, 238, 244, 257, Ezeritae (Slavic tribe), 83
266, 274, 281-82; map 2. See also
Zeta Fallmerayer, J.P. (scholar), 59-60
Dulo, House of (early Bulgarian Farlati, D. (early Jesuit scholar),
dynasty), 66, 75 248-49, 264, 265
Durazzo (Durres, Dyrrachium), 3, Farmer's Law (Byzantine legal text),
83, 148, 150, 193, 194, 195, 197, 84-93, 217
199, 200, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, Fatimids (Islamic dynasty), 152-53
207, 213, 215, 221-22, 223, 224, Federates, 12, 19, 28, 29, 45, 208
226, 227, 231, 232, 233, 237, 246, Ferluga, J. (scholar), 83, 214-15,
253, 258, 275, 279, 281, 282; 258, 260, 265, 291
Index 325
Filioque (theological point), 121-22, Greek language and culture, 5, 6, 11,

227 13, 15, 16, 17, 35, 41, 48, 63, 64,
Formosus (papal legate), 121, 123 65, 80, 82, 83, 92, 93, 106-07, 114,
France, 7, 8, 75, 176, 177 119, 127, 132, 134, 135, 136, 137,
"Francia", kingdom of the Franks. 153, 165, 220, 250
See Franks Greeks, 2, 6, 9, 12, 13, 16, 41, 44,
Franks, 43, 47, 50, 51, 52, 54, 78, 94, 48, 59-64, 71, 79-83, 86, 92, 93,
95, 107, 111, 112, 113, 114, 118, 95, 99, 103-05, 106, 107-08, 109,
119, 120, 121-22, 127, 130, 251, 113, 118, 119, 120, 121, 124, 125,
252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 261, 126, 127' 128, 133, 134, 136, 154,
262, 267, 273, 275 165, 166, 169, 185, 196, 197, 202,
Fredegar's Chronicle, 47 203, 204, 205, 213, 217, 219, 220,
Friuli (region), 252; map 2 223, 227, 228, 278, 280, 282, 290
Gregoire, H. (scholar), 48, 109
Gabriel Radomir (Bulgarian ruler), Gregoras (strategos), 104
193, 195, 196, 198, 204, 205 Gregory II, Pope, 65
Gacka (region), 262, 265; map 2 Gregory III, Pope, 65
Garsoian, N. (scholar), 173 Gregory VII, Pope, 216, 283
George Sursuvul. See Sursuvul, George Gregory the Decapolite, Life of, 65,
George Vojteh. See Vojteh, George 110-11
Georgiev, V. (scholar), 10-11 Gregory Taronites, 194
Gepids (tribe), 12, 42 Grgur of Nin (bishop), 270, 271, 273
Germans, 5, 12, 26, 40, 236; German Grubesa (king of Duklja), 232, 233,
Empire, 256, 261, 289; Germanic 236
languages, 26. See also Gepids; Guiscard, Robert (Norman leader),
Goths; Ostrogoths; Visigoths 223, 282
Geza II (king of Hungary), 236, 238, Gvozd Mountain, 284; map 1
239, 241, 289
Ghuzz (Turkish tribe), 2, 211 Hadrian II, Pope, 122, 123, 124, 125
Glagolitic (alphabet), 136-37, 280, Hambarli (village in Thrace about 25
281 km. south of Jambol), 103-04,
Gojco (Croatian ban), 279 108; Hambarli inscription, 103-04,
Gojislav (Croatian prince), 274, 276 108. For location of Jambol, see
Gojislav (son of Vojislav, Dukljan map 6
prince), 207, 212,213, 230 Helena Lecapena (wife of Constan-
Gojnik (Serb prince), 141; the tine VII), 150
Gojnikovici, 141 Helladikoi, theme of the, 71, 79, 84,
Goths, 2, 11, 13, 14, 16, 19, 20, 21- 200
22, 23, 34, 68. See also Ostro- "Hellas" (as used in sources, refer-
goths; Visigoths ring to some or all of Greece), 31,
Gradinja (king of Duklja), 233 62, 79
Grand zupan, Serb title (significance Heraclius (Byzantine emperor), 33,
of), 225, 244 34, 39, 42, 43, 49, 51-52, 53, 54,
Greece, 1, 4, 5, 6, 9, 13, 18, 29, 31, 55, 56, 62, 66, 69, 141
34, 35, 36, 41, 59-64, 65, 71, 79- Hercegovina (region south of Bosnia,
83, 85, 95, 116, 150, 184, 197, 200, east of Serbia, name dating from
205, 211, 217, 247, 282 fifteenth century), 1, 3, 9, 10, 38,
Greek Church. See Church, Byzan- 196
tine; Patriarch of Constantinople Heretics, heresy, 6, 17, 116, 117,
326 Index
Heretics, heresy (continued) Isperikh (Bulgar khan), 44, 46, 67,

