BALKANS.

THEBYZANTINE RETHINKING CENTURIES BOOKON THE IOth_I2th A RECENT

ALEXANDRUMADGEARU

on his Ph.D.dissertation is based The bookrof this youngBritish historian well-knownByzantinist ofthe the direction in 1996, under at Cambridge defended published 1994somepartsof since hasalready PaulStephenson Shepard. Jonathan and,pyzantine in ,Byzantinoslavica", ,,Byzantion" this volumeasdistinctshtdies in his work points view discussed of The innovative Studies". and ModernGrek problems like the dedicated to controversial in thosestudies were first presented of the rebellionof Tatos,or the natureof the Byzantine-Hungarian significance duringthereignof ManuelI. relations reached Why ,,Rethinking the ByzantineBalkans"?BecauseStephenson for the study of the Byzantine that are really revolutionary severalconclusions interestfor the Balkan increasing provinces. The in the Balkan administration the rootsof the needto understand times)denotes history(not only for the modern how and why the disintegration bookexplains conflicts.Stephenson's the present of the ethnic statesin the and the emergence of the ByzantineadminisFation authoritywas to be that ,,Byzantine His main ideaseems werepossible. Balkans (p. 7)localpowerstructures" existing exercised through almostalways and is (with subchapters) chapters major The book is divided in nine on citation and providedwith a list of maps and figures,a preface,a note conclusiongbibliography an introduction, transliteration, a list of abbrevations, andindex. studies appliedto the Balkanprovinces The first noveltyfor the Byzantine has payed a special (pp. l-17). Stephenson can be found in the introduction the limit between ideological as an of the frontier to the significance attention the a new concept: He also introduces and the Barbaricum2). civilizedOikumene rulersby by the local authochtonous mastered internalfro;tiers of the territories wasexerted. administration whomtheByzantine
I P Srephcnson, of the Northern Balktw, 900B;zal tium'sBalkanFron ier. A Polirical Strtdy p. Press, 2000, XII+352 University /20J, Cambridgc 'By a rn'ere frontier oflhe Byzantinc on thecharacter a similardiscussion I made coinci6incc, Dtndreo in epoca book (A. Madgcaru, into a study written in lhe sametimc with Stcphcnson's X-X ): ofrontierdpermeobild, bizantint(iecolele .Rcvistalstoricl", SN, 10, 1999'|-2, pp 4l-55) Bucarcst Europ.: XXXIX, l-4, p. 203-212, Sud-Est Rev.Etudes

Discussions

of the I lth century The bookbringsvaluable arguments for the new interpretation Oshogorska's supponed by P. Lemerleand morerecentlyby M. Angold against wasnot a sho\vs thattheshiftto'civilian' govemment old viewpoint. Stephenson (p. growing 9) and thatthe rapidly" economy was decline, because Byzantine ,,the policy based policy based with a moreadequate defence on warfarewasreplaced that ("haiding, not raiding").He considers on tradeand gifts for the barbarians BasilII left a poisoned a too large andexpensive army(pp.iO-St. t tq), legacy: after the strategy and that his 'civilian' successors hied to transform the general limesis not hardPecheneg inroads obvious that a classical of 1036,whenbecame useful. political history,this book gives much Unlike many works of Byzantine carefully usedin aftentionto the rich archaeological and numismatic evidence, Of course,somepointsare order to supply the scarcityof the literarysources. led him disputable or evenwrong,but, generally speakingthe useof archaeology to important for the history andSerbia. conclusions of Paradunavon The first chapteris dedicated to Bulgariabetween90G-963(pp. 18-46). in diplomacy ofthe Byzantine Stephenson bringsheremorelight on the principles evenduringTzar Peter the lOth century, when Bulgariawasa statein expansion, (thedecline He emphasizes afterSimeon is an obsolete idearejected by theauthor). the role playedby the Pechenegs, the Serbsand the Croatsin the strategfbuilt chiefs against Bulgaria, as resultsfromDe Administrando Imperio.The Pecheneg wereattracted with gifts in orderto become and Croatian allies,while the Serbian rulerswereconsidered albeit they were in subjected to the Byzantine suzeranity, with the fact independent (pp. 25-38). The sametype of relationsestablished Pechenegs wasapplied in Pannonia. to theMagyars aftertheirsettlement Stephenson is right when he points that Byzantinesdealt rvith certain not only by chieftains andnot with all the Magyartribes. The loyaltywas secured gifts,but alsoby conversion ofthe bishop to Christianity. Thewell-known example (Hierotheos) of Tourkia is rightly interpreted. ofthe territorymastered The location of by Gylas and baptized by Hierotheos is madeaccording to the concentration Byzantine This is alsoour coi-ns and luxuryfinds:nearthe confluence Mureg-Tisapoint of view'. We arehowever surprised doesnot knowthe basic that Stgphenson an bookofCsan6dBAlint,whichconfirms his ideas'. On the otherhand,he makes interestingremark: only this region was known as Tourkia by Constantine Porphyrogenitus, while the l{ungarianchronicles are speaking only about the regionsettledby the ruling Arpad'stribe nearthe Middle Danube. The emperor established relations with a subordinated tribe,not with the leading one.The result ,rvithcertainchieftains was that ,,thearrangement would havehad little effect on
I A. Madgearu, Misaunea episcopului Hierotheos. Conlribulii la istotia Transilvaniei li Ungariei in secolul al -f,-led,,,RcvislaIstoricA",SN, 5, 1994, t-2, pp. 147-154. ' C. B linl Sitdungarn in 10. Jabhundert, Budapcst, t99|.

