BRILL

.•s/.
R U SSIA N HISTORY 4 2 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 2 7 2 - 3 0 3

B R ILL brill.com/ruhi

The Alliance between Byzantium and Rus’ Before

the Conquest of Constantinople by the Crusaders
in 1204

Alexander V Maiorov
Prof., H ead o f the D ep artm en t o f M useology, F aculty o f History,
St. Petersburg State U niversity, R ussia
a. v. m aio rov@ gm aii com

Abstract

The G alician-V olhynian prince R om an M stislavich b ecam e the m ain m ilitary ally o f
the B yzan tin e Em pire in the early 13th century. The circu m stan ces and the tim e o f
R om an’s cam paign in N iketas C h ôm âtes’ a cco u n t are the sam e as in the Russian chron­
icles reportin g the stepp e cam p aign s o f the prince. A ll the Byzantine sources nam e
R om an M stislavich the “igem o n o f G alicia”. The term igem on, unlike other Byzantine
titles o f R usian princes, m ean t the E m p eror’s ally and relative (or in-law ). The alliance
b etw een A lexios 111 and R om an led also to m ore stable relations w ith the Rusian popu­
lation o f the Low er D niester and the Low er D anube. The m ilitary aid that R om an ren­
dered to A lexios i n w as gu aran teed by R om an’s m arriage to the niece o f A lexios 111,
the eld er d au ghter o f the overthrow n e m p ero r Isaak 11.

Keywords

B yzantium and R us’ A llian ce - G alician-Volhynian Prince R om an M stislavich - Em peror

A lexios hi - “igem on o f G alicia”

By the late 12th - early 13th century the political connections between Rus' and
Byzantium became extensive. First of all, they can be seen in the domestic and
the foreign policy of the Galician-Volhynian Prince Roman Mstislavich.
For several years Prince Roman rendered military assistance to the Empire
in its struggle with the Danube Cumans, who took the side of the rebellious
Bulgarians. Due to the victorious campaigns of the Rusian armed forces, the

© K O N IN K L IJK E B R IL L NV, L E ID E N , 2 0 1 5 | D O I 1 0 .1 1 6 3 /1 8 7 6 3 3 1 6 - 0 4 2 0 3 0 0 2
T H E A L L IA N C E BE T W E E N BY ZA NTIUM 2 73

Cumans ceased their attacks against the Empire. The Byzantine historians of
the i3th-i4 th centuries refer to Roman as to the most important ally of the
Empire, who came to its rescue at the times of sore trials.
Furthermore, all the Byzantine sources name Roman Mstislavich the “ige­
nlőn of Galicia”. A rare authentic term ‘igemon’, as we will see later, may mean
not only an ally, but also a relative of a basileus (affinity by marriage).
The military aid that Roman rendered to Alexios ш was guaranteed by
Roman’s marriage to Alexios i l l ’s niece, the elder daughter of the overthrown
emperor Isaak n. The Byzantine sources provide no direct evidence of this
marriage. Only the indirect data of the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle and other
sources suggest that Roman Mstislavich’s second wife came from a noble
Byzantine family. The commemoration book of the Speyer Cathedral retains a
record that allows ascertaining her name as Euphrosyne.1
The Byzantine rulers tended to be unwilling to give their kinswomen in mar­
riage to the Rusian princes. They would do so only on extraordinary grounds,
mainly, when they required Rusian military aid urgently. In our opinion, that
was the case in the late 12th century. Therefore, the investigation begins with
the analysis of the historical facts that are indicative of a severe political crisis
in the Empire on the eve of the fall of Constantinople in 1204.

Aggravation of the Political Situation in the Balkans: the Bulgarian

Uprising and the Cumans’ Raids

In the late twelfth-early thirteenth century, the Byzantine Empire experienced

one of the most complicated periods in its millennial history. Its foreign rela­
tions were particularly difficult. In the West, Emperor Henry v i threatened the
Empire and demanded that it cede to him the territories from Dyrrhachium to
Thessaloniki. The Venetians also laid claim to parts of the Byzantine territories.
Cyprus fell away from the Empire, and relations with Pope Innocent ш wors­
ened every year.2 In the East, Byzantium waged a fierce war with the Sultanate
of Iconium. That war was initiated by the ill-considered foreign-policy of
Alexios ill.3

г See A. V. Maiorov, ‘The daughter o f a Byzantine Emperor - the wife o f a Galician-Volhynian

Prince', Byzantinoslavica, vol. 72, nr. 1-2,2014, pp. 45-93.
2 See Ch. M. Brand, Byzantium confronts the West. 1180-1204. (Cambridge, 1968).
3 See A. G. K. Sawidës, Byzantium in the Near East: its relations with the Seljuk sultanate o f Rum
in Asia Minor, the Armenians o f Cilicia and the Mongols. 1132-1237. (Thessalonica, 1981).

RU SS IA N H IS TO RY 4 2 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 2 7 2 - 3 0 3
274 MAIOROV

Meanwhile, a critical situation also existed near the Balkan borders of the
Empire. In 1180, Serbia ceased to recognize the authority of Byzantium. Soon
its ruler, Stefan Nemanja (1168-1196) adopted a more aggressive policy and
occupied Southern Dalmatia. He secured the support of the Hungarian king
Bela in (1173-1196), who in 1181 seized Croatia, Northern Dalmatia and the
Syrmia region from the Empire.4
In 1186, the Asen brothers initiated an uprising for the liberation of Bulgaria.
This led to a number of Bulgarian-Byzantine wars.5 During his reign, Isaac 11
commanded four campaigns against the Bulgarians, personally leading his
troops. The fourth campaign that began in the summer of 1190 was, however,
catastrophic for the Byzantines. The Bulgarians trapped the emperor’s army in
a narrow passage in the Trevna Mountains and almost completely destroyed it.6
Emperor Frederick 1 Barbarossa posed another serious threat to the
Byzantine Empire in 1189 when, as a member of the Third Crusade, he marched
with his army across the Balkan Peninsula towards Constantinople. The rulers
of Serbia and Bulgaria tried to avail themselves of the opportunity to achieve
their full independence with the help of the German sovereign.7
The new Byzantine emperor, Alexios h i , sought to settle the Balkan contro­
versies peacefully and initiated negotiations with the Bulgarians. The latter,
however, laid down conditions that the Empire could not accept. After that,
the Byzantines resorted to plots and murders: their intrigues resulted in the
assassination of the two elder Asen brothers Ivan and Peter, the self-declared
tsars and co-rulers.8

4 See M. Blagojevié, S. Petkovic, Srbija u doba Nemanjića: od kneževine do carstva. 1168-1371

[Serbia Nemanjic era: from the Principality to the Kingdom, 1168-1371]. Belgrad, 1989,
p. 35 sq. - See also F. Makk, The Arpads and the Comneni. Political relations between
Hungary and Byzantium In the 12th century. (Budapest, 198g), pp. 107,115-117.
5 See G. G. Litavrin, Bolgarija I Vizantija v x i - x i i w . [Bulgaria and Byzantium in the x i - x ii
centuries], (Moscow, i960), pp. 448-464; G. Cankova-Petkova, Bblgarija pri Asenevci
[Bulgaria at Assen], (Sofia, 1978), pp. 21-50; Istorija naBblgarija [History of Bulgaria]: in 14
vols, vol. iii: Vtora Bblgarska dbrzhava [Second Bulgarian Empire], eds. D. Angelov, P.
Petrov, B. Primov. (Sofia, 1982), pp. 125-128; P. Petrov, Vbzstanovjavane na Bblgarskata der-
zhava. 1185-1197 [Restoration of the Bulgarian State, 1185-1197]. (Sofia, 1985), pp. 218-232.
6 Hicetae Choniatae Historia, ed. I. A. van Dieten. (Berlin; New York, 1975) (=CFHB, ser.
Berolinensis, vol. xi/1-2), pp. 429-430; Georgii Acropolitae Opera, eds. A. Heisenberg,
P. Wirth. (Stuttgart, 1978), vol. i, pp. 18-20.
7 St., Hafner, Serbisches Mitteialter: Altserbische Herrscherbiographien. (Graz; Wien; Köln,
1962), vol. i, p. 157 sq.; E. Eickhoff, Friedrich Barbarossa im Orient: Kreuzzug und Tod
Friedrichs I. (Tübingen, 1977), pp. 41, 61,64 sq.
8 See I. Bozhilov, Familijata na Asenevci (1186-1460). Genealogija і prosopografija [Asen fam­
ily (1186-1460). Genealogy and Prosopography]. (Sofia, 1985), pp. 27-40.

R U SS IA N H IS TO RY 4 2 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 2 7 2 - 3 0 3
TH E A L L IA N C E B E TW EE N BYZA NTIU M 275

Kaloyan / Ivan π (1197-1207) succeeded his elder brothers. In 1199 he

resumed the war with the Greek emperor since his power had weakened again
owing to internal revolts. In 1201, Kaloyan seized Constanta and then Varna and
actively participated in raids against Thrace and Macedonia, devastating those
Byzantine provinces.9
In the meantime, a Bulgarian boyar named Dobromir Chrysos led an anti-
Byzantine revolt in Macedonia. Chrysos had been the Byzantine governor in
the Strumica region. In the mid-ugos, however, he refused to recognize the
power of the Empire and created a small independent principality with its cen­
ter at Prosek (the southern part of contemporary Vardar Macedonia). He
secured the support of the Byzantine commander Manuel Kamytzes who had
deserted Alexios in. Soon they were joined by another defector, the Byzantine
governor of the Rhodope region, John Spiridonaki who had declared himself
an independent sovereign. Kaloyan supported them all. After Dobromir
Chrysos attacked and seized Bitol and Prilep his troops entered Thessaly and
the Peloponnese.10
In his struggle against the Empire, Kaloyan was extremely cruel and
attempted to completely exterminate all the Greeks living on Bulgarian lands.
According to Niketas Choniates, after Kaloyan captured Varna, “he threw all
the captives in a ditch and, covering it up with earth, buried them alive in one
common grave”.11
The situation worsened at the end of the twelfth century when the Bulgarians
and the Cumans fonned an anti-Byzantine alliance. According to their agree­
ment in 1186 the Cumans received the opportunity not only to conduct unim­
peded raids against the Byzantine lands, but also to implement mass resettlement
into the Lower Danube territories. As a result, a new region under their control
known as Danubian Cumania came into existence in Eastern Europe.12 Recently

