DOCSLIB.ORG

Симеонова България Emperor Symeon's Bulgaria

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

СИМЕОНОВА БЪЛГАРИЯ В ИСТОРИЯТА НА ЕВРОПЕЙСКИЯ ЮГОИЗТОК: 1100 ГОДИНИ ОТ БИТКАТА ПРИ АХЕЛОЙ I EMPEROR SYMEON’S BULGARIA IN THE HISTORY OF EUROPE’S SOUTH-EAST: 1100 YEARS FROM THE BATTLE OF ACHELOUS EMPEROR SYMEON’S BULGARIA IN THE HISTORY OF EUROPE’S SOUTH-EAST: 1100 YEARS FROM THE BATTLE OF ACHELOUS I Edited by Angel Nikolov Nikolay Kanev St Kliment Ohridski University Press Sofia • 2018 СИМЕОНОВА БЪЛГАРИЯ В ИСТОРИЯТА НА ЕВРОПЕЙСКИЯ ЮГОИЗТОК: 1100 ГОДИНИ ОТ БИТКАТА ПРИ АХЕЛОЙ I Съставители Ангел Николов Николай Кънев Университетско издателство „Св. Климент Охридски“ София • 2018 Първият том от материалите на Международната научна конференция „Симеонова България в историята на европейския Югоизток: 1100 години от битката при Ахелой“ (Поморие, 25-28 октомври 2017 г.) се издава с финансиране от Историческия факултет на Софийския университет „Св. Климент Охридски“, договор по НИС № 80-10-86 от 20. 04. 2017 г. Редакционна колегия: Ангел Николов Антон Карабашев Георги Николов Милен Николов Николай Кънев Пламен Павлов © 2018 Ангел Николов, Николай Кънев, съставителство © 2018 Анастасия Добычина, Ангел Николов, Владимир Ангелов, Десислава Найденова, Дмитрий Полывянный, Женя Жекова, Иван Йорданов, Ивелин Иванов, Камен Станев, Красимир Кръстев, Лиляна Симеонова, Павел Георгиев, Петър Ангелов, Сашка Георгиева, Тома Томов, Aleksandar Uzelac, Daniel Ziemann, Jonathan Shepard, Milica Radišić, Mirosław Leszka, автори © 2018 Университетско издателство „Св. Климент Охридски“ ISBN 978-954-07- СЪДЪРЖАНИЕ CONTENTS ПЛЕНАРНИ ДОКЛАДИ PLENARY PAPERS Jonathan Shepard Symeon’s confrontation with Byzantium c. 917: diplomatic ripples across Eurasia / 11 Дмитрий Полывянный Деяния царя Симеона в истории и исторической памяти болгар / 22 Иван Йорданов Битката при Ахелой през 917 г.: Численост и състав на византийската армия. Просопография на участниците (Приносът на сфрагистиката) / 33 БИТКАТА ПРИ АХЕЛОЙ THE BATTLE OF ACHELOUS РАННОСРЕДНОВЕКОВНА БЪЛГАРИЯ (IX–X В.) EARLY MEDIEVAL BULGARIA (9–10 C.) Тома Томов Няколко щрихи към Ахелойската битка / 63 Павел Георгиев Битката при Ахелой: „Константиновият кръст“ и/против „тоягата на Мойсей“ (За библейските и исторически префигурации на цар Симеон) / 80 Мирослав Й. Лешка Почему Симеон победил в битве при Ахелое (917)? Точка зрения побежденных (Версия Льва Диакона) / 97 Женя Жекова Парични плащания на Византия, свързани с битката при Ахелой / 107 Ивелин А. Иванов Реките и големите битки на българите през Средновековието / 118 Milica Radišić Archaeological testimonies of Bulgarian presence in the Central Balkans during the ninth and tenth centuries / 134 Лиляна Симеонова Пътят на младия Симеон от „спокойната тишина на манастира“ до възкачването му на българския трон / 155 Камен Станев Българската експанзия в района на Солун по времето на цар Симеон / 164 Daniel Ziemann Liberation, Submission or Destruction – Bulgarians and the Conquered Territories in the Time of Tsar Symeon / 172 5 Владимир Ангелов Някои наблюдения върху съдбата на политическите бегълци при управлението на цар Симеон / 184 Десислава Найденова Защо плачат царете (Средновековна България IX–X в.) / 194 Петър Ангелов Религиозни аргументи в кореспонденцията на цар Симеон / 206 Ангел Николов Проблемът за канонизацията на княз Борис-Михаил / 214 Сашка Георгиева Брачната дипломация на българския владетел Симеон Велики / 222 Aleksandar Uzelac Prince Michael of Zahumlje – a Serbian ally of tsar Symeon / 236 Красимир Кръстев Цар Симеон и арабите / 246 Анастасия Добычина «Золотой век» царя Симеона I Великого (864‒927) в советской и современной российской историографии / 253 СЪКРАЩЕНИЯ / 270 ABBREVIATIONS СПИСЪК НА АВТОРИТЕ / 271 LIST OF AUTHORS От съставителите Читателят държи в ръцете си първия том от материалите на Меж- дународната научна конференция „Симеонова България в историята на европейския Югоизток: 1100 години от битката при Ахелой“ (Поморие, 25–28 октомври 2017 г.), организирана от Община Поморие, Историче- ския факултет и Центъра за медиевистични изследвания на Великотър- новския университет „Св. св. Кирил и Методий“, Историческия факул- тет на Софийския университет „Св. Климент Охридски“, Регионален исторически музей – гр. Бургас и Исторически музей – гр. Поморие. Поместените тук 20 доклада на учени от България, Великобритания, Германия, Полша, Русия и Сърбия разкриват различни аспекти от съд- бата на България, Византия и Балканите през епохата на цар Симеон Велики. Конкретен повод за провеждането на този голям научен форум ста- на отбелязването на 1100-годишнината от Ахелойската битка, състоя- ла се на 20 август 917 г. край град Анхиало, дн. Поморие, но един от главните стремежи на организаторите и участниците беше да поставят това важно събитие в по-широк исторически контекст и да погледнат към него от перспективата на съвременната интердисциплинарна меди- евистика, която съчетава инструментариума на класическото историче- ско дирене, филологията, археологията, нумизматиката, сфрагистика- та, историческата география и др. Публикуването на този том се реализира с финансовата подкрепа на Историческия факултет на Софийския университет „Св. Климент Охридски“, за което изказваме нашата благодарност. 