Discussions

other distinct groups". In this way we can undersbndwhy it was impossibleto - rmarks a real shield againstthe inroads.,,The naturalanswerv,.as establish with Magyars, and peaceful processes the of exchange Stephenson to encourage for themto traderatherthanto raid" (pp.3&-a ). to provideincentives The author considersthat the Maryars were attractedin the Byzantineorbit his salt trade. Unfortunately, not only by the gifu, but also by a developed argnments are not valid. He also madea greatmistakebelievingthat the name Siebenbiugen remembers seven salt mines located in Transylvania. The Transylvaniansalt was indeed an object of trade in the Early Middle Ages, but nothing provesthat this traffic reachedByzantium.By terrestrialroads it was too difficult to transportsuchheavyware acrossBulgaria; by water, it wastoo difficult (because the traffic was madeby Muregand Tisa). to pass throughthe lron Gates Among the various goodstradedon the Lower Danubearound968, salt was not (alsoquoted at p. 49). by Stephenson Primary Chronicle mentioned by theRussian by Bulgariain saltminesweremastered In fact, at leastsomeTransylvanian When Moravia. toward was directed we that the export the 9dr century and know in first settled they in the l0th century, Tranrylvania to conquer Hungarians began poins on the roadsusedfor salt trading(like Cluj and Alba Iulia). This straregic suggests they becarnethe new mastersof this traffic, certainly directed toward we*. me story about the duke Achtum of Banat illushatesjust this facls. The absenccof Byzantine loth century coins and artifacts in the Transylvaniansalt In with Byzantium. relations minesareashowsthat this regionhad no economic area. group conquered this period, already Hungarian that a Therefore,we considerthat the Byr ;tine gifu were not payedby Magyars who keptonly by the chieftains relations, with salt.They payed only with peaceful abut the salttradeare suppositions gifts andhonours, Stephenson's received these for salt, as Transylvania" (He as far need to look was no futile. admitsthat ,,there peaceful exchanges). to establish but he considers thatsaltwasa mean to be very valuable, not raiding"seems However, the theoryabout,,traiding, of,,tribute,tade and titles", except this pointon the salttraffic.By the diplomacy into the oikumene,the civilized world". This the barbarians ,,were absorbed advanceof the Byzantine fiontier was made first by influence and next by the militarism"of BasilII (pp.45-aQ. ,,triumphal The conquestof Bulgaria and the first steps of the new Byzantine (pp. 47-79). The chapter in the second adminishation on its &rritory areexamined by Bulgarianand especially in the last two decades subjectwas often discussed someof pointsof view artakinginto account Stephenson's Romanian historians. places), but he (the from other Preslav and sealsfrom the new discoveredsources
t For the Bulgfiian mastqship in th salt mincs are4 seeA Madgearu,RomAnii in opers Notorului ..lnonim, Cluj-Napoca 2001, pp. 185-192 and ldcm, Sa/, Trade and Wodare in Eorly I I, 2001. Napoccnsis", fonhcoming in ,.Ephemeris Lledieval Transylvania,