9 N. S. Derzhavin, htorija Bolgarii: Bolgarija vremen Pervogo і Vtorogo carstv (6/9-1393)

[History of Bulgaria. Bulgaria the First and Second Kingdoms (679-1393)]. (Moscow;
Leningrad, 1948), p. 130 sq.; G. Cankova-Petkova, 'Bidgarsko-grbcki і bblgarsko-latinski
otnoshenija pri Kalojane і Borile' [Greek-Bulgarian and Bulgarian-Latin relations under
Kaloyan and boryl], Izvestija na Instituta za istorija, vol. 21. (Sofia, 1970), p. 149 sq.
10 F. I, Uspenskij, Istorija Vizantijskoj imperii [History o f the Byzantine Empire]. (Moscow,
L997)> vol. ift> pp· 269-272, 295; Istorija na Bblgarija, vol. iii, pp. 131-133; N. D. Ovcharov,
Istorija і arheologija na Vardarska M akedónja prez x i v v. [History and archeology of
Vardar Macedonia to the 14th century], (Sofia, 1996), p. 80 sq.
11 Nicetae Choniatae Historia, pp. 532-533
12 See D.A. Rasovskij, ‘Roľ polovcev v vojnah Asenej s Vizantijskoj і Latinskoj imperijami,
1186-1207 gg.' [The role of Cumans in wars by Assen against the Byzantine and Latin
empires, 1186-1207], Spisanie na Bzlgarskata Akademija па naukite, vol. 59. (Sofia, 1939),

RU SS IAN H IS TO RY 4 2 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 2 7 2 - 3 0 3
276 MAIOROV

Bulgarian historians have begun to associate the origin of the Asen brothers
with the Cuman-Bulgarian ethnic group that inhabited northern Bulgaria. This,
however, contradicts the Romanian historiographic hypothesis of the Wallachian-
Romanian origin of the founders of the Second Bulgarian Tsardom.13
The new Bulgarian-Byzantine wars, in which the Cumans actively partici­
pated, were waged in the early 1190s. In the early spring of 1190, the Cumans
crossed the Danube and forced Isaac 11 to leave Northern Bulgaria and to
retreat beyond the Balkan Mountains.14 All his attempts to counterattack were
in vain.15 At a later date, in the confrontation at the Morava in the vicinity of
Philippopolis, it seemed that the Byzantines had gained success. Apparently,
during the winter campaign of 1190/1 they defeated the “Vlachs” (Bulgarians)
and the “Scythians” (Cumans).16
However, the success was unstable. As Choniates notes, the attacks of the
Bulgarians and the Cumans against the Byzantine lands continued cease­
lessly.17 All the attempts of the Empire to restrain their aggression failed.
Around 1195, Alexios Gidos and Basileios Vatatzes were defeated near
Arcadiopolis.18 The following year, Sebastokrator Isaac Komnenos was defeated
and captured at Serres.19
During the reign of Alexios in , the attacks of the Cumans and the Bulgarians
against the Empire assumed disastrous proportions so much so that the enemy
began to threaten the very capital itself. The enemies almost reached the
earthen gate of Constantinople. Niketas Choniates reports that “several times

p. 203 sq.; PI Pavlov, ‘Za roljata na kumanite v bbigarskata voenna istorija (1186-1241 g.)’
[On the role o f the Cumans in the Bulgarian military history (1186-1241) ], Voennoistoricheski
sbomik, vol. 6. (Sofia, 1990), pp. 14-17; M. V. Bibikov, Vizantijskie istochniki po istorii
Drevnej Rusi і Kavkaza [Byzantine sources on the history of ancient Russia and the
Caucasus]. (St Petersburg, 1999), pp. 250-257; I. O. Knjaz’kij, Vizantija і kochevniki juzh-
norusskih stepej [Byzantium and the southern Russian steppes nomads], (St Petersburg,
2003), chap, iv; I. Vásáry, Cumans and Tatars: Oriental Military in the Pre-Ottoman Balkans,
’>85-1365· (Cambridge; New York), 2005, pp. 42-47.
13 See Cankova-Petkova, Bblgarija pri Asenevci, pp. 21-50; Petrov, Vbzstanovjavane na
Bbkjarskata derzhava.
14 Nicetae Choniatae Historia., p. 428.
15 Ibid, p. 429; Nicetae Choniatae Orationes et Epistulae, ed. I. A. van Dieten. (Berlin; New
York), 1972 (=CFHB, ser. Berolinensis, vol. iii), p. 3.
16 J. L. Van Diethen, Niketas Choniates. Erläuterungen zu den Reden und Briefen nebst einer
Biographie. (Berlin, 1971), p. 62 sq.
17 Nicetae Choniatae Historia, p.437.
18 Ibid, p. 446.
19 Ibid, p. 468,

R U SSIA N HISTORY 4 2 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 2 7 2 - 3 0 3
T H E A L L IA N C E BE TW EEN BY ZA NTIUM 277

every year” the Greeks suffered the invasions of the barbarians, who took many
captive and sold them into slavery. The lands of Thrace and Macedonia were
turned into a desert that extended as far as the Hem (the Balkan Mountains).
The campaign against the Bulgarians, that the emperor planned, was delayed
repeatedly, while the Bulgarians together with the Cumans devastated “the
best regions” and withdrew, “having encountered no resistance”.20

The Reports of Niketas Choniates on the Military Assistance

Rendered by Roman Mstislavich

In their predicament, the Byzantines perceived the assistance rendered by

Roman Mstislavich - who quickly assembled “a brave and numerous armed
force”, attacked the Cumans and devastated their lands - as a miracle, and as
“protection sent down by God”. Niketas Choniates describes this event with the
following enthusiastic report about the Rusian prince and “the most Christian
people of Rus’”:
“The following year, the Wallachians together with the Cumans, invaded the
Roman possessions again and, after devastating the best regions withdrew,
having encountered no resistance. They might have even reached the earthen
gate of Constantinople and assaulted the very capital, had it not been for the
most Christian people of Rus’ and their princes, who, partly of their own will,
and partly owing to the entreaties of their archpastor, displayed the most
remarkable and sincere willingness to help the Romans. They showed great
concern for them as a Christian nation that several times every year was sub­
jected to incursions by the barbarians, who took them captive and sold them
into slavery. It was Roman, the Prince of Halych, who quickly assembled a
brave and numerous armed force, attacked the Cumans and, having passed
through their land without stopping, plundered and devastated it. After repeat­
ing such attacks several times to the glory and the magnificence of the holy
Christian faith, the smallest part of which like, for example, a mustard seed,
can shift mountains and move rocks, he stopped the raids of the Cumans and
put an end to those terrible miseries that the Romans suffered from them. In
this way he rendered to the people of the same faith an unexpected assistance,
an unforeseen defense and, so to say, protection sent down by God. Moreover,
when conflict flared up between these Tauroscythae, it was the same Roman
and the Kievan ruler Rurik who stained their swords with the blood of their
fellow countrymen. Roman, being stronger and more skillful, won a victory by

20 Ibid, pp. 473,487,499-501,522-523.

RU SS IA N H IS TO RY 4 2 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 2 7 2 - 3 0 3
278 MAIOROV

exterminating a great number of Cumans, who helped Rurik in his battles and
constituted the most powerful part of his army".21
Thus, as we have seen, Roman helped Byzantium by repeatedly taking the
field against the Cumans. According to Niketas Choniates, the prince of Rus’
began warfare against the inhabitants of the steppe regions at the direct
request of the Empire conveyed via the archpastor of the Orthodox Church
(άρχιποιμήν), the Patriarch of Constantinople or the Metropolitan of Kiev.22
Moreover, Roman participated in the conflict with Bulgaria on the side of
Byzantium. This also helped to stabilize the political position of the Empire in
the Balkans.23
Historians rightly observe that the Galician-Volhynian prince remained
almost the only ally of the Byzantine Empire in the period when it underwent
its most severe trials, after the alliance of the countries that were loyal to it,
practically ceased to exist.24
G.G. Litavrin describes the unprecedented character of the Rus’-Byzantine
relations during Roman Mstislavich’s reign. According to the historian “The
Empire benefited from the Rusian warfare against the Pechenegs and the
Cumans, but there are no data whether the Empire appealed to the people of
Rus’ for such help. The only example (recorded under year 1200), when there
was a direct request on the part of Byzantium, is the attack against the Cumans
made by Roman Mstislavich of Halych at the request of Alexios in Angelos.”25

The Dating o f Niketas Choniates’ Report on the Campaign o f the

Galician Prince Against the Cumans

In 1965 N. F. Kotlyar suggested that Roman Mstislavich had evidently cam­

paigned against the Cumans for the first time in 1197/98.26 The historian relied

21 Ibid, pp, 522-523.

22 Brand, Byzantium confronts the West, p. 132; Vásáry, Cumans and Tatars, pp, 48-49.
23 H. Grala, 'Rola Rusi w wojnach bizantyńsko-bulgarskich przełomu x n i x n i w: [The role
o f Rus’ in the Byzantine-Bulgarian wars abroad 12-13 centuries], Balcanica Posnamensia.
Acta et studia, vol. 2. (Poznań, 1985), pp, 128-131.
24 D.Obolenskij, Vizantijskoe sodruzhestvo nacij. Sh esť vizantijskih portrétov [Byzantine
Commonwealth. Six Byzantine portraits], (Moscow, 1998), p. 248,
25 G.G. Litavrin, Vizantija, Bolgarija, Drevnjaja Rus’ (ix - nachatoXIl v. ) [Byzantium, Bulgaria,
Ancient Rus (9th - early 12th century)]. (St Petersburg, 2000), pp. 356-357.
26 N. F. Kotljar, ‘Chi mig Roman Mstislavich hoditi na polovciv ranishe 1187 r.?’ [Could Roman
Mstislavich go to polovtsev earlier in 1187?], Ukrainskij istorichnij zhumai, 1965, nr. i„
pp. 119-120. - See also: N. F. Kotljar, ‘lz istoricheskogo kommentarija k “Slovu o polku