122, 162, 280. See also Arians; 72, 188
Bogomils; Paulicians Istria (region) 9, 18, 22, 34, 250, 251,
Hincmar (chronicler), 119 254, 255, 256, 261, 269, 280; map 2
Historia Salonitana maiora (HSM), Italy, Italians, 4, 12, 18, 21-22, 23,
source, 250, 267, 268, 269, 270, 29, 60, 65, 121, 122, 123, 163, 176,
271' 273 177, 178, 214, 222, 229, 236, 237,
Honorius I, Pope, 55 238, 248, 252, 253, 256, 257, 258,
Hrabr, (Bulgarian monk and 259, 261, 267, 277, 279, 281, 282
author), 133, 134-37 Ivan (name). See John
Hruselios, John (aristocrat of Izmir (town). See Smyrna
Durazzo), 195, 200
HSM. See Historia Salonitana maiora Jagic, V. (scholar), 58
Hum (region), 244, 245. See also Jakvinta (Dukljan queen), 222, 228,
Zahumlje; map 2 under Zahumlje 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 281, 282
Hungary, Hungarians, Magyars, 3, 5, Jambol (town), map 6
10, 17' 50-51, 52, 78, 104, 138, Jannis (strategos), 104, 105, 108
139, 148, 160, 161, 163, 164, 184, Jelena (sister of Uros II), Hungarian
195-96, 204, 210, 211, 227, 228, queen, 236
233, 234-42, 243, 244, 245, 246, Jenkins, R. (scholar), 142, 146, 147,
247, 249, 251, 262, 263, 273, 278, 148, 150-51, 158n
279, 283-89, 290; Hungarian plain, Jews, 41
29, 44, 78, 139 John I Tzimiskes (Byzantine em-
Huns (tribe), 2, 25, 30, 66, 68 peror), 170, 180, 182, 184, 186,
Hvar (island), 265; map 5 187, 188, 189, 191-92, 193
John II Comnenus (Byzantine em-
Iconium (Konya, town in Anatolia), peror), 232, 234, 235
243 John VIII, Pope, 125, 126, 127, 272
Iconoclasm, Iconoclasts, 114, 115, John X, Pope, 264, 267, 268, 271
116, 117 John (astrologer), 157
Ignatius (patriarch of Constanti- John of Ephesus (church historian),
nople), 115-17, 123, 124, 125, 126 31, 46
Illyrians (people), 2, 9-11, 12, 13, John the Exarch (Bulgarian author),
38, 59 133
Illyricum: Roman province, 18, 20, John Hruselios. See Hruselios, John
43, 51, 88; an ecclesiastical prov- John (Ohrid bishop), 199, 203-04
ince, 116, 254, 266 John of Rila (Bulgarian monastic
Immunities, exemptions, 21, 181, leader), 169; Spiritual Testament
218 of, 169
Imotsko (region), 263; map 2 John (Split archbishop), 272
Ionian Islands, 82-83, 253; map 2 John (Symeon's son), 160, 162, 163,
Iratais, kavkhan (Bulgar noble), 104 164-65
Irene (Byzantine empress), 61, 252 John Vladimir (ruler of Duklja),
Isaac I Comnenus (Byzantine em- 193-94, 195, 198, 202, 203
peror), 210 John Vladislav (Bulgarian tsar), 193,
Isaac II Angelus (Byzantine em- 198, 199, 202, 205
peror), 246-47 Julian (Byzantine emperor), 16
Isbul, kavkhan (Bulgar noble), 109 Juraj (king of Duklja), 231, 232, 233,
Isidore of Seville (author), 62 236
Index 327
Justin II (Byzantine emperor), 31 223, 224, 231, 237, 250, 253. 257,
Justinian I (Byzantine emperor), 18, 269, 273; maps 3, 5
20, 22-24, 28, 29, 43, 87, 88, 89, Kotzilis (Frankish leader). 51
218 Kovrat (Bulgar khan). 43, 44, 46. 48,
Justinian II (Byzantine emperor), 70, 49' 66-67' 94
71-72, 74, 84 Kranj (town), 255; map 5
Krbava (region). 262, 265; map 2
Kacici (family of Croatian nobles), Kresimir II (Croatian prince), 265
242 Kresimir Ill (Croatian king), 274,
Kalocsa (Hungarian town, seat of 276-77, 278
important bishopric), 284 Kresimir IV (also Peter Kresimir,
Kalokyris (Byzantine official), 182 Croatian king), 278-79, 280. 283
Karlin-Hayter, P. (scholar), 142 Krk (island), 35, 273, 276, 280; map 5
Kastoria (lake), map 1 Krka River, 241, 242, 244; map 1
Kastoria (town), 214; map 4 Krum (Bulgar khan), 78, 82, 94-105.
Kavkhan (title, significance of), 104, 106, 107, 131n. 144. 157, 166. 168.
109 252
Kefalonia, theme of, 82, 83 Kulin, Ban (of Bosnia), 247
Kegenis (Pecheneg leader), 208-10 Kupa River, 262; map 1
Kekaumenos (Byzantine military au- Kurt (Bulgar ruler on Bulgar king's
thor), 206, 212 list), 48
Khazars (tribe), 50, 67, 74, 75, 139, Kutrigurs (Bulgar tribe). 43
181 Kuver (Bulgar prince), 44-49. 67,
Kiev (town), 133, 169, 181, 183, 184, 72, 94, 191
185, 187 Kvarner, Gulf of, 280; maps 1, 2
Kinnamos (Byzantine historian), 234,
235, 239, 242 Landlords, magnates, 20-21, 86-89,
Klaic, N. (scholar), 256, 270, 271, 165, 166-68, 169, 213, 214, 215,
272-73, 284, 285, 288 216, 217-19. 247. See also Boyars;
Kleterologion of Philotheus, source, Nobility
83 Larissa (town), 192, 193, 196, 216,
Klis, town, 242, 257, 263; map 5 282; map 4
Klonimir Strojimirovic (Serb prince), Latin language and culture. 5, 10-11.
154 12, 13, 15, 35-36, 65, 114, 117,
Kloukas (Croatian tribal leader), 50 135, 139, 249-50, 267, 268, 280,
Knin (town), 257, 263, 273, 278, 284; 286, 287-88
map 5 Latin Empire of Constantinople, 227,
Kocapar (Dukljan ruler), 231 242
Koloman, King (of Hungary), 234, Law codes, 100, 101, 119, 121, 129,
236, 284-85, 289 167-68. See also Court Law for
Konavli (region), 53, 57, 110, 141; the People; Farmer's Law
map 2 Lecapena, Helena. See Helena Leca-
Konya (town), 243 pena
Kordylas (strategos), 104, 105 Lemerle, P. (scholar), 48
Kosara (daughter of Samuel), 194, Leo Ill (Byzantine emperor), 116, 254
195 Leo IV (Byzantine emperor), 61
Kosentzis (Croatian tribal leader), 50 Leo V (Byzantine emperor), 98, 106
Kosovo (region), 225; map 2 Leo VI (Byzantine emperor), 83,
Kotor (town), 3, 34, 35, 202, 206, 137, 138, 139, 142, 143, 147, 148
328 Index
Leo Choerosphaktes (Byzantine en- Maniakes, George (Byzantine gen-