Discussions

(the problems given to somedisputed ignores the ultimatesolutions surprisingly (pp. 5G57) he believes pan For instance, outdated). is in bibliography Romanian althoughsince at NuIEru(like N. Oikonomides6), was located that Presthlavitza that he considers Moreover, is PreslavT. long time it wasproventhat Presthlavitza just this In fact, evidence. by the numismatic supported his opinion could be was If Presthlavitza only after 971". evidence showsthat the site was developed datedbefore968' On there,onecouldexpectto find manycoinsandotherobjects wasnot givento a Danubian that the nameTheodoropolis the otherhand,it seems city (p. 53), but to Euchaitain Asia Minor'. Much more important is that debate the real natureof the Bulgarian-Romanian did not understand Stephenson was a part of Bulgaria. He believes that the point is if Paristrion aboutParistrion, As anybody knows, the polernicsconcemsthe presenceof the Romanian - p' 87, as like as (a fact which is admitted population by Stephenson in Dobrudja - p. 57). Another point of view aboutthe fortress Pacuiullui Soarc the Romanian was George of Bulgarianamed thatthe archbishop example: Stephenson considers duringthe reign of Basil II (p. 64). appointed in this functionby the Byzantines, the solutiongiven by the Althoughhe citesthe studyof P. Diaconuro, he ignores latter(which seems 870 and 918). The exclusive to be definitive:a datebetween of the problemexplain knowledge useof Hungarian literature and an insufficient (not Ajtony) is Vita tVajor mistake: that speaks about Achtum another the source Sancti Gerardi, not Vita Gerardi Maioris (p. 65). The name Marosvdr is a Hungarizationof the name Morisma, which seemsto reflect a Romanianform Moresana,from rVIores, Mureq. presentshere a such Except enors, the chapteris remarkable.Stephenson (a new vision ofthe policy followedby Basil lI in his conquest vision developed into a furtherstudyrl).He argues that the emperorhad not the intentionto be a hasshown as he wasconsidered in the l2th century(Stephenson ,,Bulgar-slayer", how this legend wascreated). until 1005to leave BasilII planned On the contrary, free a part of Bulgaria;he was forcedto conquer all the tenitory in 1014-1018 because GabrielRadomirachieved somevictories.During the wars and after the the empire's conquest, BasilII gaveByzantine and,Jregranted titlesto Bulgarians
" N. Oikonomides, pp. l-9. 42, 1983, Presthlovitza, the littlePreE av,,,S0dost-Forschungen", 1 P. Diaconu,,ldour de ls locolisationde ld PerirePrcrrav, RESEE,3, 1965, l-7, pp. 38+3; ldem, De nouveaud propos de Prcsthlavitza, , pp. 279-293. , 46, 198'7 ,,Sudost-Forschungen" " G. Minucu-Adamctteantt,Circulalio nonetard la Nujdru tn secolele,Y-Xlf, ,,Peuc', 10, 1991,l-,pp. 497-554. ' Scc P. Diaconu, Oi se trouvait Thiodoropolis,nom consigndtur cerlains sceaur du Grond Preslav?,it Vtori meldunaroden po bdlgoristika(Sofru 1986),DokJadi,vol. 6, Sofia 198?, kongres pp. 437-447. to P. Diaconu,.Sur l'organisationecclesiastique dans la tigion du Bas-Danube(dernier tters duf,-Xlf siCcles), Byzantines II, Bucarst, l9l, pp. 77-82, et Post-Byz{ntins", ,,Etudes " P. Stephenson, The Legend of Batil the Bulgar-slayer, ,,Byzantine and Modem Greek Studies", 24,2000,pp. 102-132.