R U SSIA N H IS T O RY 4 2 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 2 7 2 - 3 0 3
THE A L L IA N C E BE TW EEN BYZA NTIU M 279

on the above report by Niketas Choniates concerning Roman’s attack against

the inhabitants of the steppe regions, made at the direct request of the
Byzantines. As Choniates in his narration did not date the described events,
the only evidence allowing us to date the report on the Galician-Volhynian
prince’s march into the Steppe is its initial phrase: “The following year...”.
The account concerning Roman in Choniates’ History is preceded by the
report on the visit of the sultan of Iconium, Kaykhusraw (1192-1196,1205-1211),
to the Byzantine emperor Alexios in .27 Following N. F. Kotlyar’s logic, if one
establishes the date of that visit, and adds one year to it, one can obtain the
required date of Roman’s march into the steppe. The first period of Kaykhusraw’s
reign ended in 1196, therefore Kotlyar concludes that Roman’s campaign
against the Cumans took place in 1197 or at the latest in 1198, if one adds time
for the exile’s travels.28
Thus, the historian has established that in addition to the two previously
known campaigns against the Cumans, dated to 1202 and 1205 in the Laurentian
chronicle (which were the second and the third campaigns according to
Kotlyar), there was the first campaign, known only from Choniates’ History.
Roman Mstislavich made it in 1197/98, when he had not yet become the Galician
prince.29 Kotlyar’s view has become widely accepted in recent literature30 and
acquired new details and clarifications. For example, according to L. V. Voitovich,

Igoreve” (Kto byl Mstislav)’ [From the historical commentary on the “Tale of Igor’s
Campaign” (who was Mstislav)], Drevnejshie gosudarstva na territorii SSSR. ig8j god
[Ancient states on the territory o f the USSR. 1987]. Moscow, 1989, p. 46; Kotljar N. F.,
‘Galicko-Volynskaja Rus' іV iz a n tija v x n -x iii w . (syjazireaľnye і vymyshlennye)’ [Galicia-
Volyn Rus and Byzantium in the x i i - x i n centuries, (real and imaginary connection)],
Juzhnąja Rus'і Vizantija [South Rus’ and Byzantium], ed. P. P. Tolochko. (Kiev, 1991), p. 25.
27 Nicetae Choniatae Historia, pp. 520-522.
28 N. F. Kotljar, DiplomatijaJuzhnojRusi [Diplomacy of South Rus’]. (St Petersburg, 2003), p. 88.
29 Their findings N. F. Kotlyar is repeatedly in numerous publications, see: N. F. Kotljar,
Galic’ko-Volins’ka Rus’ [Galicia-Volyn Rus]. (Kiev, 1998), p. 258; N. F. Kotljar, ‘Roman і
Romanovichi v istoricheskoj i pojeticheskoj tradícii’ [Roman and Romanowicz in the his­
torical and poetic tradition], Drevnejshie gosudarstva Vostochnoj Evropy. 2002 god [Ancient
states o f Eastern Europe. 2002]. (Moscow, 2004), p. 117; N. F. Kotljar, 'Strategija oborony
galickimi i volynskimi knjaz’j am i gosudarstvennyh rubezhej v x il v.’ [Strategy Defense
Galician and Volhynian princes state borders in the 12th century], Vizantijskij vremennik,
vol. 65(go). (Moscow, 2006), pp. 74-75; N. F. Kotljar, Daniil, knjaz' Gatickij [Daniel, Prince
Galitsky]. (St Petersburg, 2008), p. 43.
30 Especially in connection with the study o f the problems of authorship and time o f cre­
ation of the Tale o f Igor's Campaign, see A. A. Zimin, Slovo o polku Igoreve [The Tale of
Igor’s Campaign], (St Petersburg, 2006), p.221; B. l.Jacenko, ‘Solnechnoe zatmenie v “Slove

R U SSIA N H IS TO RY 4 2 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 2 7 2 - 3 0 3
280 MAIOROV

Roman Mstislavich made “his campaigns against the Cumans" in 1197-1198 from
the territory of the Bolokhov land, thus securing it as a part of Volhynia.31
The question is how reliable are the results obtained by N. F. Kotlyar? Can
one connect chronologically the dethroning and the exile of the sultan of
Iconium in 1196 with the first campaign of the Galician-Volhynian prince
against the Cumans? Kotlyar’s reasoning does not account for the fact that the
exile of Kaykhusraw lasted over five years - from 1196 until 1205. During this
period the ex-sultan visited the Byzantine capital more than once. Moreover,
according to Chômâtes’ report, Emperor Alexios received Kaykhusraw not
once (as Kotlyar believes), but twice.
The first reception took place immediately after the sultan’s expulsion, i.e.
about 1196 (however, according to some data, the expulsion of Kaykhusraw
should be dated to 1197).32 At that time, as Choniates reports, Kaykhusraw
“received very little sympathy which did not meet his expectations at all”.33
One of the reasons why Alexios in was so cool towards the sultan was, undoubt­
edly, the episode, also described by Niketas Choniates, concerning Kaykhusraw’s
capture of the two Arabs that the sultan of Egypt had sent to the Emperor.34
Failing to obtain support in Constantinople, Kaykhusraw tried to return to
Iconium, but was exiled once again and escaped to Armenia with his sons.
There he attempted in vain to persuade the Cilician king, Levon 11 (1186/7—
1219), to render him military assistance. After being refused, the sultan headed
for Aleppo in Syria, where he spent about two years. Then he returned to
Constantinople for the second time.35 Kaykhusraw succeeded in obtaining an

o polku Igoreve'” [Solar eclipse in the Tale o f Igor’s Campaign], Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoj
Literatury Instituta russkoj literatury (Pushkinskij Dom) Rossijskoj Akademii nauk
[Proceedings of the Department o f Old Russian Literature Institute o f Russian Literature
(Pushkin House) of the Russian Academy of Sciences], vol. 31. (Leningrad, 1976), p. 122,
etc. - See also A. B. Golovko, ‘Knjaz’ Roman Mstislavovich’ [Prince Roman Mstislavich],
Voprosy istorii, 2002, nr. 12, p. 63. - However, some researchers have expressed doubts
about the assumptions N. F. Kotljar: Grala H., 'Drugie małżeństwo Romana Mścisiawicza’
[Second marriage Roman Mstislavich], Slavia Orientalis, 1982, nr 3-4, p. 122.
31 L. V. Vojtovich, Knjazha doba na Rusi: portreti eliti [Princely era in Rus’: portraits of the
elite]. (Bila Cerkva, 2006), p. 475.
32 Various dates for this event, see: V. Gordlevskij, Gosudarstvo seľdzhukidov v M alaj Azii
[Seljuk state in Asia Minor]. (Moscow; Leningrad, 1941), pp. 185-186; Gy Moravcsik,,
Byzantinoturcica. (Berlin, 1983), vol. ii, pp. 57,112.
33 NLcetae Choniatae Historia, p. 520.
34 Ibid, pp. 493- 494·
35 Ibid, pp. 520-522. - Cf: Die Seltschukengeschichte des Ibn Bibi, ed. and transi. H. W. Duda.
(Kopenhagen, 1959), pp. 21-27; see also: Cl Cahen, Pre-Ottoman Turkey. 7071-7330.
(London, 1968), p. 115.

RU SS IA N H IS TO RY 4 2 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 2 7 2 - 3 0 3
T H E A L L IA N C E BE TW EE N BY ZA NTIUM 281

audience with the emperor only after a few years of travel. Even so, he failed
once again to get military assistance but was able to develop friendlier rela­
tions with Alexios. According to George Akropolites, the emperor favored the
ex-sultan so much that he even had him baptized and adopted him. Later, dur­
ing the siege of Constantinople by crusaders, we learn that the ex-sultan helped
Alexios to escape.36
It is clear that when Niketas Choniates described Kaykhusraw’s audience
with Alexios in before reporting the campaign of Roman Mstislavich against
the Cumans, he referred to the second audience rather than to the first. This is
evident from the general order of events and the composition of the account
concerning Kaykhusraw’s tribulations. After the historian began recounting
the second audience with the emperor (“At about that time the satrap of
Iconium, Kaykhusraw, presented himself to the emperor”), he described ear­
lier events: “I wish to say a few words about the family of this Persian and I will
make a small digression here in order to return later to the sequence of my
story.” After this aside Niketas Choniates gives a detailed account of how
Kaykhusraw was deprived of power and mentions his first meeting with the
emperor. Then he dwells on the outcast’s escape to Armenia and his return to
Constantinople.37
The second audience of Kaykhusraw with Emperor Alexios can indeed be
taken as evidence for dating Roman Mstislavich’s campaign against the
Cumans. Namely, it could have taken place no earlier than 1200, i.e. during the
second stay of the ex-sultan in Constantinople that, according to various
sources, lasted from 1199/1200 until 1203.38
Such dating is completely in line with the general chronology and the
sequence of events described by Niketas Choniates at the beginning of his
third book of The History devoted to Alexios i n ’s reign. The book begins with
the detailed description of Alexios’ campaign against the rebel Dobromir
Chrysos and the failed siege of his capital Prosek by the Byzantines.39 These
events, as well as the peace concluded with Chrysos and his marriage with the

36 Georgii Acropolitae Opera, vol. i, pp, 14-15.

37 Nicetae Choniatae Historia, pp. 520-522.
38 See: Die Seitschukengeschichte, pp. 27-29. - See also 0 . Turan, ‘Les souverains seldjoukides
et leurs sujets non-musulmans’, Studio Islámica, vol. i. (Paris, 1953), p. 79.
39 Nicetae Choniatae Historia, pp. 502-508. - About Dobromir Chrysos and its relations with
Byzantium see Brand, Byzantium confronts the West, pp. 128-129, Ш _135: J· Hoffmann,
Rudimente von Territorialstaaten im byzantinischen Reich (1077-1210). Untersuchungen über
Unabhängigkeitsbestrebungen и, ihr Verhältnis zu Kaiser u. Reich. (Munch, 1974),
pp. 46-47, 8g sq.; J. V. A. Fine,, The Late Medieval Balkans: a critical survey from the late
twelfth century to the Ottoman conquest. (Ann Arbor, 1994), pp. 28-32.