7 ПЛЕНАРНИ ДОКЛАДИ PLENARY PAPERS Symeon’s confrontation with Byzantium c. 917: diplomatic ripples across Eurasia Jonathan Shepard Some of the ‘diplomatic ripples’ that I shall be mentioning are hypothetical – merely possible side-effects that may have been set in motion by the events at Achelous and its aftermath. But it seems worth drawing attention to the sheer number of long-range diplomatic embassies occurring in various parts of Eurasia including North Africa around the year 917: I suggest that they may be a by-product of the demarches made not only by Byzantium but also by Symeon and, further, that one may count among them one set of embassies exchanged within the Muslim world. Underlying my suggestion is a kind of tripod of reasonably well-known facts and dates: firstly, in preparation for the surprise-attack on Symeon, Byzantium made elaborate diplomatic preparations to ensure a degree of stability on other fronts and, in particular, to maximise its presence in the Pontic steppes; secondly, Symeon himself undertook a series of demarches before Achelous but also in its aftermath, approaching Muslim powers capable of supplying the naval capability needed for an assault on Constantinople, an operation beyond his own resources; and thirdly, in the summer of 921 Caliph al-Muqtadir sent an embassy that included Ibn-Fadlan to the ruler of the Volga Bulgars, in response to his request for a religious mission and assistance against foreign ‘kings’. The historicity of the three sets of events is not in dispute. Rather more contestable is what I am proposing: that there may have been a connection between them, and that Ibn-Fadlan’s mission to the Middle Volga may have been a kind of ‘spinoff’ – albeit only an indirect one – from the diplomatic flurries before and after Achelous, including the demarches made by Symeon himself. Firstly, let us glance at Byzantium’s diplomatic preparations for invading Bulgaria. The surprise-attack launched ‘to overcome and annihilate’ Symeon (in the words of a Byzantine chronicle)1 consisted largely of troops withdrawn from the eastern provinces and, unsurprisingly, care was taken to negotiate a truce with the Abbasid government beforehand. The embassy sent in the spring of 917 received an elaborate reception in Baghdad. The envoys’ bewilderment at the number of palaces and their readiness to prostrate themselves before 1 ‘katapolemesai kai aphanisai’: THEOPHANES CONTINUATUS, ed. I. BEKKER, Bonn 1838, 388. 11 the Caliph as a mark of respect is emphasised in the Arabic sources.2 The Byzantines’ true reason for seeking tranquillity on their eastern front will have become obvious to the well-informed Abbasid authorities soon after the invasion of Bulgaria, if not beforehand. They hardly needed reminding of the wide range of the Byzantine geopolitical calculus, or of its capacity for concealing its ultimate purposes. But the episode will have served to illustrate to the Abbasids not only the obvious strategic significance of Symeon but also, more generally, the desirability of taking advantage of such long-distance alliances as might become available to them. Meanwhile, Byzantine diplomatic agents were hard at work in the northern steppes. Their most famous demarche is the engagement of Pecheneg hordes by the governor of Cherson, John Bogas, to serve as the counterpart to the Byzantine eastern army in a pincer-movement against Symeon. The Pechenegs were clearly the vital element in this strategy, but the imperial government is unlikely to have confined its overtures to them, given its bitter experience of Symeon’s resourcefulness in forging alliances. The Pechenegs’ very presence in the Black Sea steppes was, after all, a consequence of Symeon’s dexterity in countering a Hungarian invasion instigated by the Byzantines some twenty years earlier; this instance of his long diplomatic reach was recorded in the imperial archives.3 And so, in preparing its surprise attack on Symeon, the government will have sought to ensure at least the neutrality of other warlike peoples living on or near the steppes. In other words, embassies were most probably sent to the Hungarians, Alans, Rus and all the ‘other Scythian nations’ who were, according to Nicholas Mystikos, lined up to attack Symeon and bring about the ‘final destruction of the race of the Bulgarians’.4 If by around 922, the likely date of this threatening message of Nicholas
Recommended publications
  • Hadrian and the Greek East