Discussions

newestsubjectsa degteeof authonomyand removeda potential focus for native (pp. 62--77'1. of Verria,Damian For instance, dte commander unresr" he appointed Dobromir, as duke of Thrace and WesternMesopotamia(p. 67). The fact rvas seems to be right when he identifies idependentlyobserved by usr2;Stephenson drc forrress with Verria in Thessaly,not with Berrhoe in Macedonia,This can improve our suppositionabout the possible Vlach origin of Damian Dobromir (anotber too wasNiculitzas from Servi4 who was perhaps commander of Samuel of Vlachorigin). By the conquest of Bulgaria,,,muchthat had beenforeign policy became domestic,and diplomatictechniques employedto ensurestability acrossthe within them" (p. 79). of accommodation anpire's bordersbecametechniques giveshereoneofhis basic conhibutions to the historyofthe Byzantine Stephanson provinces the central pcriphery: the new conquercd became a bufrerzonebetween canbe partof theempireandBarbaricum. In this light,thehistoryof Paradunavon easilyunderstood. in the next chapter,entitled This history of Paradunavon is researched (1025-1100)" (pp. that this nomads 80-116). The author considers ,Northem (see also p. 94). IX themewas not established by Basil II, but by Constantine in 1043(Katakalon Indee4the first knowncommander of this province is attested asa distinctprovince Kekaumenos), wasorganized but we think that Paradunavon in thesame andSerbia, in l0l8-1020. It is certain time with thethemes of Bulgaria that only that the Serbian themeexistedsince1018, andseems difficult to sustain is right in partofthe Danube Stephenson thewestem wasorganized asa province. in otherpoint: dre change in the frontierpolicy initiatedby JohnOrphanotrophus the access to orderto discouage the Pecheneg inroads by allowingto the nomads the Byzantinegoods,by trade and gifu (pp. 80-83). In this new vision, the groupin 1046wasonly the second act ofa long process seftlement ofa Pecheneg of accommodation between barbarians andByzantines. givesa very intersting of the policy follorvedby Stephenson interpretation in Paristrion: a concentration MichaelIV andby his minister JohnOrphanotrophus andtheir controlled of resources in orderto supplythe payments for thePechenegs accession ten years of peaceon the to Byzantinegoods.This policy secured Danube,but causeda supplementary burdenfor the peopleof the theme of remarksthe Bulgariawfto revoltedagainstit in 1040(pp. 82-39). Stephenson economic boomof the Paristrian townsin the '30-iesand '40-ies,as resultsfrom of a hibute dregrowthof thecoin circulation. He associates this with the payment for dle Pechenegs. Unfortunately, Stephenson failed to give solid proofsfor the existence a lot ofgold andsilvercoins ofthesepayments. A goodproofstill xists: (Cetatea Alb5" issuedbetween RomanIII and MichaelVII found in Bessarabia
'' A. Madgearu,TheMilitary 60, |999, 2, Organizstionof Parqdu avon, ,.Byzantinoslavica", o. 4211.

Discussions

Cinigeuli,Colibaqi,Musaid,Purcari,Teia) and in Wallachia(Borenefti,Buziu County,Teg4 Zimnicele)r3. Thesecoins could arrive thereby raids but also by tribute.On the otherhand.the statistics of the low valuecoinsfound in Paristrion needs a comparison with otherprovinces or townsin orderto seeif the level was influenced or not by theposition nearthefrontier. Stephenson was arguesthat this policy of payments towards Pechenegs necessary because the defence based regular with fortresses and on a /ines many troopswas not possible on the Danube. The successors of Basil II choseto apply guerilfatactics,more adequate (pp.92-93). In fact, some against the Pechenegs partsof the frontierwereindeed point neglected. The abandonment of a strategic like Dervent after 1036 illustrates very well the incapacityof the Byzantine commanders, explicitly blamedby Kekaumenos and Skylitzeswhen they have written about the invasion of Tyrach, and not a shift to anotherstrategyro. Stephenson useseveryopportunity to contradict the old theorythat the,,civilian" emperors neglected the deience of the frontiers. In this casewe can not be on his side. The defence was weakened and furthereventsare showinghow easy the troopsof Paradunavon weredefeated by the Pechenegs. On the otherhand,we do not understand why Stephenson states that Constantine X realizedthat he had to organize the Pechenegs (p. 96). asdefenders ofa bufferzonein Paradunavon Another part of the policy toward Pechenegs was their conversionto Christianity. Stephenson is right when he emphasizes the importanc of this act, but we do not think that the establishment of a metropolitan seatat Dristrawas madewith this purpose (p. 97). The first known metropolitan bishop,Leontios (anested in l07l ) is the same with theownerof a seal, whichgivesonly the title of episkopos" . Therefore, theeparchy of Dristrawastransformed from bishopric into a metropolitan seat,and its ruler Leontiosbecame bishop,into a a metropolitan moment thatseems to be morerecent than104G1047. In sum,Stephenson's assertions on the Byzantine-Pecheneg relations are not entirely convincing,but they really broughta new comprehensive view on the history of Paradunavon. The most important contributions concemthe rebellion startedin 1072by the local population against by the financialpolicy practiced Nikephoritzes. Stephenson admits that this populationincludedVlachs, but he makesan unfounded distinctionbetweenthem and ,,Proto-Romanians". He is othenvise right when remarks that both Bulgarians and Vlachswerecalledrl1),soi by theByzantine (p. 87). authors Stephenson demonstrates that the rebellionled by the Pecheneg Tatouswas caused by the intentionof Nikephoritzesto ensur the payments for the Pechenegs
monedeibizantinein Dobrogea(sec.IX-X!), Constan[42000, pp. 185-195. t4SceA. Madgearu, Theililitary..., p.424. " I. tordnov, PeCati pp. 163-164. na orhiereina Ddstdr otXl ve&,,Dobrudla", Vam4 q 1992, rr SecG. Custure4 C,rculatia