R U SSIA N H IS TO RY 4 2 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 2 7 2 - 3 0 3
282 MAIOROV

emperor’s family member are usually dated to 1197-1198.40 Next Choniates

reports on the second marriages of Alexios i n ’s daughters Anna and Irina, who
married Theodore Laskaris and Alexios Palaeologus respectively.41 The wed­
dings took place at the very beginning of 1199.42
After that the historian begins recounting in detail Alexios’ struggle with a
rebel called Ivanko, who was the cousin of the Asen brothers.43 In 1196 he
headed the conspiracy against Tsar Ivan 1 and killed him. After the murder of
the Bulgarian tsar, Ivanko fled to Constantinople where the emperor made him
the ruler of Philippopolis (Plovdiv) and the surrounding regions - the last
Byzantine stronghold in rebellious Bulgaria. However, at the end of 1198 Ivanko
revolted against the Empire and declared himself an independent ruler.44
Troops led by Protostrator Manuel Kamytzes were sent to suppress the
uprising. At first, the Byzantines were able to gain some success, but in 1199
Kamytzes was ambushed and taken prisoner. After that Alexios h i himself
took over command of the army. The campaign had limited success until,
finally, Alexios was able to entrap and kill Ivanko by means of a ruse, namely,
by pretending that he wanted to conduct peace negotiations. Historians date
the end of this struggle to 1200.45
After the report on the emperor’s return to the capital and a brief account
about the eccentric behavior of Empress Euphrosyne in his absence, Choniates
passes on to the above mentioned audience given by Alexios ill to the fugitive
sultan of Iconium, Kaykhusraw. According to the historiographer it took place
“at about that time”, i.e. in the same year 1200.
Immediately after that report, Choniates places the account of Roman
Mstislavich’s campaign against the Cumans made at the request of Byzantium
in “the following year”. Therefore, the campaign should be dated to early 1201.
Practically all the historians who studied Choniates’ report dated Roman’s
military expedition into Cumania to late 1200 or early 1201.46 This is in keeping

40 Istorija na Bblgarija, vol. iii, pp. 131-133; Fine, The Late Medieval Balkans, p. 30,
41 Nicetae Choniatae Historia, pp. 508-510.
42 J.-F Vannier, 'Les premiers Paléologues, Étude généalogique et prosopographique', in:
Cheynet J. C , Vannier J., Études prosopographiques. Paris, 1986 (Byzantina Sorbonensia,
vol. 5), p. 164, nr. 29; pp. 170-172.
43 Nicetae Choniatae Historia, pp. 510-520.
44 Cankova-Petkova, Bblgarija priAsenevci, pp. 42-43; Bozhilov, Familijata naAsenevci, pp. 44-45.
45 See V. N/ Zlatarski, Istorija na bblgarskata dbrzhava prez srednite vekove [History of the
Bulgarian state in the Middle Ages], (Sofia, 1994), vol. iii, pp. 117-119, 137-139; Fine,
The Late Medieval Balkans, pp. 30-31.
46 E. de Murait, Essai de Chronographie byzantine pour servir à l ’examen des annales du Bas-
Empire et particulièrement des chronographes slavons. (St Petersburg, 1871), vol. ii,

R U SS IA N HISTORY 4 2 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 2 7 2 - 3 0 3
THE A L L IA N C E BE TW EE N BYZA NTIU M 283

with the reports on the beginning of the massed attacks on the territory of the
empire by the Cumans and the Bulgarians (Scythians and Wallachians), given by
Chômâtes in the end of the second book and the beginning of the third book of
his History of Alexios Angelos’ reign. The first report describes the barbarian inva­
sion into Thrace, when the cities around Mesina and Churul (Tsiml) were plun­
dered; the second report describes a larger scale attack on the lands of Macedonia
(“their invasion was greater and more terrible than all the previous ones”).47 Both
cases date back to the period from the spring (April) until the fall of 1199.48
Another even more ruinous attack of the Cumans against Byzantium when,
according to Choniates, the invaders would have approached the very gate of
Constantinople but for Roman Mstislavich’s impetuous raid against the ene­
my’s rear,49 evidently took place in the fall-winter of 1200/1 or the early spring
of 1201.50
The suggested dating is in line with the chronology of subsequent events
described by Choniates. The report closest in timing to the one about
Roman’s attack on the Cumans’ rear can be dated exactly. It describes the
revolt of the Constantinopolitan nobility headed by John Komnenos the Fat
against Alexios in .51

pp. 261-262; F. I. Uspenskij, Ohrozovanie Vtorogo Bolgarskogo carstva [Formation of the

Second Bulgarian Kingdom]. (Odessa, 187g), pp. 208-209; P- V. Golubovskij, Pechenegi,
torki і potovcy do nashestvija tatar [Pechenegs, Torquey and Cumans before the invasion
of the Tatars]. (Kiev, 1884), p. 37; M. S. Grushevs’kij, Istorija Ukrami-Rusi [History of
Ukraine-Rus]. (Kiev, 1992), vol. ii, p. 561; M. V. Levchenko, Ocherkipo istorii russko-vizanti-
jskih otnoshenij [Essays on the history of Rus’-Byzantine relations]. (Moscow, 1956), p. 496;
E. Frances, ‘Les relations russo-byzantines au x ii siecle et la domination de Galície au
bas-Danube’, Byzantinoslavica, vol. 20/1. (Praha, 19 5g ), p. 62; Brand,, Byzantium confronts
the West, p. 132; G.G. Litavrin, ‘Rus’ i Vizantija v x n veke’ [Rus and Byzantium in the 12th
century], Voprosy istorii, 1972, nr. 7, p. 48; D. Obolensky, ‘The Relations between Byzantium
and Rus’ (eleventh to fifteenth century)’, in: x m Mezhdunarodnyj kongres istoricheskih
nauk [х н і International Congress o f Historical Sciences], (Moscow, 16-23 August 1970).
Report to Congress, vol. 1/4. Moscow. 1973, p. 204; Istorija na Bblgarija, vol. iii, p. 132; Fine,
The Late Medieval, Balkans, pp. 31-32; Vásáry, Cumans and Tatars, pp. 48-49.
47 Nicetae Choniatae Historia, pp. 499-501, 508.
48 See Fr. Grabler, Die Kreuzfahrer erobern KonstantinopeL Die Regierungszeit der Kaiser
Alexios Angelos, Isaak Angelos und Alexios Dukas, die Schicksale der Stadt nach der
Einnahme sowie das “Buch von den Bildsäulen* (1195-1206) aus dem Geschichtswerk des
Niketas Choniates, mit einem Anhang: Nikolaos Mesarites: Die Palastrevolution desJoannes
Komnenos, (Graz, etc., 1958), pp. 71-73,80; Vásáry, Cumans and Tatars, pp. 47-48.
49 Nicetae Choniatae Historia, p. 522.
50 Vásáry 1„ Cumans and Tatars, p. 48.
51 Nicetae Choniatae Historia, pp. 528-530.

RU SS IA N H IS T O RY 4 2 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 2 7 2 - 3 0 3
284 MAIOROV

This John, who was the great-grandson of Emperor John и Komnenos (1118 -
1143), had taken advantage of the absence of Alexios in the capital and declared
himself the new emperor. He seized the Great Palace and was crowned in Hagia
Sophia. However, the following night, the troops that were faithfirl to Alexios
marched into the capital and defeated the rebels. John Komnenos was killed
and the participants of the revolt were arrested and taken to prisons. Thanks to
the accurate data of Nicholas Mesarites, the keeper (skeuophylax) of relics in
the Church of the Virgin of the Pharos at the Great Palace, who personally saved
them from being plundered by the mob that had burst into the Palace, these
events are dated to 31 July - 1 August 1201.52

Russian Sources on the Time o f Roman’s Campaign against

the Cumans

The dating of Roman Mstislavich’s campaign against the Cumans to early 1201,
described by Choniates, is completely in keeping with the reports of the
Russian sources concerning the prince’s biography. It is hard to imagine that
Roman could perform such large-scale military operations in the interests of
Byzantium before he became the prince of Halych, i.e. before 1199. It is also
unlikely that the Byzantine ruler would seek help from Roman when he was
the prince of Volhynia that was distant from the empire’s borders, and when
Roman did not play any significant political role in the life of Southern Rus’. He
acquired such a role only after occupying Halych and defeating the Kievan
prince Rurik Rostislavich.
There can be no doubt that Roman’s campaign against the Cumans,
described by Choniates, dates to the time when Roman had already become
the Galician prince, since the Byzantine historian calls him the Galician ruler
(ó τής Γαλίτζης ήγεμών Ρωμανός).53 Choniates was also aware of the "strife”
between Roman and Rurik, in which Roman won the victory because he was
“stronger and more skilful”. The historian speaks of this “strife” as an event that
took place at the same time (ó τότε χρόνος) that the Galician prince attacked
the Cumans on behalf of Byzantium.54

52 Grabler, Die Kreuzfahrer erobern Konstantinopel, p. 272; Brand, Byzantium confronts the
West, pp. 122—124,347-348, n. 14; Diethen, Niketas Choniates, p. 124.
53 Nicetae Choniatae Historia, p. 522.
54 Ibid, pp. 522-523. - Researchers dated the news year 1202: Grabler, Die Kreuzfahrer erob­
ern Konstantinopel, p. 95.