    Hadrian and the Greek East

    HADRIAN AND THE GREEK EAST: IMPERIAL POLICY AND COMMUNICATION DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University By Demetrios Kritsotakis, B.A, M.A. * * * * * The Ohio State University 2008 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Professor Fritz Graf, Adviser Professor Tom Hawkins ____________________________ Professor Anthony Kaldellis Adviser Greek and Latin Graduate Program Copyright by Demetrios Kritsotakis 2008 ABSTRACT The Roman Emperor Hadrian pursued a policy of unification of the vast Empire. After his accession, he abandoned the expansionist policy of his predecessor Trajan and focused on securing the frontiers of the empire and on maintaining its stability. Of the utmost importance was the further integration and participation in his program of the peoples of the Greek East, especially of the Greek mainland and Asia Minor. Hadrian now invited them to become active members of the empire. By his lengthy travels and benefactions to the people of the region and by the creation of the Panhellenion, Hadrian attempted to create a second center of the Empire. Rome, in the West, was the first center; now a second one, in the East, would draw together the Greek people on both sides of the Aegean Sea. Thus he could accelerate the unification of the empire by focusing on its two most important elements, Romans and Greeks. Hadrian channeled his intentions in a number of ways, including the use of specific iconographical types on the coinage of his reign and religious language and themes in his interactions with the Greeks. In both cases it becomes evident that the Greeks not only understood his messages, but they also reacted in a positive way.
  • Byzantine Missionaries, Foreign Rulers, and Christian Narratives (Ca