Disussions

from Paradunavon only by local means,cutting the subsidiesfrom the centre when only in 1091, (pp.9t-100). As it is known,the Pecheneg crisiswasstopped for empire almost lost the Alexios I began fte reorganizationof Paradunavon, during the lasttwo decades. on Stephenson emphasizes that the new strategrin th l2th centurywas based presewed ganisons were while few Mountains, only the defance alongthe Haemus that ,Alexius' Achilles' heelwasthe loyalty of on the Danubian frontier,He remarks remained a rich Paradunavon the mountain dwellers", the Vlachs(pp. 103-105). quotes the povince duringthe l2th century,but somecities d.isappeared. Stephenson (p. 107). wronglylocarcd csse at Dinogetia'" of Demnitzikos, ends with some interesting The overview of the history of Paradunavon remarkson the Byzantineimageofthe barbarians seftledin the frontier zones.He andH. Ahrweillerr8, of E. MalamutrT followsthe way opened by two recent studies to the classical Byzantine frontieraccording thinkingthe realities ofthe Danubian antithesisbetweenOikumeneand Barbaricum: the settlementof the Pechenegs the semi-civilizedworld category, determined the arising of ,"an intermediary whichwasByzantium's by n ixobarbtoi (pp. I I l-l l4). Balkanfrontier",peopled The fourthchapter of the bookdealswith the 'SouthemSlavs(1025-1100)" of (pp. I 17- 155).Srcphenson empbasizes the role playedby the local aristocrats and Ra.5ka. Diocleea of Dalmati4 Serbianorigin in the Byzantineadministration They were monitored by Blzantine stategoi settled in the main cities. The relations between the stategoi and the local mchontes were based on gifts, stipendsand honours,like the relations betweenthe emperorand the barbarian chieftains.In this way, the Byzantinepowerwasexertedoverterritories includedin the loyalty However, the empire, but sepanted by intemalfiontiers(pp. 123-130). examines how and why they of these rulers was not permanent.Stephenson of the rebelled timesbetween 1040and l08l . Of greatvalueis his analysis several (1040). Peter Deljan situation ofthe Bulgarian themebeforeandafterthemutinyof needofmoneyfor thatthe increasing As we havealready noted,Stephenson argues (pp. 130-138). wassupplied cash taxesin Bulgaria Paradunavon by introducing of the I lth century the significance Anotherimportant conclusion concerns is seenas the main factor, but mutinies. The self-interest of the local aristocrats was movement popularsupport for a secessionist to galvanize ,,theprincipalmeans
16Tte locationof Dcmnitzikos by P. Diaconu'les at Dinogetiawas dcfinitivelyrejected Coumans ou Bos-Darabe at/l Xf et XIf siickJ, Bucarcst,197t, pp. 86-88. Another mistlke is the bcforcthe l3th idcntification of Chilia with Aklia recorded by tdrisi (p. 106).Chilia wasnot sttld ccntury. See S. Baraschi,Les sourcesbyzantirwr et la localisation de la citd de Kilia 6lf-Xlt srdc/es7, RESEE, 19.l9tl,3, pp.473+84. t1L'image 8t, I95, I, pp. 105-14?. Zcilschrift", byzantine desPetcdnigucs,,,Byzantinische ts ByzantineConceptsof the ForeigtEr: the Coseol the Nonads, irr Studiei on the Internal Oaks,Washington' Diqsporaof tha Brzotrtine Empirc,ed. H, Ahrwcilcr, A.E. Laiou, Dumbarton l99t, pp. l-15.