voy), 138 eral), 207
Leo the Deacon (Byzantine histo- Manichees (members of religious
rian), 182, 186 sect), 173, 175
Leo (katepan), 279 Manuel I Comnenus (Byzantine em-
Leo (Ohrid archbishop), 204, 219 peror), 233, 236-42, 243, 244, 245,
Leo Phocas. See Phocas, Leo 246, 289
Leo (strategos), 103, 104-05, 108 Manuel (archbishop of Adrianople ),
Leontius (Bulgarian patriarch of Pre- 99, 108
slav), 156 Manzikert (town, scene of important
Lika (region), 38, 262, 265; map 2 battle), 214
Lim River, 53; map 1 Margaret (daughter of Bela III), 246
Litavrin, G. (scholar), 204 Maria (daughter of Manuel I), 240,
Liutprand of Cremona (diplomat and 241, 243
author), 163, 183 Maria Lecapena (wife of Peter of
Livno (region), 263; map 2 Bulgaria), 161, 162, 163, 164, 181
Livno (town), map 5 Marin, Deacon (papal envoy), 123
Ljubljana (city), 3; map 6 Marko (Dukljan governor of Raska),
Ljudevit (Croatian prince), 107, 255 222, 223
Ljutovid (prince of Zahumlje), 206- Massalians (heretics), 175
07 Mas'iidi, AI- (Arab geographer), 56
Lobelos (Croatian tribal leader), 50 Maurice (Byzantine emperor), 25,
Logothete, Chronicle of the, 144, 26, 32-33, 66; Strategikon, attri-
145, 146 buted to, 25, 26, 33
Lombards (tribe), 23 Mediterranean Sea, 4, 176, 179
Lombardy (region in Italy), 251 Melingi (Slavic tribe), 83
Louis I (Frankish ruler), 122, 261 Menander (Byzantine historian), 31
Lucius (historian), 279 S Mercenaries, 5, 23, 210, 219, 226,
Luska zupa (region, also Zeta zupa), 227
212; see map 5 (under Zeta zupa) Mesembria (town), 98, 106: map 3
Mesta River, 83; map 1
Macedonia (region), 9, 10, 13, 29, Mestrovic, I. (sculptor), 271
~.TI,~.~.~.~.@.~.~. Methodius (apostle to the Slavs),
71, 72, 79, 85, 88, 94, 97, 105, 113-14, 124, 126, 127, 136, 250-
110-11' 112, 127' 128, 134, 140, 51, 267
161' 182, 186, 187' 188, 189' 191' Metkovic (town), 3; map 6
192, 193, 195, 197, 199, 200, 202, Michael I Rangabe (Byzantine em-
203, 205, 206, 207' 208, 209, 211' peror), 98, 115, 254
213, 214, 217, 220, 228, 234, 245, Michael II (Byzantine emperor), 106
282; map 2 Michael III (Byzantine emperor),
Macedonian theme, 79-80, 81, 83, 110, 115, 116-17, 118-19, 122,
200, 208, 209 123, 136
Macedonians (modern ethnic group), Michael IV (Byzantine emperor),
37, 114, 191, 290 204, 205-06, 219, 220
Macva (region), 236; map 2 Michael (king of Duklja, son of
Madara (town), 68, 107; map 3 Bodin), 230
Magyars. See Hungarians Michael (king of Duklja, son of
Malamir (Bulgar khan), 102, 108, Vojislav), 212, 213, 214, 215-16,
109, 111, 112, 113 220,221,222,223,229,230,231,281
Index 329
Michael (son of King Vladimir of Mosin, V. (scholar), 220

