The Haemus Mountains as a shelter, an attack outpost and an observation post in the light of the Bulgarian-Byzantine military relations in the early Middle Ages

After the analysis of sources (coming mainly from the period of the 8th–9th centuries), the author of the article claims that still from the outset of the khanate on the lower Danube, Bulgarians made the Haemus Mountains (Stara Planina and Sredna Gora) a permanent protective barrier from behind which they could launch their attacks against the territory of Byzantine Thrace. The mountains functioned as an attack outpost (680/681, 763 and 792) and a convenient observation post, which was used to monitor the Byzantine military stationed both at the northern as well as southern foot of the range (708, 763, 811). The mountains were also used as a shelter to which the defeated Bulgarian troops would retreat (763, 811).After the analysis of sources (coming mainly from the period of the 8th–9th centuries), the author of the article claims that still from the outset of the khanate on the lower Danube, Bulgarians made the Haemus Mountains (Stara Planina and Sredna Gora) a permanent protective barrier from behind which they could launch their attacks against the territory of Byzantine Thrace. The mountains functioned as an attack outpost (680/681, 763 and 792) and a convenient observation post, which was used to monitor the Byzantine military stationed both at the northern as well as southern foot of the range (708, 763, 811). The mountains were also used as a shelter to which the defeated Bulgarian troops would retreat (763, 811)

Spalona ziemia. Losy bułgarskiego zaplecza gospodarczego w czasie wyprawy Nikefora I Genika z roku 811

The article is dedicated to the impact of the military expedition led by the Byzantine emperor Nikephoros I Genikos (802–811) on the overall political and economic situation of the Bulgarian state. During the military operations carried out in the Khanate, the Byzantine forces undertook the devastation of arable fields, the killing of farm animals and probably committed murders of the local population. Many researchers associate this activity with the loosening of discipline within the army, which was to be the result of a lack of control on the part of the commander-in-chief. On the basis of the correlation and rationalization of the sources in the matter, we have to interpret all these actions in a completely different way, as a conscious activity aimed at causing the Bulgarians the greatest possible losses by the imperial army. Moreover, the interpretation contradicts the universally accepted thesis, that the imperial campaign was aimed at eliminating Bulgarian statehood and incorporating its lands into Byzantium. It seems, therefore, that the purpose of the described activities was to exclude, for a long time, Khan Kroum (796/803–814) and his subordinates from military engagement in Thrace, Macedonia, i.e. areas where the Empire tried to regain and consolidate its influence.Celem artykułu jest przedstawienie wpływu wielkiej wyprawy zbrojnej pod wodzą cesarza bizantyńskiego Nikefora I Genika (802–811) na ogólną polityczno-gospodarczą sytuację ziem państwa bułgarskiego. W trakcie działań zbrojnych na terenie chanatu, wojska bizantyńskie niszczyły pola uprawne,  wybijały zwierzęta hodowlane i prawdopodobnie dopuściły się mordów na miejscowej ludności. Zazwyczaj badacze tłumaczą te działania rozluźnieniem dyscypliny w armii cesarskiej, w związku z brakiem decyzyjności ze strony głównodowodzącego. Na podstawie korelacji i racjonalizacji źródeł dotyczących kampanii należy uznać, że niszczycielska aktywność wojskowa była podejmowana świadomie, z myślą o zadaniu Bułgarom możliwie największych strat gospodarczych. Co więcej, taka interpretacja przeczy powszechnej tezie, że wspomniana kampania cesarska miała na celu likwidację państwowości bułgarskiej i inkorporację jej ziem do Bizancjum. Należy uznać, że celem opisywanych działań było raczej wyłączenie na dłuższy czas chana Kruma (796/803–814) i jego podwładnych z zaangażowania zbrojnego na terenie Tracji i Macedonii, czyli obszarów, na których cesarstwo starało się odzyskać oraz umocnić swoje wpływy

Τέρνοβος, ἐν ᾗ τὰ βασίλεια ἦν τῶν Βουλγάρων: the Role of the Bulgarian Capital City According to Ῥωμαϊκὴ ἱστορία by Nikephoros Gregoras