2t0

Discussions

to appeal to the common memory of an independent rulerofthe northern Balkans, whoseauthorityresided in the title 'emperorof the Bulgarians"'(pp. la3-laa). The mutinieshad no ethnicdetermination in the llth centuryand they usually occunedwhenthe empirewasconfronted with invasions or civil wars.However, such eveDtsincreased the distancebetweenthe local Serbianrulers and the Byzantinecentre.They beganto searchahemativesourcesfor the lggitimation of their power,outsideByzantium (the Papacy, the Normans, and next Hungaryand Venice).In this way, the Serbian landsevolvedtoward independence after 1077 (pp. l5zt-155), while Bulgaria remained province, a stable sen by the Byzantines asa semi-barbarian (pp. 153-154). hinterland The grat geopolitical changesbegan with tlre Norman occupation of Dynachion(lOEl) are presented in the fifth chapter:,,Therise of the west, I: Normansand Crusaders (10E1-l1lE)' (pp. l5Glt6). Unlike the formerchapter, this one is mostlya nanation ofthe military andpoliticatevents alongthe reignof AlexiosI Comnenus. However, Stephenson usedthis opportunity to examine how functioned the frontier defencein the case of a major threat. He presentsthe fortification systembuilt aroundDyrrachion- an archaeological and military approach that is not usual in the Byzantinehisoriography(pp. l6G-164).The defenceof the areanearDyrrachionwas secured not only by thesefortresses, but alsoby the contribution ofthe locatAlbanian tribes(p. 167). The next chaptercontinues to pregent the expansionof the Westernpowers: rise of the west, II: Hungarians (1100-t143)" (pp. lE7-210). ,,The and Venetians Stephenson examinesthe evolution of the Bfzantine-Hungarian political and economicrelations.The confrontationbetweenthesestatestook place in the area near Sirmium and in Dalmatia.The Huncarianannexation of Croatia in ll05 changed the whole balance ofpower in the 6akans. The futureByzantinepolicy in the Balkanswascompelledto take into accountthis new factor. Stephenson argues that John II Comnenusried to keep good rclations with Hungary, in order to concentrate his forces in the eastempart of the empire. The Byzantine-Hungarian warsof I 127-1129 hadonly a defensive targetand,,there is no indication that the emperor intendedfor his conquestof Frangochorion to be permanent, or that he aspired to annex any landsbeyond the Danube" (p. 207). The seventhchapter is entitled ,,Manuel I Comlenus confronts the West (1143-1 156)" (pp.211_238).The author showshere that the Germanalliance established by Johnll Comnenus was not efficient.The Normanthreadwas not removedand Byzantiumlost the southem Italy in 1156.On the other hand,the samewestempolicy fulfilled by the first two Comneniallowedthe expansion of Hungary toward Dalmatia and Ra5ka.M.nuel reactedagainstHungary, but - as Stephenson argues- he did not wish to annexthis counw. A revisedchronolosv ofthe Hungarien-Byzantine warsin the ,50-ies is proposed. The second part of the Balkanpolicy of Manuelis examined in the eighth chapter: the frontier.Theannexation ,,Advancing of SirmiumandDalmatia fl 156-