    Byzantine Missionaries, Foreign Rulers, and Christian Narratives (Ca

    Conversion and Empire: Byzantine Missionaries, Foreign Rulers, and Christian Narratives (ca. 300-900) by Alexander Borislavov Angelov A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (History) in The University of Michigan 2011 Doctoral Committee: Professor John V.A. Fine, Jr., Chair Professor Emeritus H. Don Cameron Professor Paul Christopher Johnson Professor Raymond H. Van Dam Associate Professor Diane Owen Hughes © Alexander Borislavov Angelov 2011 To my mother Irina with all my love and gratitude ii Acknowledgements To put in words deepest feelings of gratitude to so many people and for so many things is to reflect on various encounters and influences. In a sense, it is to sketch out a singular narrative but of many personal “conversions.” So now, being here, I am looking back, and it all seems so clear and obvious. But, it is the historian in me that realizes best the numerous situations, emotions, and dilemmas that brought me where I am. I feel so profoundly thankful for a journey that even I, obsessed with planning, could not have fully anticipated. In a final analysis, as my dissertation grew so did I, but neither could have become better without the presence of the people or the institutions that I feel so fortunate to be able to acknowledge here. At the University of Michigan, I first thank my mentor John Fine for his tremendous academic support over the years, for his friendship always present when most needed, and for best illustrating to me how true knowledge does in fact produce better humanity.
  • Byzantium's Balkan Frontier

    Byzantium's Balkan Frontier

    This page intentionally left blank Byzantium’s Balkan Frontier is the first narrative history in English of the northern Balkans in the tenth to twelfth centuries. Where pre- vious histories have been concerned principally with the medieval history of distinct and autonomous Balkan nations, this study regards Byzantine political authority as a unifying factor in the various lands which formed the empire’s frontier in the north and west. It takes as its central concern Byzantine relations with all Slavic and non-Slavic peoples – including the Serbs, Croats, Bulgarians and Hungarians – in and beyond the Balkan Peninsula, and explores in detail imperial responses, first to the migrations of nomadic peoples, and subsequently to the expansion of Latin Christendom. It also examines the changing conception of the frontier in Byzantine thought and literature through the middle Byzantine period. is British Academy Postdoctoral Fellow, Keble College, Oxford BYZANTIUM’S BALKAN FRONTIER A Political Study of the Northern Balkans, – PAUL STEPHENSON British Academy Postdoctoral Fellow Keble College, Oxford The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, UK 40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011-4211, USA 477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, VIC 3207, Australia Ruiz de Alarcón 13, 28014 Madrid, Spain Dock House, The Waterfront, Cape Town 8001, South Africa http://www.cambridge.org © Paul Stephenson 2004 First published in printed format 2000 ISBN 0-511-03402-4 eBook (Adobe Reader) ISBN 0-521-77017-3 hardback Contents List ofmaps and figurespagevi Prefacevii A note on citation and transliterationix List ofabbreviationsxi Introduction .Bulgaria and beyond:the Northern Balkans (c.–) .The Byzantine occupation ofBulgaria (–) .Northern nomads (–) .Southern Slavs (–) .The rise ofthe west,I:Normans and Crusaders (–) .
  • Downloaded from Brill.Com10/04/2021 08:59:36AM Via Free Access