RU SS IA N H IS T O RY 4 2 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 2 7 2 - 3 0 3
T H E A L L IA N C E BE TW EE N BY ZA NTIUM 285

The Russian chronicles date the beginning of Rurik’s military activities

against Roman and the first seizure of Kiev by the Galician prince to 1202.55 In
early 1203 Rurik, with the help of the allied Cumans (with “the whole Cuman
land”), recaptured the Kievan throne after devastating the capital of Southern
Rus’.56 Roman and Rurik’s joint campaign against the Cumans probably took
place at the beginning of the same year 1203 (according to the chronology of
the First Novgorod Chronicle), after which Roman attacked Rurik, captured
him together with all his family and forced him to become a monk.57
Obviously, those are the events referred to by Choniates when he speaks of
the "strife" that existed between the Kievan and the Galician princes that
ended with the victory of the latter. Therefore, Roman Mstislavich’s campaigns
against the Cumans that stopped their raids on Byzantium had to have taken
place at about the same time.
According to Niketas Choniates there were only a few campaigns. The histo­
rian says that Roman repeated “such attacks” “several times”. This fact is also
supported by the Russian chronicles that tell about two marches into the steppe,
undertaken by the Galician-Volhynian prince with the support of other princes.
The Laurentian chronicle reports on the first campaign. “The same winter
Roman went against the Cumans and the whole Cuman land and brought
numerous captives and captured many Christian souls from them. And there
was a great joy in the land of Rus’”.58 The second campaign was evidently on a
larger scale: besides Roman, the Kievan prince Rurik Rostislavich, the
Pereyaslavlian prince Yaroslav Vsevolodovich (the son of Vsevolod the Big
Nest) and “other princes” participated.59 This campaign is also known from the
report of the younger version of the First Novgorod chronicle, where a certain
prince Mstislav is listed among the participants.60
The dating of the campaigns creates a number of difficulties concerning the
chronology of the early thirteenth century reports in the Laurentian chronicle -
the main source of the information that is the subject of our research. The entry
referring to Roman’s first campaign against the Cumans is at the very end of the

55 Polnoe sobranie russkih letoplsej [Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles], vol. i:

Lavrenťevskaja letopis’ [Laurentian Chronicle], (Moscow, 1997), col. 417-418; vol. vii;
Voskresenskaja letopis’ [Voskresensky chronicle]. (Moscow, 2000), p. 107.
56 Ibid, vol. i, col. 419; vol. iii: Novgorodskaja pervaja letopis’ strashego і mladshego izvodov
[Novgorod First Chronicle Older and Younger Versions], (Moscow, 2000), pp. 45,240.
57 Ibid, vol. i, col. 420; vol. iii, p. 240.
58 Ibid, vol. i, col. 418.
59 Ibid, vol. i, col. 420.
60 Ibid, vol. iii, p. 240.

RU SS IA N H IS TO RY 4 2 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 2 7 2 - 3 0 3
286 MAIOROV

account dedicated to the year 6710. As N. G. Berezhkov has established, in this

account the chronicler used the Ultra-March style of year denotation. The Ultra-
March year 6710 corresponds to the March year 6709 that, translated into the
Christian calendar, lasts from 1 March 1201 until 28 February 1202.61
The historian pays special attention to the second half of the account con­
cerning events in Southern Rus’, in particular to Roman Mstislaviclrs campaign
against the Cumans. He compares it to the account reported by Niketas
Choniates concerning the Galician prince’s campaign into the Cuman lands
that stopped the Cumans’ raids into Byzantium. Having studied the chronol­
ogy of the preceding and subsequent reports in Choniates’ History, N. G.
Berezhkov reached the correct conclusion that Roman’s campaign against the
Cumans described by the historian had to have taken place in the first half of
the September year 6709 (that corresponds to the second half of the March
year 6708), i.e. to the winter of 1200/1201.62
M. S. Grushevsky came to the same conclusion. In his opinion, Choniates’
report describing Roman’s campaign against the Cumans should be dated to
the winter 1200/1201, while the reports of the Laurentian chronicle and that of
later chronicles on the Galician-Volhynian prince’s first march into the steppe
should be dated to the winter of 1201/1202.63 Grushevsky does not see any need
to reconcile the discrepancies in the dating of the campaign.64
N. G. Berezhkov adopted a more definite solution. He believed it possible to
date the whole group of reports on Southern Rus’ in the second part of the
account under the year 6710 in the Laurentian chronicle to the March year
6708 that lasted from 1 March 1200 until 28 February' 1201. Thus, the historian
admits that this account has a complicated chronological composition. First, it
includes the reports of the March year 6709, and second, it includes the reports
of the preceding March year 6708.65
As we can see, the Russian chronicles and Choniates leave open the possi­
bility that Roman’s first campaign into the steppe can be dated either to late
1200 or to early 1201, while there is no possibility to date it to an earlier period.
As for N. F. Kotlyar’s suggestion that Roman’s first campaign can be dated to
1197/1198, this is not supported by Rusian or Byzantine sources and should be
rejected as erroneous.

61 N. G. Berezhkov, Hronologija russkogo letopisanija [Chronology o f Russian chronicles],

(Moscow, 1963), pp. 86-87.
62 ibid, p. 87.
63 Grushevs’kij, Istorija Ukraïni-Rusi, vol. ii, p. 561.
64 Ibid.
65 Berezhkov, Hronologija russkogo letopisanija, pp. 87.

RU SS IA N H IS TO RY 4 2 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 2 7 2 - 3 0 3
T H E A L L IA N C E BE TW EEN BY ZA NTIUM 287

Dating the beginning of Roman Mstislavich’s military activities against

the Cumans at the request of the rulers of the Byzantine Empire to the late
1200 or early 1201 is in line with the evidence of another Old Rus’ source.
According to the report of a Novgorodian pilgrim Dobrynya Yadreikovich
(the future archbishop Antony), an embassy of the Galician-Volhynian Prince
Roman Mstislavich visited Constantinople in May of 1200. The Novgorodian
pilgrim describes a religious miracle witnessed by him - the rising of burning
thuribles in Hagia Sophia - and notes its exact date and the people who saw
the miracle with him:
“This miracle was truly revealed by the holy God in the year 6708, during my
lifetime, in the month of May, in memory of the holy Tsar Konstantin and his
mother Elena, on the 21st, on a weekday, during the reign of Alexios and the
patriarchate of John, on the Synaxis of the Holy Fathers 318, in the presence of
the embassy of Tverdyatina Ostromiritsa, who had come with the embassy
from the Grand Prince Roman with Nedan and Domazhir, and with Dmitry
and Negvar, the ambassador”.66
The aim of the embassy, evidently, was to negotiate possible military assis­
tance for the empire in the struggle against the Cumans. Apparently at the
same time the embassy arranged the marriage of the Galician-Volhynian
prince with a Byzantine princess in order to strengthen the new military and
political alliance. This marriage was probably concluded immediately, even
before the end of 1200, since we are told that in the following year (1201) Roman
had a son with his new Byzantine wife. This is confirmed by the report of the
Galician-Volhynian chronicle which states that in the year of Roman’s death
(1205) his elder son Daniel was four years old.67
Another chronological reference point to determine the date of Roman
Mstislavich’s attack on the Cumans that stopped their raids into Byzantium
can be the termination of Bulgarian-Byzantine wars and the conclusion of a
peace treaty.
Researchers have a good reason to see the direct cause-and-effect relation­
ship between these events. The crushing blow that the Galician-Volhynian
prince struck against the Cumans made them stop their participation in the
Bulgarian attacks against Byzantium and to withdraw beyond the Danube to
protect their own lands. Their departure weakened Kaloyan’s military potential

66 Puteshestvie novgorodskogo arhiepiskopa Antonija v Car’g rad v konce i2-go stoletija [Travel
Novgorod Archbishop Anthony in Constantinople in the late 12th century], ed. P.
Sawaitov. (St Petersburg. 1872), col. 88-89.
67 Potnoe sobranie russkih letopisej, vol. ii: Ipaťevskaja letopis’ [Hypation Chronicle].
(Moscow, 1998), col. 717.

RU SS IA N H IS TO RY 4 2 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 2 7 2 - 3 0 3
288 MAIOROV

so much that, seeing the new military preparations of the empire, he had to
agree to a peace treaty. It was concluded late in 1201 or early in 1202 and was a
compromise for both parties. The empire recognized the independence of
Bulgaria but regained control of the territories in Thrace. The Balkan Mountains
became the border between the two states.68

The Report o f Theodore Skoutariotes

Roman’s help rendered to the Empire in the face of deadly danger was long
remembered by the Byzantines. After Niketas Choniates, other Byzantine writ­
ers and poets of the thirteenth— fourteenth centuries expressed enthusiastic
praise for the ruler of Halych. One can observe that no other Rusian prince had
ever been honored with such a high acclaim by the Byzantines during the
entire history of the Empire.
The liveliest interest in the deeds of the Galician prince - the true ally of the
Empire and a dedicated defender of the Christian faith - arose in Byzantium in
connection with the patriotic upsurge that began after Constantinople was
won back from the Latins and the Byzantine Empire was restored during the
Palaiologan era. At that time, new monumental historical works were written
that reinterpreted the history of the world and Byzantium.
The author of the world history from Adam up to the restoration of
Constantinople in 1261, that is sometimes known in literature as Anonymous
Synopsis Chronike (Ανωνύμου Συνοφις χρονική), devotes the following lines to
Roman Mstislavich:
“And in the year after the Cumans, the Vlachs took to the field and returned
home without damage. And they would not have stopped making campaigns
against us had it not been for the most Christian people of Rus’, who had taken
to the field courageously against them at the invitation of the tsar. The Galician
ruler Roman, having gathered a numerous and glorious army, attacked the
land of the Cumans suddenly, ravaged and destroyed it; and he did it many
times to the glory of the Christian faith. In this way he stopped the raids of the
Cumans”.69

68 Istorÿa na Bblgarija, vol. iii, p. 133; Bozhilov, Familijata na Asenevci, pp. 46-48; Fine,, The
Late Medieval Balkans, pp. 31-32; K. Gagova, Trakija prez bblgarskoto srednovekovie:
istoricheska geografija [Bulgarian Thrace in the Middle Ages: the historical geography],
(Sofia, 1995), p. 47.
69 Anonymu synopsis chronike, ed. K. N. Sathas. (Athens, 1972) (Mesaiônikë bibliothëkë j
Bibliotheca Graeca medii aevi, vol. 7), p. 428.