Discussions

2ll

ll80)" (pp. 239-274).The tasksassumed by the emprorwere to recoverthe Byzantineauthority in the areaspreviouslyconquered by Hungaryand to prevent the rise ofa Serbianindependent state.The Danubianfrontier was stenghtenedby Manuelafter I 156.Stephenson uses the archaeological evidence into a greatextent in orderto establish the chronologSr andthe significance of the Byzantinedefensive policy on the Middle Danube, against Hungary. Stephensonalso argues that Manuel's intention was to transform Hungary into a buffer state betwen Byzantiumand the GermanEmpire;the relationsbetweenManuel and FrederickI Barbarossa after 1156could be charaaterized as a kind of,,cold war,' (an idea first expressed by PaulMagdalino). The successful poliry of Manuellastedwith him. The breakdown expansionist ofthe Byzantinedominationin the Balkansis presented in the lastchaptr,,,Casting off the 'Byzantine (l Yoke' lE0-1204)"(pp.275-315). Theauthor establishes a link between the factionsin the capial andthe centrifugalmovements: ,,By the bginning of the thirteenthcnturythe Byzantineprestigewas so low that the peoplesof the northemBalkansconsidered the pafonageof any westempotentate superiorto that of the eastemempero/'. In facg this was alreadyremarkedby Nicetas Choniates, who said,,fratricidespread asa pattem,modelandgeneral law from the queenof the citiesto thefar comers (p. 315). ofthe earth" One of the basicStephenson's ideasis the role playedby the westernpowers in the Bulgarianand Serbiananti-Byzantine movements. He rejcctsthe ,,national" reasonsof the revolts and considersthat ,,the increasedcentifugalism of the twelfth century was exaccrbatedby the extension of the empire's frontiers" (p.2E0).The formeradministration exerted by localaristocrats waspreserved, but the weaknessof the central power determinedthem ,,to look elsewhere for patons or symbolsof powerand prestige" altemative (p. 2tl). This explains the policiesfollowedby the rulersof thenew Serbian andVlacho-Bulgarian states. Stephenson gives an objective account of the rebellion led by the Asan brothers. He emphasizes the role ofthe Vlachsandthe importance of the alliance with the Cumans, but otherwise thanthe usual,rationel" int"rptrt tion. followed both by Romanian andBulgarian historians. He remarks that the rebetlionhad no ethnicbackground, because VlachsandBulgarians playeda majorrole in the ,,both escalation of the rebellion,but othersfought on the Byzantineside". The civil unrest evolved into a separatistmovement becausethe Cumans improved tlre military forc of the rebels and becausethe Byzantine army was wrongly commanded.The wish of independence was a result and not a cause of the movement: and Asen possibility saw the free of a permanent settlement ,,Peter from Byzantine interferenceor suzerainty.Naturally, they sought to draw on - which had beencalled, rnd thereforewas once again traditions of indopendent - rule in the northern called,Bulgarian Balkaas"(pp.293-29\. The final result was the orientation of the new stat toward another center of legitimation, the

2t2

Discussions

IO

was Balkans in the northern domination The dissolution of the Byzantine Papacy. In this by the Normanattacks and by the third and founh Crusades. influenced powers. ofthe western rulerssearched the support th Balkanrebelled context statewas ofthe new Vlacho-Bulgarian On the otherhand,the independence strrnghtened Byzantiumtried to defendonly the Balkan range,which because becameits new northem frontier, insteadof the Danube.The defencein the Vlachsand Bulgarians mountains was ensured with the aid of the pro-Byzantine (p. 306).Byzantium will never recover Paradunavon. Stephenson's viewpointson the northernBalkanregionsduring the l0th-l2th ofthe Southinnovative andincentivefor the progress centuries are in manyrespects main items The present some of them. We tried to above EastemEuropean studies. (pp.3 I G323). himself in his Conclusions aresummarized by theauthor We pointhere Therearesome mistakes in the book,but of smallimportance. (p. 20, map l.l); Salzburg is is wronglylocated the moststriking:Plcuiul lui Soare given in be riven should of the OcnaSibiului;Sdnpaul, not SanPaul; the names the numbersmust be Romanianforms (only Somesis written in Romanian); explainedin the legendof map 1.3 (p. 42); Pdcuiul lui Soare should not be whereSoareis a it is a placename, translated in ,,theIslandof the Sun",because person phrowia arcnot watchtowers, but smallfortresses name(p. 57 and others); edition (pp. 84, I l ). Suchsmallmistakes into a second couldbe easilycorrected or translation. Theydo not decrease thevalueofthis book. a major will be considered We canbe surethatthe work of PaulStephenson contribution Europe in the MiddleAges. to th historyofthe South-Eastern