    Downloaded from Brill.Com10/04/2021 08:59:36AM Via Free Access

    Chapter 12 Aristocrats, Mercenaries, Clergymen and Refugees: Deliberate and Forced Mobility of Armenians in the Early Medieval Mediterranean (6th to 11th Century a.d.) Johannes Preiser-Kapeller 1 Introduction Armenian mobility in the early Middle Ages has found some attention in the scholarly community. This is especially true for the migration of individuals and groups towards the Byzantine Empire. A considerable amount of this re- search has focused on the carriers and histories of individual aristocrats or noble families of Armenian origin. The obviously significant share of these in the Byzantine elite has even led to formulations such as Byzantium being a “Greco-Armenian Empire”.1 While, as expected, evidence for the elite stratum is relatively dense, larger scale migration of members of the lower aristocracy (“azat”, within the ranking system of Armenian nobility, see below) or non- aristocrats (“anazat”) can also be traced with regard to the overall movement of groups within the entire Byzantine sphere. In contrast to the nobility, however, the life stories and strategies of individuals of these backgrounds very rarely can be reconstructed based on our evidence. In all cases, the actual signifi- cance of an “Armenian” identity for individuals and groups identified as “Ar- menian” by contemporary sources or modern day scholarship (on the basis of 1 Charanis, “Armenians in the Byzantine Empire”, passim; Charanis, “Transfer of population”; Toumanoff, “Caucasia and Byzantium”, pp. 131–133; Ditten, Ethnische Verschiebungen, pp. 124–127, 134–135; Haldon, “Late Roman Senatorial Elite”, pp. 213–215; Whitby, “Recruitment”, pp. 87–90, 99–101, 106–110; Isaac, “Army in the Late Roman East”, pp.
  • The Taktika of Leo VI and the Byzantine Eastern Frontier During the Ninth and Tenth Centuries[*]

    The Taktika of Leo VI and the Byzantine Eastern Frontier During the Ninth and Tenth Centuries[*]

    a a SPICILEGIUM Online Journal of Japan Society for Medieval European Studies, Vol. 1 (2017) * * * * * * a a The Taktika of Leo VI and the Byzantine Eastern Frontier During the Ninth and Tenth Centuries[*] Kosuke Nakada [*] I should like to thank the editors and anon- Abstract ymous reviewers of Spicilegium for comment- ing on an earlier draft of this article. I should also like to thank Dr Koji Murata for revising Recent studies on the political and military history in the reign of Leo VI (r. 886–912) tend to my draft. emphasise his role as a central authoritative figure. However, close scrutiny on the emperor’s At the outset, I would like to mention that I have already published another article on the military treatise called the Taktika and collation with the actual situation offers a different pic- Taktika in Japanese (“The Taktika of Leo VI and ture concerning his view on the warfare in the eastern frontier. In chapter XVIII of the Taktika the Byzantine Eastern Frontier in his Reign,” on the manoeuvres against the raiding Arabs, Leo emphasises the importance of autonomous Mediterraneus: Annual Report of the Collegium Mediterranistarum 36 [2013], pp. 3–24), in regional defence undertaken by local forces. When understood collectively with other sources, which my focus was on the nature of the whole this can be an attestation of Leo’s willingness to delegate power to potentates in order to resist text as a military treatise, and the meaning of the incessant raids more effectively, despite the possible centrifugal effects. This sort of interac- the chapter on the Arabs.
  • Pompey and Cicero: an Alliance of Convenience

    Pompey and Cicero: an Alliance of Convenience

    POMPEY AND CICERO: AN ALLIANCE OF CONVENIENCE THESIS Presented to the Graduate Council of Texas State University-San Marcos in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of ARTS by Charles E. Williams Jr., B.A. San Marcos, Texas May 2013 POMPEY AND CICERO: AN ALLIANCE OF CONVENIENCE Committee Members Approved: ______________________________ Pierre Cagniart, Chair ______________________________ Kenneth Margerison ______________________________ Elizabeth Makowski Approved: ______________________________ J. Michael Willoughby Dean of the Graduate College COPYRIGHT by Charles E. Williams Jr. 2013 FAIR USE AND AUTHOR’S PERMISSION STATEMENT Fair Use This work is protected by the Copyright Laws of the United States (Public Law 94- 553, section 107). Consistent with fair use as defined in the Copyright Laws, brief quotations from this material are allowed with proper acknowledgment. Use of this material for financial gain without the author’s express written permission is not allowed. Duplication Permission As the copyright holder of this work I, Charles E. Williams Jr., authorize duplication of this work, in whole or in part, for educational or scholarly purposes only. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Above all I would like to thank my parents, Chuck and Kay Williams, for their continuing support, assistance, and encouragement. Their desire to see me succeed in my academic career is perhaps equal to my own. Thanks go as well to Dr Pierre Cagnart, without whom this work would not have been possible. His expertise in Roman politics and knowledge concerning the ancient sources were invaluable. I would also like to thank Dr. Kenneth Margerison and Dr. Elizabeth Makowski for critiquing this work and many other papers I have written as an undergraduate and graduate student.
  • BYZANTIUM, BULGARIA and the PEOPLES of UKRAINE in the 890S