RU SS IA N HISTORY 4 2 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 2 7 2 - 3 0 3
T H E A L L IA N C E BE TW EE N BY ZA NTIUM 289

According to the latest data, it is highly probable that this work may have
been written by the well-known Byzantine historian and clergyman of the sec­
ond half of the thirteenth century Theodore Skoutariotes (ca. 1230 - after 1283).
He belonged to the milieu of the Nicaean emperor Theodore и Laskaris
(1254-1258) and was on friendly terms with Patriarch Arsenios Autoreianos
(1254-1260,1261-1265). In the 1260s he was the Sakellarios of Hagia Sophia in
Constantinople and supported the religious policy of Emperor Michael v i i i
(1259-1282) on the issue of union with Rome. He achieved the top of his career
after 1274 when he was elected the Metropolitan of Cyzikus.70
Skoutariotes (also known as Theodore of Cyzicus) apparently was the
author of the historiographic additions to the chronicles of John Skylitzes and
George Akropolites.71 His data on Roman Mstislavich are based on Niketas
Chômâtes’ report. Like Choniates, Skoutariotes speaks about unimpeded raids
of the Bulgarians and the Cumans into the lands of the Empire. He stresses the
particular commitment of the people of Rus’ and their ruler to the Christian
faith and their duty to help people of the same faith. He notes that the people
of Rus’ attacked the Cumans repeatedly, and that it was only thanks to this that
the invasions of the nomads into Byzantium were stopped.
At the same time he deviates from Choniates’ report. While the latter under­
scored the particular role of the Church in the organization of the campaign of
the Rusian princes against the Cumans (according to Choniates, Roman and
other princes made a decision to stand up in defense of Byzantium, “having
yielded to the entreaties of their archpastor’’), Theodore Skoutariotes says that
the people of Rus’ acted “at the invitation of the tsar”, i.e. at the direct request
of the Byzantine emperor. Moreover, Skoutariotes neglects to mention the
other Rusian princes who participated in the campaigns against the Cumans,
and gives all the credit for the victory over them to the “ruler of Halych, Roman”.
Unfortunately, Theodore Skoutariotes’ evidence (like that of some other
Byzantine authors) concerning the Galician Volhynian Prince Roman
Mstislavich is practically unknown to the modern historians of Rus’. The
attempts to use it alongside Niketas Choniates’ report, when they occur, are
sometimes rather curious. Apparently, N. F. Kotlyar had in mind the above

70 See H. Hunger H, Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiener. Munch, 1978, vol. i,
pp, 477-478; V N. Zavrazhin, ‘K voprosu о tolkovanii odnogo fragmenta iz "Prilozhenij”
Feodora Skutariota' [To a question on the interpretation of a fragment from the “Applications”
Theodore Skoutariotes], Vizantijskij vremennik, vol. 41. (Moscow, 1980), pp. 252-255;
M. V. Bibikov, Byzantinorossica, Svod vizantijskih svideteľstv o Rusi [Byzantinoslavica.
Corpus on Byzantine evidence of Rus’]. (Moscow, 2004), vol. i, pp. 470-471.
71 See: Theodori Scutariotae Additamenta, in: GeirgiiAkropolitae Opera, vol. i, pp. 275-302.

RU SS IA N H IS TO RY 4 2 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 2 7 2 - 3 0 3
290 MAIOROV

evidence of the author of the Anonymous Synopsis Chronike (i.e. of Theodore

Skoutariotes), when he described the deeds of Roman in the struggle with the
nomads.72 It is unclear what made the contemporary historian believe that the
author who wrote in Greek was “one of the West-European chroniclers”.73

The Poetic Evidence of Ephraem the Aenian

The Greek poet of the first third of the fourteenth century Ephraem the Aenian
praises the military exploits of Roman Mstislavich performed for the benefit of
the empire. Ephraem composed the grandiose poetic chronicle Χρονική ιστορία
δια στίχον ιαμβικών - a unique world history of a kind. It comprised almost ten
thousand dodecasyllables and included the most glorious episodes of the mil­
lennium history of the Roman and the Byzantine Empires.74
The beginning of the chronicle is lost, and what survives describes the
events from Caligula’s time up to the time that Michael v iii Palaiologos estab­
lished himself in Constantinople (1261). Ephraem supplemented his chronicle,
which is also called the imperial chronicle, with the patriarchal chronicle that
lists the patriarchs starting from the Apostle Andrew up to the enthronization
of Isaiah in 1332. This year should probably be considered as the time when the
chronicles were created.75
We do not know much about the author. He came from the Thracian city of
Aenus and, according to the available evidence, was a monk. His works survive
in a single fourteenth century copy that is kept in the collection of Greek man­
uscripts in the Vatican library (Vatic. Gr. 1003). In the seventeenth century a
manuscript copy was made from it (Vatic. Barber. 146). In his description of the
events, Ephraem follows his predecessors, mainly John Zonaras, Niketas
Choniates and George Akropolites. Ephraem’s data about Rus’ are also based
mostly on their works.76

72 Galicko-Vofynskaja Letopis’. Tekst. Kommentarij. Issledovanie [Galicia-Volhynian Chronicle.

Text. Comment. Study], ed. N. F. Kotljar. (St Petersburg, 2005), p. 181.
73 Kotljar, Daniil, knjaz’ GaUckij, p. 43.
74 Ephraemii monachi imperatorum et patriarcharum recensus, ed. A. Maio. Bonnae, 1840
(=CSHB, vol. xliii). - The latest critical edition o f Chronicles, see: Ephraem Aenius, Historia
Chronica [Έφραΐμ τοϋ Αίνίου Χρονογραφία], ed. Ο. Lampsidis. (Athens, 1990), vol. i-ii.
75 See O. Lampsidës, Beiträge zum byzantinischen Chronisten Ephraem und zu seiner Chronik.
(Athens, 1971); Hunger,, Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiener, vol. i,
pp. 478-480; Bibikov, Byzantinorossica, vol. i, p. 251.
76 See Lampsidës, Beiträge zum byzantinischen Chronisten Ephraem.

RU SS IA N H IS T O RY 4 2 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 2 7 2 - 3 0 3
T H E A L L IA N C E BE TW EEN BYZA NTIU M 291

Ephraem devotes four quatrains to the help that the “ruler of Galicia” ren­
dered to Byzantium in the struggle against the “Mysians” (Bulgarians) and the
“Cumans”. These are Veri. 6565 - 6580, according to O. Lampsidës’ numeration
and Veri. 6541 - 6556, according to A. Maio’s numeration:

The worst Mysian people, having involved in alliance

the horde of Cumans from beyond the Danube,
attacked the Roman lands,
taking an incredible number of prisoners
and enriching themselves with valuable loot.
And they would do it customarily and continually,
had it not been for the Christian and
pious tribe of the people of Rus’
who hindered them in their ill intentions.
For the ruler of Galicia, being persuaded
by the archpastor of the Rusian Church,
took a great army numbering over ten thousand
and attacked the Cumans’ region suddenly
and devastated their land completely.
And he dared to do this repeatedly,
in the glory of his pious Christian [subjects],
and destroyed the alliance of the Mysians and the barbarians.77

Ephraem’s poem does not mention the name of Roman Mstislavich, calling
him “the ruler of Galicia”. Otherwise the author follows closely Niketas
Choniates’s report on the military aid that the people of Rus’ gave to Byzantium
that stopped their hostile invasions. Ephraem does not spare words in describ­
ing the calamities that befell the empire with the invasion of the barbarians.
He notes the Christian piety of the people of Rus’ and their ruler who rose in
defense of the Greeks. He also underscores that the alliance of the Cumans
with the Bulgarians, so disastrous for Byzantium, was destroyed only thanks to
the repeated campaigns of the soldiers of Rus’.
Like Skoutariotes, Ephraem neglects the information on the participation of
other princes of Rus’ in the campaigns against the Transdanubian Cumans.
Instead, he gives all the credit of the savior of the empire exclusively to the
“ruler of Galicia”. Following Choniates, Ephraem emphasizes the special role of
the Church in the organization of the campaigns of the prince of Rus’ against
the enemies of Byzantium. Ephraim specifies that the Galician prince acted

77 Ephraem Aenius, Historia Chronica, vol. ii, p. 234.

RU SS IAN HISTORY 4 2 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 2 7 2 - 3 0 3
292 MAIOROV

after “being persuaded by the archpastor of the Rusian Church”, i.e., as one can
assume, by the Kievan Metropolitan.
A new unique detail appeared in Ephraem’s narrative. He enumerates
exactly the number of soldiers in the Galician prince’s force that came to the
Greeks’ aid. While Choniates and Skoutariotes confined themselves to giving
generalities such as “a brave and numerous armed force” or “a numerous and
glorious army", Ephraem reports that the Galician prince “took a great army
numbering over ten thousand”. It is unclear what was the source of Ephraem’s
information.

Γαλίτζης ήγεμών - The Emperor’s Military Ally and Relative

The thirteenth— fourteenth century Greek authors who report on the military
exploits of the Galician-Volhynian prince Roman Mstislavich in the struggle
against the nomads, consistently name him “the igemon of Galicia” (Γαλίτζης
ήγεμών), thus distinguishing him from the other Rus’ archon-princes of that
time (Crcikîj).78
This terminological difference is more outstanding in Niketas Choniates’
account about the “strife” between Roman and the Kievan prince Rurik
Rostislavich, whom the historian defines with the rare attribute “diepon of
Kiev” (dišpwn tő К...aba ‘RoÚrikaj).79 The term “diepon” can apparently
denote a ruler of a lower rank or one who was deprived of power by his rivals.
For example, Niketas Choniates uses the term “diepon of Iconium” (TkÔnion
dišpwn = Tkon...on kratín) with respect to the dethroned sultan of Iconium
Kaykhusraw i who sought refuge at the court of Alexios h i .80
M. D. Priselkov was the first to comment on the opposition between Roman
and Rurik in Choniates’ account. In the opinion of the researcher, this shows
the fine understanding by the Byzantine author of the new political realities of
Southern Rus’ that came into being in the early thirteenth century and were
described in Russian chronicles. “Please, note that N[iketas] Choniates calls
Roman the Galician prince (“igemon”), while Rurik is only the ruler of Kiev
(“diepon”). This is in line with the data of our chronicles: “Rus”’ was in the pos­
session of the Galician prince, while Rurik ruled in Kiev”.81

78 Cf: Nicetae Choniatae Historia, pp. 522-523.

79 Ibid, p. 523.
80 Ibid, pp. 400,401,413,493,520,638,639.
81 M. D. Priselkov, Istorija russkogo letopisanija x i - x v w . [History of Russian chronicles 11-15
centuries], (St Petersburg, 1996), p. 40.