Duklja), 233 Mouchlo (Croatian tribal leader), 50
Michael (son of Symeon), 160, 162- Mountains, effects of, 1-3, 7, 13, 37,
63, 164 186, 203, 206, 237
Michael of Zahumlje, 149, 152, 154, MusiCi (village near Visegrad), 39.
160, 266 For location of Visegrad, see map
Military organization, 9, 12, 13, 16, 6
19, 20, 23, 27, 29, 30, 66, 69-70, Mutimir (Croatian prince), 261
71, 166, 167, 200, 203, 213, 217, Mutimir (Serbian prince), 141, 150;
218, 219, 257, 258-60, 262, 274, the Mutimirovici, 141, 150
278, 282, 286, 287. See also Feder-
ates; Mercenaries; Pronoias; Nares (also Nea Philadelphia, town),
Theme system 140. For location of Nea Philadel-
Milobar, F. (scholar), 207, 222, 228, phia, see map 4
229, 230, 231, 232 Naum, Saint, 128
Miracles of Saint Demetrius, source, N azari us (heretical bishop), 178
31, 41, 42, 44-47 Nea Philadelphia (also Nares), 140;
Miroslav (brother of Nemanja, ruler map 4
of Hum), 244 Nemanja, Stefan (Serbian grand zu-
Miroslav (possibly a prince of Cro- pan), 243-44, 245, 246, 247
atia), 265 Neretljani (Slavic tribe), 3, 242, 256,
Miroslava (Samuel's daughter), 194, 257, 265, 274, 276
195 Neretva River, 3, 35, 53, 149, 242,
Moderates (Byzantine church party), 256, 280; map 1
114-15, 122, 124, 125, 126 Nicea: Council of, 16-17; Creed of,
Moesia (Roman province, south of 121; town, 16-17
Danube, comprising much of what Nicene (a follower of the Creed of
is now Serbia and Bulgaria), 10, Nicea), 16
11 Nicephorus I (Byzantine emperor),
Monasticism, monasteries, monastic 6, 61, 79-83, 95-98, 99, 101, 103,
lands, 89, 180-81; Bulgarian, 130, 107, 252
132, 133, 134, 168-69 Nicephorus II Phocas (Byzantine em-
Monemvasia (fortified town), 60, 62; peror), 161, 180, 181-84, 186, 193
map 4 Nicephorus (patriarch of Constanti-
Monemvasia, Chronicle of, 31, 60, nople and historian), 44
61-62, 80, 81, 82, 95 Nicephorus (son of King Michael of
Montenegro (modern name for Duklja), 213
Duklja, Zeta), Montenegrins, 1, 2, Nicholas I Mysticus (patriarch of
3, 6, 7, 34, 35, 38, 83, 149, 193, Constantinople), 133, 142, 143,
202, 212. See also Duklja; Zeta 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149-50,
Moraca River, 231; map 1 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 158n
Morava River, 3, 10, 11, 13, 28, 30, Nicholas III (patriarch of Constanti-
39, 109, 112, 114, 234; maps 1, 3 nople), 62
Moravia, 111, 112, 113, 118, 127, Nicholas I, Pope, 116-17, 119, 121-
129, 136, 139 24, 129, 165
Morea (region, a name for the Pelo- Nicholas, Count (Bulgarian noble-
ponnesus). See Peloponnesus man from Macedonia), 188, 189,
Moses (brother of Samuel), 188, 189, 190, 192, 198
190, 192 Nicomedia (town), 235
330 Index
Nikopolis (in Epirus), theme of, 83, Otto I (German "emperor"), 50, 183
200, 205; map 4 Ottomans, 2, 7, 14, 15, 17, 59, 69.
Nikopolis (on the Danube, town), 83, 192, 220, 286
209; map 3
Nikulica Delfin (magnate from Thes- Pabikos, Constantine (Byzantine
saly), 216-17 nobleman), 103
Nin (town), 253, 254, 255, 257, 263, Pact of 1102, 251, 284-88
267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, Pagan (Bulgar khan), 77
281; map 5 Pagania (region). 53; map 2
Nis (town), 3, 5, 36, 37, 42, 204, Pagans, Paganism, 16, 18, 27-28, 41,
214, 227, 238, 240, 246; map 3 107, 108, 116, 119, 129, 130, 131,
Nobility, 4, 6, 57, 69, 88, 89, 108, 142, 143, 165, 168, 171. 172, 256
165, 180, 188, 193, 199, 200, 212, Palermo (town), 236
213, 214, 216, 217-19, 223, 230, Pannonia (region), 18, 22, 23, 42, 44,
245, 246, 247, 251, 262, 265, 266, 46, 47, 48, 51, 67, 78, 94, 96, 102,
274, 279, 280, 283, 285-88, 290. 107, 112, 124, 251, 252, 255, 256,
See also Boyars; Landlords; Zupa 263; map 2
organization Pannonian Croatia, 51, 78, 107, 242,
Nona (Latin name for Nin), 263. See 251, 252, 254, 255, 256, 261, 262,
also Nin 263, 265, 267, 270, 273, 274, 284,
Normans, 2, 214, 215, 221-22, 223, 288
227, 228, 231, 236, 237, 238, 246, Papacy, 51, 53, 55, 65, 113, 114, 115,
279, 281-82, 283, 284 116-17,120,121,12 2,123,124,
Novi Pazar (town), 53, 225; map 6 125, 126, 127, 157, 159, 160, 161,
168, 215-16, 223-24, 226, 227,
Obscina (peasant commune in Rus- 247n, 249, 250. 251, 252, 254, 261,
sia), 90 263, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271,
Odovacar, (Goth ruler), 21-22 272, 273, 280, 281, 283
Ohrid (town and lake), 3, 111, 127- Paristrion theme, 200
28, 134, 191, 192, 196, 199, 204, Pastoralists, 2. 6. 24n, 38, 68. See
214, 215, 217, 219, 220, 223, 224, also Vlachs
227; lake, map 1; town, map 4 Patarins, heretics, 176
Old Church Slavonic. See Slavonic Patras (town), 80-81, 82, 83, 89, 95;
Olga (Kievan princess), 183-84 map 4
Olympia (town), 62; map 4 Patriarch: Bulgarian, 120, 121, 132,
Omis (town), 254; map 5 156, 161, 188, 191-92, 196, 199,
Omurtag (Bulgar khan), 94, 95, 105, 203-04; of Constantinople, posi-
106-08, 112, 113, 120, 166, 255- tion and role of, 17, 20, 115, 116.
56 117, 118, 123, 124, 125, 126, 153-
Onogur Bulgars, 44, 66, 67 54, 172, 199, 227, 254, 266, 272,
Organa, (probably correct form, 273
Orhan), Onogur Khan, 44 Patriarchal School, 127, 144
Osor, 273; map 5 Paulicians. heretics, 6, 173, 186, 188
Ostrogon (town), 284 Pavel (Serbian prince), 150, 152
Ostrogorsky, G. (scholar), 70, 71, Peasants, also villages, 6-8, 13. 14,
80, 145, 147, 159 18, 19, 20-21, 22, 23, 29. 39, 63,
Ostrogoths (tribe), 12, 22. See also 69, 84-89, 90, 91, 92. 93, 162, 165,
Goths 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 178-79'
Ostrovica (town), 242; map 5 181, 214-15, 217-19, 288
Index 331
Pechenegs (Turkish tribe), 2, 25, Pirates, 3, 12, 13, 15, 61, 65, 140,
138, 139, 148, 149, 150, 181, 183, 253, 256, 257, 265, 274, 275, 276
187, 208-11, 225, 226, 234, 284 Piva River, 53; map 1
Peloponnesian theme, 80-82 Pliska (town), 68, 95, 96, 97, 99,
Peloponnesus (region), 1, 36, 59-64, 101, 106, 107, 119, 128, 129, 130,
79, 80-82, 83, 89, 110, 140, 193; 131; map 3
map 2 Pliva zupa (region), 263; map 2
Perejaslavec (town), 164, 169, 183, Plovdiv. See Philippopolis
184, 186, 188; map 3 Podgorica (town, formerly Dioclea,
Persian (Bulgar khan), 108, 109, 111, modern Titograd), 233. For loca-
112, 127 tion, see Dioclea, map 3 or Tito-
Persians, Persia, 15, 23, 24, 30, 31, grad, map 6
32, 33, 42-43, 54, 55, 65 Polati (town), 223; map 3
Perun (Slavic god), 27, 28 Polovtsy. See Cumans
Peter (bishop of Bar), 216 Population transfers, 6, 13, 41, 63,
Peter (Bulgarian tsar), 160-64, 165, 64, 66, 70, 80, 81-82, 88, 92, 95,
169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 175, 179, 98, 99, 105, 188, 193, 199, 209,
181' 182, 188, 197 235' 237' 238
Peter (Croatian king), 284 Porgas (Croatian prince), 52
Peter Deljan (rebel against Byzan- Porinos (Croatian prince), 51
tium), 196, 204-05, 206, 214, 219 Predimir (son of Vojislav of Duklja),
Peter Gojnikovic (ruler of Serbia), 212, 213
141, 148, 149, 150, 151, 154 Prefectures, Roman, 18-19
Peter (kavkhan, Bulgarian diplomat), Presiam. See Persian
117, 121, 124 Preslav: town, 106, 107, 130, 131,
Peter Kresimir. See Kresimir IV 132, 133, 138, 153, 156, 162, 165,
Peter (Maurice's brother), 32 182, 184, 185' 186, 187' 188, 191'
Petrilo (Dukljan general), 214 192, 197; Council of (893), 130,
Petrislav (son of King Michael of 131, 134, 167; "Preslav-style" tiles,
Duklja), 213, 223 133, 187; map 3
Petrova gora. See Gvozd Mountain Pre-Slavic population, 9-12, 35, 40-
Philhellenes, 59, 60 41; fate of, 37-38, 56, 68; influ-
Philippi (town), 109; map 3 ence on Slavs, 38
Philippopolis (town, modern Prespa (town and lake), 191, 196,205,
Plovdiv), 3, 6, 173, 186, 188; 214; lake, map 1; town, map 4
map 3 Pribina (Croatian ban), 265
Philotheus (author of Byzantine Prilep (town), 198; maps 3, 4
protocol list), 83 Primislav (Serbian grand zupan, pos-
Phocas (Byzantine emperor), 33, 34, sibly second name for Uros II),
39, 62 239, 240
Phocas family (Byzantine magnates), Primorje, zupa of (referring to Dal-
180, 193; Bardas (Byzantine gen- matian coast), 263; map 2. See
eral and magnate), 186; Leo (Byz- also Dalmatia
antine general), 149 Priscus (Byzantine general), 32
Photius (Patriarch of Constan- Prizren (town), 214; map 3
tinople), ll5-17, 120, 121-23, Procopius (Byzantine historian), 25,
124, 125, 126, 132. See also 26, 27' 28, 40
Nicephorus II Phocas Pronoias (Byzantine military fiefs),
Pindus (mountain range), 1; maps 1, 2 219
332 Index
Prvoslav Mutimirovic (Serbian Romanus II (Byzantine emperor).