    BYZANTIUM, BULGARIA and the PEOPLES of UKRAINE in the 890S

    Материалы по археопогии, истории и этнографии Таврии. Вып. VII J. HOWARD-JOHNSTON BYZANTIUM, BULGARIA AND THE PEOPLES OF UKRAINE IN THE 890s This paper offers some observations about the context of Crimean history at the end of the nintti century. It continues the story of developments in the steppe world outiined elsewhere in this volume by Alexander Aibabin and Constantine Zuckermann. Attention is first directed at the Balkans where war broke out between Byzantium and Bulgaria in the 890s. Associated diplo­ matic activity by both belligerents reached deep into the steppes beyond the Danube. There it triggered, or at any rate conbibuted to a dramatic set of interrelated events, which transformed the face of ukraine. The Pechenegs replaced the Hungarians as the dominant power between the Don and the Danube and, consequently, as the people who thenceforth wielded authority over the greater, steppe part of the Crimea. The ramifications of this geopolitical change ex­ tended to central Europe, where the Hungarians, ejected from their previous homeland in ukraine, established a durable state in the Carpathian basin and secured their position there by a flurry of wide-ranging, devastating raids further west and south. But before we can observe these events, let alone interpret them, we must subject the principal historical source, which reports them to close critical scrutiny. The beginning of wisdom for the historian of the steppes as for the historian of Byzantium is willingness to look at every piece of scarce evidence with a cold, clinical eye and, if necessary, to discard what­ ever is demonstrably or probably unreliable - although such a procedure will inevitably de­ plete yet further our already meager store of primary matehaP.
  • Arab Civilian and Military Captives in the Light of Byzantine Narrative Sources and Military Manuals from the 10Th Century

    Arab Civilian and Military Captives in the Light of Byzantine Narrative Sources and Military Manuals from the 10Th Century

    Studia Ceranea 8, 2018, p. 253–283 ISSN: 2084-140X DOI: 10.18778/2084-140X.08.14 e-ISSN: 2449-8378 Szymon Wierzbiński (Łódź) Prospective Gain or Actual Cost? Arab Civilian and Military Captives in the Light of Byzantine Narrative Sources and Military Manuals from the 10th Century is safe to say that the 10th century was a military renaissance for the Byzan- It tines. During this period, the Eastern Empire waged numerous wars, broad- ened its boundaries and regained much of its formerly lost prestige. For the Byzan- tine emperors of the 10th century, the eastern front was the crucial one, due to the constant struggle with the Abbasid Caliphate1. In the course of this conflict – from which Byzantium emerged victorious – the capturing and enslaving of soldiers and civilians alike was an everyday reality. The main objective of this paper is to define the role of prisoners of war in the strategy and tactics of Byzantine generals. First, I will attempt to determine whether the latter treated the captives as a potential gain under various aspects (i.e. financial, prestige-related, or diplomatic). Next, I will focus on those situations in which prisoners were nothing more than a bur- den. With the help of narrative sources and military manuals, I will try to clarify why both sides occasionally decided to execute their captives in certain episodes of the 10th century Arab-Byzantine conflict. Finally, I will specify how Byzantine generals made use of prisoners in order to get the upper hand over their Arab rivals. It should be emphasized that the present research was carried out mainly on the basis of the written sources.
  • Greece in the Middle Ages (6Th – 13Th Cent.)