The paper is devoted to a detailed analysis of direct and indirect references to Tărnovo, the capital of the so-called Second Bulgarian Tsardom (12th–14th centuries) in Roman history of Nikephoros Gregoras, an outstanding Byzantine scholar of the first half of the fourteenth century. An analysis of the passages devoted to this city leads to a conclusion that the status of the city was fully obvious to the Byzantine historian – this was the main, capital city of the Bulgarian state, in which its rulers permanently resided, without holding which one could not be a fully legitimate tsar of the Bulgarians and exercise real power of the northern neighbours of Byzantium. Thus the conflicts over power in contemporary Bulgaria focused primarily on taking Tărnovo. The Bulgarian tsar departed with military expeditions most often from this city, having gathered in its vicinity armed forces, and to this city Byzantines and rulers of other neighbouring countries sent their envoys to meet with the Bulgarian autocrat

Tărnovgrad Viewed by the Others: the Case of Niketas Choniates

The text is devoted to the analysis of the portrayal of Tărnovo, the new capital of the restored near the end of the twelfth century Bulgarian state, in the historical work and speeches by Niketas Choniates, a Byzantine historian, official and rhetorician from the latter half of the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries. As a direct witness of the contemporary Byzantine-Bulgarian relations, a high ranking court dignitary throughout most of the discussed period, and the author of the most important sources shedding light on the restitution of Bulgaria, he left a legacy of extraordinary importance, one which has shaped views of the subsequent generations of Byzantine historians. While examining Tărnovo’s role shows it did not occupy a particularly significant place in the historian’s narrative, and the remarks concerning it appear as if in passing, he nonetheless was fully conscious of the city’s significance not only for the Bulgarians themselves, but also in the context of the prospective expansion of the Empire in the direction of its northern neighbours. It is therefore no accident that in his brief characterisation the city the author focused on the description of the defensive qualities of Tărnovo. Paradoxically, his arguments on this subject may play an important role in the present ongoing discussion among the archaeologists exploring the former capital on the subject of chronology and size of the fortifications surrounding the two most important hills on which the city developed, namely Tsarevets and Trapezitsa

Asparuh and His People on the Lower Danube through the Eyes of Theophanes, or a Story that Was Not Meant to Happen

The Bulgarians’ settlement in the Lower Danube area constituted one of the most significant events in the history of the Balkan Peninsula in the Middle Ages. The Danube Bulgaria’s rise and its territorial expansion changed the political situation in this area. The Bulgarians became Byzantium’s chief opponents in the struggle for establishing ascendancy over the Balkan Peninsula. The analysis of Theophanes’ Chronography, which remains, in addition to the account by Patriarch Nicephorus, the main source of information about these events supports the conclusion that this Byzantine author took a very negative view of the effects of the arrival of these nomads in the former Byzantine territories. Although this account has been analysed in detail by a number of scholars, these authors have paid no attention to the key role of the tale of Khan Kubrat and the disobedience of his five sons who failed to remain faithful to his last wish. The significance of the personal experiences of Theophanes, who witnessed the Bulgarian expansion during the era of Khan Krum, is also omitted from today’s discussion of these issues. These experiences contributed to the way in which he viewed the migration of the ancestors of the distinguished Bulgarian ruler. The chronicler may thus be considered to have offered a very clear view of what the readers should think of the Bulgarians’ arrival in the Balkan territories.Publication of English-language versions of the volumes of the yearly Studia Ceranea financed through contract no. 501/1/P-DUN/2017 from the funds of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education devoted to the promotion of scholarship

Wstęp

Książka jest zbiorem tekstów prezentujących szeroki wachlarz zagadnień dotyczących historii średniowiecznej Polski i Europy. W czterech działach ‒ na wybranych, konkretnych przykładach ‒ podjęto tematykę dotyczącą monarchów i ich rodzin, społeczeństwa i jego poczynań, sztuki, architektury i artefaktów życia codziennego, jak również światopoglądu ludzi wieków średnich. Tak różnorodne problemy badawcze zaciekawią wszystkich, którzy interesują się historią średniowiecza, w tym heraldyką, genealogią, archeologią czy historią sztuki

Lord Kubrat and his five sons. Theophanes’ view of the Bulgarians’ arrival in the Balkan Peninsula