prince), 141, 152 49, 50, 179-80
Pset zupa (region), 263; Romanus IV Diogenes (Byzantine
map 2 emperor), 206
Pula, in Zeta. See Polati Romanus (son of Tsar Peter of Bul-
garia), 188, 189, 190, 191. 192,
Rab (island), 35, 273, 276; map 5 193, 197
Radojcic, B. (scholar), 235 Rome (city), 13, 18, 22, 51, 52. 53.
Radomir Gabriel. See Gabriel Rado- 55, 65, 113, 114, 116, 117, 120,
mir 121, 123, 124, 125, 126, 215, 223,
Radoslav (son of Vojislav of 247n, 254, 267, 272, 281; Bishop
Duklja), 212, 213, 221, 229 of, see Papacy
Radoslav (son of Gradinja, Prince of Routes, 3, 4, 12, 13-14, 36, 37-38,
Duklja), 233, 237, 238 65; Orient Express route, 3. 13,
Ragusa. See Dubrovnik 37-38, 227, 246. See also Via Eg-
Ranuli (town, in vicinity of Sozopo- natia
lis, Develtus, and Anchialos), 104. Rumania, Rumanians, 10, 11, 26, 30,
For Sozopolis, Develtus, and An- 38, 95, 139
chialos, see map 3 Russia, Russians, Rus. Kievans, 27,
Ras (fortified town), 235, 236, 237; 50, 56, 58, 59, 90, 91, 114, 130.
map 3 133, 169, 180, 181-87, 188, 220
Rasa River, 269; map 1 Russian Primary Chronicle, 183-84,
Raska (Serbian state), 53, 194, 195, 186
201, 206, 207, 213, 222-23, 224,
225-26, 228, 230, 231, 232, 233, Sabin (Bulgar khan), 77
234-40, 243-44, 245, 246, 247; Saganek (son of Vojislav of Duklja),
map 2. See also Serbia 212, 213
Rastislav (ruler of Moravia), 112, Salona (town), 12, 34, 35, 242. 250,
113, 114, 118, 127 253, 258, 269, 272, 273: map 5
Rayner Sacconi (inquisitor), 178 Salonica. See Thessaloniki
Religion, Slavic pre-Christian, 27-28. Sarno (Slavic chief), 43, 49
See also specific religions Samuel (Bulgarian tsar), 188, 189-
Rhodope Mountains, 1, 2; maps 1, 2, 98, 199, 200, 202, 203, 204, 274,
4 275, 277
Rijeka (city), 253, 262; map 6 Sardika (town, modern Sofija), 3,
Rila (town with monastery), 169; 36, 37, 42, 95, 96. 103, 13ln, 169,
map 3 178, 192, 197, 220, 227, 235, 237,
Robert Guiscard. See Guiscard, 246; map 3
Robert Sarmatians (Iranian tribe), 26
Roger II (Norman ruler of Sicily), 236 Sava River, 3. 29. 32, 33, 256, 262.
Roman (term): significance of, 16, 265, 279; maps 1, 2, 5
17, 22-23, 144, 154-55, 156, 199 Saxons, 5
Roman culture. See Byzantine Em- Saxony, 50
pire; Latin language and culture Sclavinias (any region in Balkans set-
Romans, people (pre-Byzantine), 9, tled by Slavs out of imperial con-
12-14, 193 trol; in seventh century most of
Romanus I Lecapenus (Byzantine em- the Balkans). 65, 66, 71. 81-82,
peror), 132,149,150,151,153,154- 88, 95, 111
55, 156, 157, 161, 162, 179, 218 Scutari. See Skadar
Index 333
Scythians, 26 Slavac (Croatian nobleman), 279-80