    Greece in the Middle Ages (6Th – 13Th Cent.)

    Greece in the Middle Ages (6th – 13th cent.) Ioannis Deligiannis Democritus University of Thrace • Introduction • Greece from the 6th cent. to the 13th cent. • The aftermath (14th – 15th cent.) • Forming a national identity • Society • Religion • Education Introduction • 146 and 133 BCE: Greece and the islands under the Romans. • 2nd-3rd cent.: Greece divided into provinces: Achaia, Macedonia, Epirus and Thracia. • Diocletian (284-305): Western Balkans organized as a Roman diocese (< διοίκησις = “administration”). • Constantine I (306-337): Greece as part of the dioceses of Macedonia and Thrace. • The eastern and southern Aegean islands formed the province of Insulae in the Diocese of Asia. Death of Theodosius I West: Honorius – East: Arcadius Greece from the 6th cent. to the 13th cent. • Greece: most likely one of the most prosperous and most economically active regions of the Empire. • The city-state (πόλις) appears to have remained prosperous until at least the 6th cent. • Greece was highly urbanized and contained approximately 80 cities. • Thessaloniki: the Empire’s second largest city, called the “co-regent” (συμβασιλεύουσα), second only to Constantinople (βασιλεύουσα). The Arch of Galerius and the Rotunda, 4th cent. Walls of Thessalonica, 5th-7th cent. • Greece was raided –in the 5th cent. by the Visigoths and Ostrogoths. –in the 6th cent. by the Bulgars and the Huns. –in late 6th cent. by the Slavs, who invaded and settled in parts of Greece. The Empire nearly lost control of the entire peninsula during the 580s. Bulgars and Slavs
  • Download PDF Datastream

    Download PDF Datastream

    A Dividing Sea The Adriatic World from the Fourth to the First Centuries BC By Keith Robert Fairbank, Jr. B.A. Brigham Young University, 2010 M.A. Brigham Young University, 2012 Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Program in Ancient History at Brown University PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND MAY 2018 © Copyright 2018 by Keith R. Fairbank, Jr. This dissertation by Keith R. Fairbank, Jr. is accepted in its present form by the Program in Ancient History as satisfying the dissertation requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Date _______________ ____________________________________ Graham Oliver, Advisor Recommended to the Graduate Council Date _______________ ____________________________________ Peter van Dommelen, Reader Date _______________ ____________________________________ Lisa Mignone, Reader Approved by the Graduate Council Date _______________ ____________________________________ Andrew G. Campbell, Dean of the Graduate School iii CURRICULUM VITAE Keith Robert Fairbank, Jr. hails from the great states of New York and Montana. He grew up feeding cattle under the Big Sky, serving as senior class president and continuing on to Brigham Young University in Utah for his BA in Humanities and Classics (2010). Keith worked as a volunteer missionary for two years in Brazil, where he learned Portuguese (2004–2006). Keith furthered his education at Brigham Young University, earning an MA in Classics (2012). While there he developed a curriculum for accelerated first year Latin focused on competency- based learning. He matriculated at Brown University in fall 2012 in the Program in Ancient History. While at Brown, Keith published an appendix in The Landmark Caesar. He also co- directed a Mellon Graduate Student Workshop on colonial entanglements.
  • Bizánci Terjeszkedés a X. Században - Ostromtechnikák Elméletben És Gyakorlatban

