The Western Balkans in the High Middle Ages (900–1200)

chapter 16 The Western Balkans in the High Middle Ages (900–1200)

“Baptized Croatia musters as many as 60 thousand horse and 100 thousand foot, and galleys up to 80 and cutters up to 100.”1 Thus described Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus in the mid-10th century what must have been a major power in the northwestern Balkans. According to Constantine, the country began at the river Zentina (now Cetina) and stretched along the Adriatic coast as far north as Istria, while reaching deeply inland, to the bor- ders of Serbia. Croatia was divided into 14 districts called zhupanias, of which 11 were located south of the river Zrmanja, under the direct control of the Croatian ruler. The other three zhupanias (“Kribasa, Litza and Goutziska”) were in Liburnia (northern Dalmatia), under a deputy of the ruler, named ban.2 Bans exercised considerable power, with some of them intervening in the election of the Croatian duke (Table 16.1). But in his letters to Tomislav (ca. 910–928), Pope John X (914–928) called him “king” (rex), not “duke” (dux), and all his 10th-century successors called themselves kings in both inscriptions and letters.3 To Pope John X, Tomislav was a ruler both of “the province of the Croats” and of “the Dalmatian regions.” This suggests that, perhaps in order to co-opt him against Symeon of Bulgaria, Emperor Leo VI (886–912) gave Tomislav the control over the cities in the Byzantine theme of Dalmatia, which had come into being in the mid-9th century.

1 Constantine Porphyrogenitus, On the Administration of the Empire 31, p. 151. For this passage, see Živković, “Contribution”; Nazor, “Ustroj.” For 10th-century Croatia in On the Administration of the Empire, see Szeberényi, “Obraz.” 2 Constantine Porphyrogenitus, On the Administration of the Empire 30, p. 145. Zhupanias were ruled by “elders” (zhupans), for whom see Constantine Porphyrogenitus, On the Administration of the Empire 29, p. 125; Goldstein, Hrvatske županije; Smiljanić, “O položaju.” The three zhupanias in Liburnia are the modern regions of Krbava, Lika, and Gačka (Birin, “Gorski Kotar”). Štih, “Der ostadriatische Raum,” p. 215 believes the Croatian bans to be a reminiscence of Avar rule. 3 Rački, Documenta, p. 187. For Tomislav, see Goldstein, “O Tomislavu” and Hrvatski rani sred- nji vijek, p. 297. The discovery of an early 10th-century seal in Podgradina (near Livno, in Bosnia-Herzegovina; see Mirnik, “Two recent finds”) has sparked a polemic between those who (wrongly) assumed it was Tomislav’s (Periša, “Geopolitički položaj” and “Historiografsko betoniranje”) and those who (correctly) attributed it to Emperor Leo VI (Bali, “Pečat”). The debate has highlighted (and partially illustrated) the significance of King Tomislav for the late 20th-century Croatian nationalism.

Trpimir I ca. 845–864 Domagoj 864–876 Sedesclav (Zdeslav) 876–879 Branimir 879–ca. 890 Muncimir ca. 890–910 Tomislav 910–ca. 928 Trpimir II ca. 928–ca. 935 Krešimir I ca. 935–ca. 945 Miroslav ca. 945–949 Michael Krešimir II 949–969 Stjepan Držislav 969–997 Krešimir III 1000–1030 Stephen I 1030–1058 Peter Krešimir IV 1058–1074 Zvonimir 1075–1089 Stephen II 1089–1090

1 Synods in Dalmatia

At any rate, papal legates came to Croatia in 927 to mediate a peace between Tomislav and Symeon, who had just been defeated by the Croats.4 One year later, the legates attended a synod summoned in Split for all bishops in Dalmatia (Fig. 16.1). This was apparently not the first, but the second synod summoned in that city. The first had taken place in 925 and had dealt with a quarrel over diocesan boundaries between the bishops of Split and Nin.5 The attitude of the papal legates towards this conflict seems to have been based on Pope John X’s idea that the Dalmatian sees were now under the authority

4 Šišić, Enchiridion, pp. 221–22; Mandić, “Croatian king.” 5 Kostrenčić, Codex, pp. 30–38. The information about the two synods derives from the letters of Pope John X to John, Archbishop of Split, and to his suffragans, as well as to Tomislav and Michael, the prince of Zahumlje. The letters are incorporated in the so-called Historia Salonitana maior, a 16th-century compilation discovered by Daniele Farlati (1690–1773) in the archive of the Congregation De propaganda fide in Rome (Klaić, Historia). While fol- lowing closely Archdeacon Thomas of Spalato’s History of Salona until 1185, the Historia Salonitana maior also includes the transcripts of a number of documents pertaining to the earliest history of Split. Because they only survive in such a late compilation, the authenticity of those documents has sometimes been questioned. See Matijević-Sokol, Toma Arhidjakon, pp. 11–24; Budak, “Historia Salonitana.”