Sebastea (town, modern Sivas), 192 Slaveni (Slavic tribal group), 25, 26,
Seljds, 209, 210, 214, 226, 243, 279 37, 53, 57
Serbia, Serbs, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, Slaves, use of, 80, 86, 89, 108, 129
17, 24n, 34, 36, 37, 39, 49, 50, 51, Slavonia (region), 3, 78, 107, 252,
52-53, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 66, 92, 256, 262, 278, 279, 287; map 2
108, 109-10, 111, 112, 114, 141- Slavonic: language, 82, 93, 113-14,
42, 148, 149, 150, 151-55, 157, 127-30, 132-33, 134-37, 139, 159,
159-60, 180, 193, 194, 195, 201, 168,171,187,220,250-51,267,268,
202, 206, 207, 212, 223-24, 225- 270-71, 280-81, 283; mission, 113-
26, 228, 231, 233, 234-40, 243-44, 14, 124, 127-29, 134, 136
245, 246, 253, 255, 256, 263, 265, Slovenia, Slovenes, 36, 53, 244, 252,
266, 281, 290; map 2. See also 255; map 2
Duklja; Raska Smol jani (Slavic tribe), 109
Serblia (place in vicinity of Thessalo- Smyrna (modern Izmir), 225, 226;
niki, exact location unknown), 52 emir of, 225, 226
Serres (town), 83, 192, 246; maps 3, Sofija (city), 3, 37, 95, 133; map 6.
4 See also Sardika; Sofija National
Seven Tribes, the, 66, 69 Historical Museum, 133
Severi (Slavic tribe), 69, 77 Sozopolis (town), 104; map 3
Sibenik (town), 242, 254; map 5 Spain, 22
Sisic, F. (scholar), 269, 274, 284 Split (town), 3, 12, 34, 35, 160, 215,
Sicily, 60, 63, 83, 116, 140, 236, 266, 242, 250, 253, 254, 266, 267. 268,
281 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 276, 280,
Sider (town, exact location unknown; 281, 283, 284, 285, 289; Council of
lay with Develtus on Byzantine-Bul- (925), 160, 250, 266, 267, 268, 269,
garian border defined by the 863 270, 271, 272, 273; Council of
treaty; probably west or slightly (928), 250, 266, 270, 271, 273;
northwest of Develtus on east side of Council of (1060), 250-51, 280-81;
the Tundza River), 118 Council of (1074), 281; map 5
Sidraga (town), 263; map 5 Srem (region), 211, 234, 241, 242,
Silistria (town), 138, 184, 186, 188, 243, 244, 245, 256, 263; map 2
200; map 3 Sremska Mitrovica (modern name
Sirmium (city), 15, 30-31, 32, 44, for Sirmium), 30. See also Sirmium
107, 124, 127, 200, 211, 234, 235, Staurakios (Byzantine emperor), 97
238, 240, 241, 242, 251, 256, 263, Staurakios (eunuch general), 61, 79,
267; map 3 80, 81
Sisak (town), 255, 270, 273; map 5 Stefan Dusan. See Dusan, Stefan
Sivas. See Sebastea Stefan Nemanja. See Nemanja, Stefan
Skadar (town), 15, 206, 223, 229, Stefan Vojislav. See Vojislav, Stefan
231, 232; maps 3, 5 Stephen I (king of Hungary), 195
Skhoder. See Skadar Stephen II (king of Hungary), 234,
Skopje (town), 3, 134, 190, 197, 200, 236
204, 213, 214, 226; maps 3, 4, 6 Stephen III (king of Hungary), 238-
Skradin (town), 242, 270, 273; map 5 42, 243
Skulls, household use of, 97, 187 Stephen IV (king of Hungary), 238-
Skylitzes (Byzantine historian), 189, 42
190, 193, 194, 196, 197, 202, 204, Steppes, 14, 46. 48, 66, 67, 74, 75,
205 105, 138, 139, 169, 183, 211
334 Index
Stjepan I (king of Croatia), 278 Telec (Bulgar khan), 76, 77

Stjepan Ddislav (king of Croatia), Telerig (Bulgar khan), 77
193, 274 Tervel (Bulgar khan), 72, 74, 75
Stjepan (son of Kresimir IV), 279 Tetovo (town), 226; map 6
Stjepan (son of Svetoslav of Thebes (town), 236; map 4
Croatia), 276, 278 Theiss River. See Tisza River
Stokes, A. (scholar), 181, 182, 186 Theme system, 62, 69-71, 79-80, 81,
Ston (town), 206, 273; maps 3, 5 82-83, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 105,
Strabo, Abbreviator of, 62 187, 197, 200, 218, 219, 258-60.
Stracimir (brother of Nemanja), 244 See also individual themes
Strategikon (attributed to Maurice), Theodora (Byzantine empress,
25, 26, 33 widow of Theophilus), Ill, 115
Strojimir (Serbian prince), 141; the Theodore (son of King Michael of
StrojimiroviCi, 141 Duklja), 213
Struma River, 83, 95, 109, 110, 162, Theodore of Studios (Byzantine
198; map 1 monk), 98
Strumica, map 4 Theodoric (Ostrogoth ruler), 22
Strymon theme, 83, 200 Theodosius I (Byzantine emperor),
Studios, Monastery of, Studite 15
monks, 180 Theophanes (Byzantine chronicler),
Stylianus Zautzes (Byzantine 44, 69, 81, 82, 95, 96, 98, 103
official), 137 Theophanes Continuatus, 111
Suidas (Byzantine encyclopedist), Theophano (Byzantine empress, wife
100 of Romanus II, Nicephorus II), 180
Sursuvul, George (Bulgarian boyar), Theophilus (Byzantine emperor), 110
160, 164 Theophylact (patriarch of Constanti-
Svac (town), 223; maps 3, 5 nople), 172-73
Svenica (Bulgarian prince), 108, 112 Theophylact (archbishop of Ohrid),
Svetoslav (king of Croatia), 274-75, 108, 112, 217' 220
276, 278 Thessaloniki (city), 3, 18, 31, 36, 37-
Svjatoslav I (Kievan prince), 139, 38, 39, 41-42, 44, 45, 47, 48, 52,
169, 181-87, 188 60, 63, 71, 72, 79, 83, 111, 113,
Svjatoslav II (Kievan prince), 133; 137, 140, 150, 170, 193, 194, 195,
Svjatoslav's sbornik, 133 200, 205, 207, 222z, 227, 246;
Symeon (Bulgarian tsar), 52, 111, Theme (Duchy) of, 83, 200; map 4
130, 132-58, 159, 160, 161, 162, Thessaly (region), 31, 34, 41, 60, 71,
163, 164, 166, 168, 170, 258, 263, 77, 79, 85, 88, 89, 140, 192, 193,
264, 266 195, 196, 197, 205, 216-17, 282;
Synodik, Boril's. See Boril, Synodik map 2
Syria, 12, 66, 175 Thomas the Archdeacon of Split
Syrians, 6 (thirteenth century historian), 215,
250, 267, 269, 271, 272, 273
Taktikon of Uspenskij, 83 Thomas the Slav (Byzantine general
Tara River, 237; map 1 and rebel), 106
Taurus Mountains, mountaineers Thrace (region), 1, 6, 9, 10, 18, 20,
from, 210 28, 29, 31, 34, 36, 37, 42, 45, 64,
Taxes, 14, 19, 21, 23, 84-85, 91, 92, 70-71, 72, 74, 77. 79, 81, 83, 84,
93, 137, 166, 170, 181, 199, 203, 85, 88, 90, 95, 97, 103, 104, 105,
205, 207, 216-17, 218, 263, 287 109, 116, 139, 140, 143, 148, 150,
Index 335
Thrace (region) (continued) Turkomen. 214, 226