R U SSIA N HISTORY 4 2 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 2 7 2 - 3 0 3
TH E A L L IA N C E BE TW EE N BY ZA NTIUM 293

V. T. Pashuto supported Priselkov’s observations. He compared Choniates’s

report with the data of a number of Rusian sources - both Galician and
Novgorodian - in which Roman is called “the Grand Prince”. This is in line with
his higher governmental status (compared to Rurik), as recorded by
Chômâtes.82 The titular supremacy of Roman Mstislavich over Rurik
Rostislavich, found in Chômâtes’ History, attracts the attention of contempo­
rary researchers who see it as an argument in favor of the allied and even famil­
ial relations of Roman with the Angelos dynasty.83
Indeed, the Byzantine term “igemon” that denoted mainly a ruler and a mili­
tary leader,84 appears to have another meaning: in some cases it could also
denote a military ally and a relative of the emperor.
V. G. Vasilievsky referred to such an instance in the history of the Rus’-
Byzantine relationship that existed a little over one hundred years before the
described events. He cites two emperor’s messages (or two versions of the
same message) written by Michael Psellos on behalf of Michael v u Doukas
(1071-1078) and addressed to the Rusian prince Vsevolod Yaroslavich to
1073-1074.85
Constantine Sathas, who published these letters in 1874, believed that the
addressee was the Norman Duke of Apulia and Calabria and Duke of Sicily
Robert Guiscard (1059-1085).86 Modern researchers accept Sathas’ hypothe­
sis along with Vasilievsky’s suggestion.87 According to some authors, Robert
Guiscard was the only candidate whom the Byzantine emperor could approach

82 V. T. Pashuto, Ocherki po istorii Galicko-Volynskoj Rusi [Essays on the history of Galicia-

Volyn Rus], (Moscow, 1950), p. 193.
83 Grala, ‘Drugie małżeństwo Romana Mścisławicza', p. 126; D. Dąbrowski, Rodowód
Romanowiczów książąt halicko-wołyńskich [Pedigree Romanovich, princes of Galicia-
Volhynian], (Poznan; Wroclaw, 2002), pp. 38-39; Vojtovich, Knjazha doba na Rusi, p. 486.
84 See E. A.Sophocles, Greek Lexicon o f the Roman and Byzantine periods: from B. C. 146 to
A. D. 1100. (New York, 2004), p. 379; D. Dëmëtrakos, Mega lexikon tes Hellënikes glosses.
(Athens, 1953), vol. iv, p. 3229.
85 See V. G. Vasilievskij,, ‘Russko-vizantijskie otryvki. I. Dva pis’ma vizantijskogo imperatora
Mihaila v i i Duki к Vsevolodu Jaroslavichu’ [Rus'ian-Byzantine excerpts. I. Two letters of
the Byzantine Emperor Michael v ii Doukas from Vsevolod Yaroslavovich], in V. G.
Vasilievskij, Trudy [Proceedings]. (St Petersburg, 1909), vol. ii/i, pp. 3-55.
86 C. Sathas, ‘Deux lettres inédites de l’empereur Michel Ducas Parapinace à Robert Guis­
card, rédigées par Michel Psellus’, Annuaire de l’association pour l’encouragement des
études grecques en France, vol. 8,1874, pp. 193-221.
87 See La geste de Robert Guiscard, ed. M. Mathieu. Palermo, 1961, p. 306; Moore P., Iter
Psellianum: a detailed listing o f manuscript sources fo r alt works attributed to Michael
Psellos, including a comprehensive bibliography. (Toronto, 2005), p. 136.

R U SSIA N H IS TO RY 4 2 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 2 7 2 - 3 0 3
294 MAIOROV

with his matrimonial plans. This argument lacks convincing proof.88 In our
opinion, Vasilievsky’s reasoning is more grounded.89
In these letters the emperor asked one of Vsevolod’s daughters, apparently
Anna (Yanka), to marry his brother Konstantios Doukas. The marriage did not
take place as Michael and his brother were deprived of power. As for the Rusian
princess Anna, she took the veil voluntarily after her fiancée was forced to
become a monk.90
By calling his future in-law an “igemon”, the emperor explained to the Rusian
prince in detail what a great honor this proposal was and how distinguished he
would be among the other princes of Rus’: “It is, of course, not unknown to you
what the imperial power is for our Romans, and that even those who become
our distant relatives consider such an alliance to be the greatest prosperity [...];
your power will hence become more respectable, and everybody will be
amazed at you and jealous of you when you become so distinguished [...] Now
you will boast and take pride of your marriage, now your daughter will be
awarded with the royal blood and granted with the lawful rank and title.”91
Obviously, the Rusian princes were very aware of the honor associated with
being related to the Byzantine emperor and the accompanying political advan­
tages and benefits for their own prestige. They understood that the emperor was
supreme in the Christian world. When Prince Vladimir baptized Rus’ he had to
acknowledge this supreme status of the emperor. The primacy of the basileus’
ecumenical power was recorded in the Byzantine Canon Law Code used by the
Rusian Church as its official legislation. This status was declared unambigu­
ously in the didactic work composed in the sixth century for Emperorjustinian i
by the deacon Agapetus. The Slavic translation of this treatise was widespread
in Eastern Europe and was known in Rus’ as early as the eleventh century.92

88 See H. Bibicou, ‘Une page d’histoire diplomatique de Byzance au x i siècle: Michel v u

Doukas, Robert Guiscard et la pension des dignitaires’, Byzantion, vol. 29-30, i960, p. 56,
n. 3; A. P. Kazhdan, “Rus'-Byzantine Princely Marriages in the Eleventh and Twelfth
Centuries’, Harvard Ukrainian Studies, vol. 12-13,1990, PP· 418-419.
89 See P. V. Kuzenkov, ‘Vizantijsko-russkie svjazi pri Mihailé v u Duke v nauchnom nasledii
V. G. Vasil'evskogo’ [Byzantine-Rus’ian communication with Michael v u Duque in scien­
tific heritage V. G. Vasilievsky], In Rossijskoe vizantinovedenie: tradidi i perspektívy [Russian
Byzantine Studies: traditions and perspectives]. Abstracts x ix All-Russian Scientific ses­
sion o f Byzantine Studies, (Moscow, 2011), pp. 135-138.
90 Vasilievskij, ‘Russko-vizantijskie otryvki. 1.’, p. 36.
91 Cited in ibid, pp. 9-10.
92 Obolenskij, Vizantijskoe sodruzhestvo, p. 239. - On the theory of the supremacy of the
Byzantine emperor and his supreme sovereignty over all Christian nations, as well as site
o f the ancient Rus in the Byzantine “hierarchy of states” see: G. Ostrogorsky, ‘The Byzantine
emperor and the hierarchical world order’, The Slavonic and East European Review, vol. 35.

RU SS IA N HISTORY 4 2 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 2 7 2 - 3 0 3
TH E A L L IA N C E BE TW EE N BY ZA NTIUM 295

The status of the Byzantine emperor as the supreme ruler of the entire
Christian world was reflected in the obligatory mentioning of the basileus’
name in the liturgy. In dipthychs - commemorative lists - where a priest
offered up a prayer glorifying the ruler and the whole Christian world, the
name of the emperor was the first to be pronounced.93 This practice existed in
the Rusian church until the very end of the fourteenth century.94 The non-
Christian rulers of the countries neighboring Byzantium, in the first place the
Islamic ones, perceived the Byzantine emperor as the supreme ruler of the
Orthodox peoples, including the people of Rus’.95
The princes of Rus’, beginning from Vladimir Svyatoslavich, sought to
strengthen their connection with the emperor by receiving court titles from
him and by arranging their own courts following the Byzantine example and
the artistic trends of the Empire’s capital.96Vladimir Monomakh, who despite
the tradition that claims the contrary, received his nickname from his mother
and not from his father, was very proud of his relationship to the Byzantine
imperial family. The Kievan Metropolitan Nicephorus I instilled in Monomakh
his awareness of superiority over other princes because of his relationship to
the emperor. He explained that God chose Monomakh, “having sanctified and
anointed him from the womb, having mixed the blood of the tsar and of the
prince” and that Monomakh “is a true copy of the tsar’s and prince’s image”.97

(London, 1956-1957), pp. 1-14; I. P. Medvedev, Tmperija i suverenitet v średnie veka (na
primere istorii Vizantii і nekotoiyh sopredel’nyh gosudarstv)’ [Empire and sovereignty in
the Middle Ages (for example, the history of Byzantium and some neighboring coun­
tries)], in Problemy istorii mezhdunarodnyh otnoshenij [Problems o f the history of interna­
tional relations], Collection of articles in memory of Academician E. V. Tarle. (Leningrad,
1972), pp. 415-424; G. G. Litavrin, ‘Ideja verhovnoj gosudarstvennoj vlasti v Drevnej Rusi
domongoľskogo perióda’ [The idea of the supreme state power in ancient Russia pre-
Mongolian period], in G. G. Litavrin, Vizantija і slavjane [Byzantium and the Slavs], St
(Petersburg, 1999), pp. 470- 477·
93 See I, M. Hanssens, Institutiones Liturgicae de Ritibus Orientalibus. (Rome, 1932), vol. iii,
pp. 1340-1341,1343-1355·
34 See 1. Mejendorf, Vizantija i Moskovskaja Rus'. Ocherk po istorii cerkovnyh i kuľtumyh
svjazej v X IV veke [Byzantium and Muscovy. Essay on the history o f the church and cul­
tural relations in the fourteenth century]. (Paris, 1990), pp. 18-19.
35 See W Regel, Analecta Byzantino-Russica. (St Petersburg; Leipzig, 1891), pp. 57-58. - Cf:
M. A. D'jakonov, Vlasť moskovskih gosudarej. Ocherki iz istorii politicheskih idej drevnej
Rusi [Power Moscow sovereigns. Sketches from the history o f political ideas of ancient
Russia]. (St Petersburg), 1889, pp. 13-29.
96 Mejendorf, Vizantija і Moskovskaja Rus', pp. 19-23.
97 See N. V. Ponyrko„ Jepistoljarnoe nctsledie Drevnej Rusi x i - χ ι π w.: Issledovanija, teksty,
kommentarii [Epistolary heritage of ancient Rus x i - χ ι π centuries; Research, texts, com­
ments], (St Petersburg, 1992), pp. 66-71.