The Bulgarians’ settlement in the Lower Danube area constituted one of the most significant events in the history of the Balkan Peninsula in the Middle Ages. The Danube Bulgaria’s rise and its territorial expansion changed the political situation in this area. The Bulgarians became Byzantium’s chief opponents in the struggle for establishing ascendancy over the Balkan Peninsula. The analysis of Theophanes’ Chronography, which remains, in addition to the account by Patriarch Nikephoros, the main source of information about these events supports the conclusion that this Byzantine author took a very negative view of the effects of the arrival of these nomads in the former Byzantine territories. Although this account has been analysed in detail by a number of scholars, these authors have paid no attention to the key role of the tale of Khan Kubrat and the disobedience of his five sons who failed to remain faithful to his last wish. The significance of the personal experiences of Theophanes, who witnessed the Bulgarian expansion during the era of Khan Krum, is also omitted from today’s discussion of these issues. These experiences contributed to the way in which he viewed the migration of the ancestors of the distinguished Bulgarian ruler. The chronicler may thus be considered to have offered a very clear view of what the readers should think of the Bulgarians’ arrival in the Balkan territories.The Bulgarians’ settlement in the Lower Danube area constituted one of the most significant events in the history of the Balkan Peninsula in the Middle Ages. The Danube Bulgaria’s rise and its territorial expansion changed the political situation in this area. The Bulgarians became Byzantium’s chief opponents in the struggle for establishing ascendancy over the Balkan Peninsula. The analysis of Theophanes’ Chronography, which remains, in addition to the account by Patriarch Nikephoros, the main source of information about these events supports the conclusion that this Byzantine author took a very negative view of the effects of the arrival of these nomads in the former Byzantine territories. Although this account has been analysed in detail by a number of scholars, these authors have paid no attention to the key role of the tale of Khan Kubrat and the disobedience of his five sons who failed to remain faithful to his last wish. The significance of the personal experiences of Theophanes, who witnessed the Bulgarian expansion during the era of Khan Krum, is also omitted from today’s discussion of these issues. These experiences contributed to the way in which he viewed the migration of the ancestors of the distinguished Bulgarian ruler. The chronicler may thus be considered to have offered a very clear view of what the readers should think of the Bulgarians’ arrival in the Balkan territories

Góry Hemos a bizantyńskie wpływy kulturowe i gospodarcze na wczesnośredniowieczną Bułgarię

The text discusses the importance of the Hemos mountain range (nowadays including Pre-Balkan, Stara Planina and Sredna Gora massifs) which separated the core territory of the early medieval Bulgaria in the North from the Byzantine lands in the South (almost through the entire so-called pagan or barbarian period of the Bulgarian state, i.e. from the end of 7th to the middle of 9th centuries), and divided the state in two geographically separated territories during the rest part of the existence of the so-called First Bulgarian Empire (from the second half of the 9th to the end of 10th and beginning of 11th centuries). The source investigation shows that especially during the first half of the period in consideration – the mentioned pagan (barbarian) period – the mountains really acted, to a certain degree, as a barrier for the Byzantine influences on the Bulgarians. That was because of the ideological (political) and religious differences between both the states.Tekst omawia znaczenie górskiego łańcucha Hemosu (współcześnie odpowiadającego masywom Przedbałkanu, Starej Płaniny i Srednej Gory), który rozdzielał jądro terytorialne wczesnośredniowiecznej Bułgarii znajdujące się na północy od ziem bizantyńskich leżących na południu (prawie przez cały tzw. pogański okres państwa bułgarskiego, a zatem pomiędzy końcem VII. a połową IX. w.), i dzielił państwo na dwa geograficznie odrębne obszary przez pozostałą część istnienia tzw. Pierwszego Państwa Bułgarskiego (od drugiej połowy IX. do końca X. i początków XI. w.). Analiza źródłowa wskazuje, że szczególnie w pierwszej części omawianego okresu chronologicznego – w tzw. okresie pogańskim lub barbarzyńskim – góry rzeczywiście, do pewnego stopnia, odgrywały rolę bariery dla wpływów bizantyńskich na Bułgarów. Wynikało to z różnic ideologicznych (politycznych) i konfesyjnych pomiędzy oboma państwami