151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 160, 166, Turks, Turkish peoples and lan-
173, 178, 186, 188, 195, 200, 209, guages, 25, 34, 43, 48, 56, 67, 138.
210, 211, 234, 247; map 2 196, 208, 211, 225. See also Avars;
Thracian theme, 70-71, 79, 84, 209 Bulgars; Cumans; Ghuzz; Khazars;
Thracians (a pre-Slavic people), 9, Ottomans; Pechenegs; Seljuks
10, 37, 68 Tyrach (Pecheneg chief), 208-10
Tiberius (Byzantine emperor), 31
Tica Monastery (located just outside Ukraine, 25. 26
of Preslav), 130, 131, 132, 134 Ulcinj (town), 233; maps 3, 5
Tica River, 106; map 1 Urban II, Pope, 226
Tihomir (rebel from Durazzo), 204- Uros I (grand zupan of Raska). 226,
05 233. 235' 236
Tihomir (Serbian grand zupan), 243, Uros II (grand zupan of Raska), 236,
244 237, 238, 239, 240
Timok River, 28, 39, 94, 107, 112, Utigurs (Bulgar tribe), 43
120, 255; map 1 Uze. See Ghuzz
Timok Slavs, 94, 107, 110, 166, 255,
256 Valachia (eleventh century term for
Tisemir (Bosnian ruler), 148 part of Thessaly). 216
Tisza River, 29, 33, 78, 94, 99, 251, Varangians, 210
252; map 1 Vardar River, 3, 111, 197, 226; map
Titograd (contemporary name for 1
Dioclea, Podgorica), 193, 233; Vasmer, M. (scholar), 62
map 6 Venice, Venetians. 19. 236, 242-43,
Tomislav (king of Croatia), 52, 154, 244, 245, 254, 256, 259, 261, 274-
157, 160, 261-65, 266, 267, 268, 78, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 289,
269, 270, 273, 277 290; map 5
Torghrul bey (Seljuk leader), 210 Via Egnatia, 3, 65, 222, 227
Touga (Croatian leader's sister), 50 Vidin (town), 197, 255; map 3
Towns, character and administration Villages. See Peasants
of, 5, 13, 35-36, 39, 61, 63, 68, Vis (island). 265; mapS
88, 257, 258-60, 275, 276, 277, 279 Visegrad (town), 39; map 6
Trade. See Commerce Viseslav (Croatian prince), 253, 255
Transylvania, 10, 30; map 2 Visigoths (tribe), 12, 40. See also
Trebinje (town and region), 53, 57, Goths
110, 141, 149, 193, 194, 195, 202, Vlachs, 2, 10, 11, 12, 24n, 37, 68.
206, 212, 213, 221, 223, 224, 225, 190, 205, 216
230, 237, 257; region, map 2; Vladimir (Bulgarian ruler, son of Bo-
town, map 5 ris 1), //2, 119, 130, 132, 141, 164
Trikkala (town), 216; map 4 Vladimir (king of Duklja, son of
Trnovo (town), 179; map 3 King Michael's son Vladimir). 231,
Trogir (town), 35, 242, 245, 253, 232, 233
273, 276, 281, 285, 289; map 5 Vladimir (King Michael of Duklja's
Trogir manuscript of 1102 Pact, 285 son), 231
Trpimir (Croatian ruler), 257, 261; Vladimir, Prince, of Kiev, 187
the Trpimirovici, 261, 283 Vlastimir (Serbian ruler). 108, 110,
Tuk (Bulgar boyar), 104 141
Tundza River, map 1 Voden (town), 197; map 4
336 Index
Vojislav, Stefan (ruler of Duklja), Zadruga (an extended family), 7-8

202, 203, 206-07, 211, 212, 213, Zagora (region), 74, 118; map 2
230 Zagreb (town), 3, 284; maps 5, 6
Vojnomir (Croatian prince), 78, 252 Zaharije (Serbian prince), 141, 152,
Vojteh, George (rebel against 153, 154, 157, 159, 263, 264
Byzantium), 213-14 Zahumlje (region), 35, 53, 57, 149,
Volga Bulgars, 44 152, 154, 160, 193, 194, 195, 201,
Volga River, 67 202, 206, 207, 223, 224, 225, 231,
Vranje (town), 226; map 6 244, 257, 266, 273, 274; map 2.
Vrbas River, 253; map 1 See also Hum
Vuk (rebel on Krk), 280 Zakon sudnyi ljud'm. See Court Law
Vukan (ruler of Raska), 222-23, for the People
224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 231, Zakythinos, D. (scholar), 61, 63
233, 244 Zautzes, Stylianus. See Stylianus
Vukan of Zeta (son of Nemanja), Zautzes
244 Zdeslav (Croatian ruler), 257, 261
Zemun (town), 235, 238, 241, 242,
Wallachia, 66, 67; map 2 289; map 3
Werewolves, 163 Zeno (Byzantine emperor), 21-22
West Turks, 43 Zeta (region, previously called
White Croatia, White Croats (Belo Duklja), 193, 212, 213, 220, 221,
Croatia), 50, 51, 52, 55, 56, 57, 58 228, 244, 245, 246. For location of
White Serbia, White Serbs, 52, 56, Duklja, see map 2. See also
57, 58 Duklja
Willibald (pilgrim and author), 62 Zeta zupa (The name Zeta originally
Women, 6-7, 97, 111, 129, 175, 181, referred to a smaller region [a
252 zupa] within Dukla). For location,
see map 5
Yahya of Antioch (chronicler), 181, Zupa organization, 38, 51, 57, 154,
190, 192 193, 223, 225, 226, 230, 251, 253,
Yugoslavia, 9, 10, 11, 12, 28, 34, 35, 263, 266, 283
38, 39, 49, 53, 56, 57, 58, 64, 225, Zlatarski, V. (scholar), 26, 36, 37,
252; map 6 45, 46, 48, 66, 69, 72, 74, 75-76,
77, 98, 100, 127, 152, 154, 155-56,
Zadar (town), 35, 195, 200, 245, 253, 162, 190, 192, 194, 204, 228
258-60, 264, 265, 266, 272, 273, Zoe (Byzantine empress, mother of
274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 281, Constantine VII), 137, 143, 148,
285, 289; Prior of, 259-60, 264, 149, 150, 155
265, 266, 274, 276, 277, 278, 279; Zvonimir (king of Croatia), 279, 283,
map 5 286
HUNGARY
GREECE
TYRRHENIAN=SEA
MEDITERRANEAN=. SEA
Map 6. The Modern Balkans