    Bizánci Terjeszkedés a X. Században - Ostromtechnikák Elméletben És Gyakorlatban

    KÖZLEMÉNYEK TŐSÉR MÁRTON BIZÁNCI TERJESZKEDÉS A X. SZÁZADBAN - OSTROMTECHNIKÁK ELMÉLETBEN ÉS GYAKORLATBAN Habár Róma örököseként a bizánciak tekintélyes hadtudományi irodalmat birtokol­ tak, az ostromokról szóló módszertani értekezések eltűntek a középbizánci időszak kato­ nai témájú írásai közül. Maurikios és Bölcs Leó is csupán általánosságban tért ki erre a témára. A magyarázat tulajdonképpen egyszerű: a VII. századtól kezdődő „sötét korban" a bizánciak inkább ostromlottak voltak, mint ostromlók. Az arabok elleni hosszas küzde­ lemben a VIII. századtól a portyázó harcok váltak uralkodóvá, az ostromok ritkák voltak - akkor is inkább az arabok ostromoltak. A X. században azonban, a bizánci hadtudo­ mány megújulása idején készült értekezésekben újra előkerült a téma, bizonyos sajátos­ ságokkal, melyek a korabeli helyzetet jellemzik. Bár az ostromharcászat módszerei a klasszikus kortól a puskapor elterjedéséig keveset változtak, a jellemzők variációi jól tükrözik az ostromlók lehetőségeit, gazdasági és társadalmi hátterét az adott korban. Ezért is érdemes gyakorlati példákat tanulmányoznunk. A középkorban (amiképpen később is) két módon lehetett bevenni egy falakkal védett helyet: ostrommal vagy blokáddal. Az előbbi az erővel történő várvívást jelenti, mikor az ostromlók a védők ellenállásának leküzdésével, veszteségek árán törnek be a falak mögé, az utóbbi közvetett módon, a védők ellenállási hajlandóságának felőrlésével próbálja el­ érni azok megadását; általában az élelemhiány, vagy a felmentés tartós elmaradása volt a védelmezett erősség feladásának oka. Az ostrom mikéntje a rendelkezésre álló eszközö­ kön múlt: a legegyszerűbb a város kapujának rohammal történő bevétele volt (klasszikus példája a trójai háború), és a római korszak sokféle faltörő gépezetéig, várvívó eszközéig, illetve az aknaharcászatig terjedt. A blokád az előbbiektől eltérően a védőket szorosan el­ szigetelte a külvilágtól, főleg az élelmiszerektől, és az egyéb szükséges ellátmánytól, végső soron a reménytől fosztotta meg őket.
  • ACT of the SENATE to REFORM​ the Imperial Land Claims

    ACT of the SENATE to REFORM​ the Imperial Land Claims

    AN ACT OF THE SENATE TO REFORM ​the Imperial land claims Be it enacted b​y H​ IS IMPERIAL MAJESTY THE FAITHFUL PAVLOVIAN EMPEROR AND AUTOCRAT OF THE ROMANS AND ALL RUS’,​ Pius Felix, Magnus e​t Semper Augustus, Defender of the Faith, Turtle and Elephants, in the Eighth year of His Imperium and in the first year of the consulate of Duchissa Helena Alexandra filia Kirsanova and Dominus Iohannes Gavrijil filius Brienorum Rex, in the year Seven thousand Five hundred and twenty nine after the creation of Adam, by and with the advice of all Senators, and by the authority of the same, as follows: I. Article V of the Basic Law of the Empire of Pavlov is to be amended to: A. Pavlov is located on -​----------------------- (Aleksandropol), on ------------------------ (Theodosia), on -​----------------------- (Mariupol), on -​----------------------- (Posonium), on ------------------------ (Chalcedon) on -​----------------------- (Osokorky), on -​----------------------- (Moskva), on ------------------------ (Augusta Iupitera) on ------------------------ (Hrejmanna), on -​----------------------- (Triconia), on -​----------------------- (Trebizond), on ------------------------ (Pompeiopolis), -​----------------------- (Seleucia), -​----------------------- (Famagusta), ------------------------ (Laranda), on -​----------------------- (Daljam), on -​----------------------- (Nov Asenovgrad) on ------------------------ (Chersonesus), on -​----------------------- (Sušice), on -​----------------------- (Olvija), on ------------------------ (Villa Cassa) on