RUMANIA
BULGARIA
BLACK=SEA =
"<a..---~--
ALBANIA I
!"'' e
I
,-~
; GREECE
Most of what has been written on the medieval Balkans-
the area that now encompasses Yugoslavia, Greece, Bul-
garia, and Albania-has been little more than a footnote
to Byzantine history or has been limited to narrow na-
tional histories. The Early Medieval Balkan is the first com-
prehensive examination of the events of early medieval
Balkan history-events that were as important as they are
fascinating.
The period that John Fine examines was an era of signifi-

cant demographic, political, and religious change in the
region. During this time, native populations were supple-
mented or replaced by the BuJgars and various Slavic
tribes, who were to become the Bulgarians, Serbs, and
Croats--ethnic identities that exist to this day. They formed
their first states and fought both militarily and politically,
and with varying degrees of success, for protection from
the domination of Constantinople and each other. Equally
important, most of the people of the Balkans were con-
verted to Christianity during this period and came under
the religious jurisdiction of either Rome or Constantinople,
thus determining which peoples would be Roman Catho-
lic and which Eastern Orthodox at the time of the Great
Schism. Thls polarity of religious loyalty has persisted
into the twentieth century. This thorough and detailed
study cuts through many of the myths and assumptions
that have pervaded previous histories of the Balkans. It is
an important source for those who wish to expand their
knowledge of this turbulent period and who wish to
broaden their understanding of the region.
John V. A. Fine, Jr., i Professor of History at the University of

Midrigan. He is the author of a companion study, The Late
Medieval Baikal/ :A Critical Sun1ey from the Late Twelfth Century to the
Ottoman Conquest, also pub.lished by the University of Michigan
Press.
lSBN 0-472-08149-7
90000>
Ann Arbor
THE UNIVERSITY OF
MICHIGAN PRESS
9 780472 081493

John V. A. Fine - The Early Medieval Balkans - A Critical Survey From The Sixth To The Late Twelfth Century (1991, University of Michigan Press) PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

John V. A. Fine - The Early Medieval Balkans - A Critical Survey From The Sixth To The Late Twelfth Century (1991, University of Michigan Press) PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

John V. A. Fine - The Early Medieval Balkans - A Critical Survey From The Sixth To The Late Twelfth Century (1991, University of Michigan Press) PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE EARLY

JOHN V. A. FINE, Jr.

JOHN V. A. FINE, JR.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Fine, John Van Antwerp.

This book is a general survey of early medieval Balkan history. Geo-

mous demographic changes occurred. If we exclude the Greeks, living

ods-though sweeping generalizations about the activities of various

of fact and fiction as history. There is nothing shameful in admitting

historical conclusions have been based and demonstrate how, at times,

Serbo-Croatian is a single language (with, of course, dialectical differ-

c = ts (except in words already accepted into English such as tsar)

Greek was undergoing evolution at this time with the b coming to

Introduction: Balkan Geography and Society

Chapter 1: Historical Background 9

Chapter 2: The Slavic Invasions 25

Chapter 3: The Balkans in the Eighth Century 74

Chapter 4: Bulgaria in the Ninth Century 94

Chapter 5: Bulgaria under Symeon, 893-927 132

Chapter 6: Bulgaria after Symeon, 927-1018 159

Chapter 7: Duklja and the Central and Eastern Balkans from

Civil War in Duklja 228

Chapter 8: Croatia and Dalmatia 248

Appendix: Medieval Rulers 293

Sources and Authors of Sources Referred to in the Text 309

Selected Bibliography 315

Maps 1-5 following page xix

Map 1. Geographical features of the Balkan region

L Ohrid '6L Prespa

Map 2. Early medieval Balkan regions

PI iska "• Madara

)" • Preslav BLACK=SEA_

Map 4. Major early medieval towns in the southern Balkans

Map 5. Major early medieval towns in the western Balkans

For example, lack of communication resulting from the presence of

For territories near the water, communications by sea were more

The overwhelming majority of Balkanites were rural-farmers or shep-

or other security zones, but also from large-scale forcible transplanting

the elder's wife. Families tended to be larger in the mountain areas

This chapter will provide a brief summary of the historical background

The Indigenous Population

Before turning to the Roman Empire, its characteristics (particularly

(i.e., proto-Rumanian) and not West Balkan (i.e., Old Dalmatian)

other of these pre-Slavic peoples; the present-day Albanians, like all

The Romans Acquire the Balkans

places garrisoned) to secure transport and communications. The rest of

The Roman Empire and Its Balkan Provinces in the Third

routes. Much of the population probably reacted as people did later, at

Creation and Importance of Constantinople

Constantine chose to live in the east and he established a new center

Across the straits from Constantinople lay Anatolia. For centu-

Division of the Empire, 395

In 395 the emperor Theodosius I died, leaving the empire divided in

Characteristics of the Byzantine Empire

The Empire Becomes Christian

The empire became officially Christian under Constantine. Of course,

acquire a great role in church affairs. So when the Arian controversy

tion of the Balkans, which was brought about by missionaries sent