RU SS IA N H IS TO RY 4 2 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 2 7 2 - 3 0 3
296 MAIOROV

Their relationship to the emperor imposed certain obligations upon the

Rusian princes. Michael v u explicitly refers to them in his message to
Vsevolod Yaroslavich: “So, now you, being honored with your relationship to
my supreme power, should ... be the guardian of our borders, preserve the
areas subject to us, be an ally and an enemy in everything and against every­
body, favor those who are favorably disposed to us, reject and hate those who
are hostile to us”.98
The prince had to fulfill all these obligations immediately, without waiting
for when the marriage proposed to his daughter would be concluded: "... we
must look at our mutual affairs as at our own and not wait for the time when
our families are connected by marriage, but consider the very announcement
of the unity and the accord as a complete merger and try to give each other
guarantees of friendship and like-mindedness.”99
The Russian chronicles are silent concerning the emperor’s marriage pro­
posal to Vsevolod Yaroslavich’s daughter. However, a report by Michael
Attaleiates (c. 1022-1080), a Byzantine historian and the contemporary of the
events, may bear witness to the existence of an alliance between the Kievan
prince and the Byzantine emperor. The Rusian fleet (‘Ρωσικά δε πλοία) par­
ticipated in suppressing the rebellion led by Nikephoros Bryennios against
Mikhail v u and helped the government troops headed by Alexios Comnenos
(the future emperor) to defeat the rebels at the Battle of Athyra in early
1078.100
Furthermore, V. N. Tatishchev’s Russian History (first half of the 18th cen­
tury) contains data on the contacts of Michael v i i with Svyatoslav and
Vsevolod.101 Tatishchev was not familiar with the above Byzantine sources, nor
did he know the Greek language. Therefore, his data are most likely to have
come from the now lost Russian sources. The recent academic polemic con­
cerning the trustworthiness of Tatishchev’s unique reports shows that scholars

98 Cited in Vasilievskij, V. G„ ‘Russko-vizantijskie otryvki, ľ, pp. 10.

99 Cited in ibid, p. 13.
100 Michael Attaleiates, The History, trans. Anthony Kaldellis & Dimitris Krallis, Cambridge/
Mass., 2012 (Dumbarton Oaks medieval library, 16), p. 460/461. - See also J.C1 Sheynet,
Pouvoir et contestations à Byzance (963-1210), (Paris, 1990), p. 83, nr. 104.
10 1 The latest discussion about the validity of Tatishchev’s narrative see: M. B. Sverdlov, Vasilij
Nikitich Tatishhev - avtor i redaktor “IstoÆ Rossijskoj" [Vasily Nikititch Tatishchev - author
and editor of “Russian History”]. (St Petersburg, 2009), pp. 180-185; Azbelev S. N.. 'V
zashhitu truda Vasilija Nikiticha Tatishheva' [In defense o f labor Vasily Nikitich
Tatishchev] in Sbomik Russkogo istoricheskogo obshhestva [Collection of Russian
Historical Society]. (Moscow, 2011), vol. 11 (159). pp. 316-324.

RU SS IA N HISTORY 4 2 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 2 7 2 - 3 0 3
T H E A L L IA N C E BE TW EEN BYZANTIUM 297

are unable to come to a unanimous conclusion in this regard. Each of

Tatishchev’s unique report requires individual verification.102
It also reveals the reasons that made the emperor seek an alliance with the
Rusian princes. According to Tatishchev, the “Greek tsar” was “defeated by the
Bulgarians, and the Korsunians renounced him”. This made Michael ask
Svyatoslav and Vsevolod “for help against the Bulgarians and the Korsunians”.
The Rusian princes willingly responded to the basileus’ request: “Svyatoslav, hav­
ing agreed with Vsevolod, wanted to come out with his sons against the Bulgarians,
and he sent his nephew Vladimir and his son Gleb against the Korsunians”.103
Surprisingly, Tatishchev's data are supported by another source. E. Murait
cites G. L. Oderiko and reports on the rebellion of the Korsunians against their
sovereign - the Byzantine emperor - that took place shortly before the
dethronement of Michael v u Doukas. Under the year 1074 Murait writes that
the inhabitants of Chersonesus “being unable to obtain certain trading privi­
leges from the emperor, rose against his power. He called for Vsevolod, the
Grand Prince of Rus’, who sent his sons Vladimir and Gleb”.104
For many years E. Murait served as a curator of manuscripts at the Imperial
Public Library in St Petersburg and used Oderiko’s unpublished works and
papers.105 A learned antiques dealer and medallist from Genoa, Gaspard Louis
Oderiko (1725-1803) was invited to Russia by G. A. Potemkin to collect materi­
als on the history of the Genoese colonies in the Crimea. He collected a great
amount of unique data, part of which is related to the history of Old Rus’.
Having completed his research in Russia, he presented the manuscript of his
work to Catherine 11. The manuscript has never been published.106
Oderiko’s data concerning the reasons for the Korsunians’ disobedience of
the emperor are supported by A. L. Yakobson, the researcher of medieval
Chersonesus. He confirmed that high taxes and duties existed in the mid- and
late eleventh century in this province of the empire and agreed with V. G.
Vasilievsky on the dating and the addressee of Michael v i i ’s messages.107

10 2 See, for example: A. V. Maiorov, [Recenzija na knigu:} Tolochko A. R, "Istorija Rossijskaja"

Vasilija Tatishheva: Istochniki і izvestija, (Moscow, Kiev) 2005 [Review o f the book:
Talochka A. R, “Russian History” of Basil Tatishchev: Sources and news], in Rossica anti­
qua: Research and Materials, 2006, eds. A. Ju. Dvornichenko, A. V. Maiorov, (St Petersburg,
2006), pp. 387-391.
10 3 V. N. Tatishhev, Sobranie sochinenij [Works]: in 8 vols. (Moscow, 1995), vol. ii-iii, pp. 91-92.
104 E. de Murait, Essai de Chronographie byzantine. (St Petersburg; Leipzig, 1855), vol. i, p. 28.
10 5 Vasilievskij, ‘Russko-vizantijskie otryvki. ľ, pp. 29-30, n. 1.
106 Ju. A. Kulakovskij, ProshLoe Tavridy [The past Tauris]. (Kiev, 1906), Application.
10 7 A. L. Jakobson, Srednevekovyj Hersones (x n - x v w.) [Medieval Hersonissos (i2th-isth
century)]. (Moscow; Leningrad, 1950). pp. 21-22.

RU SS IA N H IS T O RY 4 2 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 2 7 2 - 3 0 3
298 MAIOROV

Tatishchev’s data on the defeat of Michael by the Bulgarians are also con­
firmed. In 1072 a powerful uprising against the Byzantine ruler took place in
Bulgaria. It was headed by George Voitech. The rebels enthroned Constantine
Bodin, the son of the Serbian Župan Mihailo I. As the great grandson of the
Bulgarian tsar Samuel, Constantine declared himself the new tsar of Bulgaria
as Peter in and inflicted a number of defeats on the Byzantine army.108
The suppression of this revolt and the capture of Bodin did not result in the
establishment of a lasting peace in Bulgaria. In the mid-i070s a new uprising
arose in the Danube towns of north-eastern Bulgaria. The inhabitants of these
towns turned to the Pechenegs for help and together they marched on
Constantinople and besieged the city.109
One cannot help noticing that the political situation existing in the Rus’-
Byzantine relations in the first half of the 1070s repeated itself almost exactly
at the turn of the twelfth-thirteenth centuries. In desperate need of military
assistance against the rebellious Bulgarians and the Danube Cumans, Emperor
Alexios 111, like his predecessor Michael v i 1, was willing to buy such help at the
price of the marriage of his close relative with the strongest Rusian prince of
the time - “the igemon of Galicia”, Roman Mstislavich.
Roman, like Vsevolod Yaroslavich before him, readily responded to the pro­
posal. However, unlike his ancestor, whose daughter never entered into the
promised marriage, he did not rush to send troops to the emperor’s aid. As a
direct descendant of Vsevolod (of the fifth generation), Roman would have
been aware of the disappointment that befell his ancestor. He therefore
demanded that his own marriage with the Byzantine princess should be con­
cluded before he would provide military assistance to the basileus and become
“the guardian of the borders” of the empire.

The “Branch of Tauro-Scythians” from “Vordona”: on the Role of the

Rus’ Inhabitants of the Lower Reaches of the Dniester and the
Danube in the Byzantine Policy of the Galician Princes

The military alliance of Roman and Alexios in had another significant aspect
concerning the political situation on the Danube that was unfavorable for the
empire. In one of the official speeches that Niketas Choniates made in 1190 in

108 A. P. Kazhdan, G. G. Litavrin, Ocherki istorii Vizantii ijuzhnyh slavjan [Essays on the history
o f Byzantium and the South Slavs]. (St Petersburg, 1998), pp. 195; Obolenskij, Vizantijskoe
sodruzhestvo nacij, p. 235.
109 Litavrin, Bolgarija і Vizantija v x i - x u w ., pp. 411-414.

R U SSIA N H IS TO RY 4 2 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 2 7 2 - 3 0 3
THE A L L IA N C E BE T W E E N BY ZA NTIUM 299

the presence of Emperor Isaac π he mentioned a certain “branch of Tauro-

Scythians” who came “from Vordona” and participated in the war with
Byzantium on the side of the rebellious Bulgarians (καί οί έκ βορδόνης ούτοι του
δανειν ύπερόπται καί Ταυροσκυθων άποσπάδες): “Both Scythians, the people, to
this day uncontrolled, unfriendly and quite bellicose, and those from Vordona,
despising death, the branch of Tauro-Scythians, the people who also worship
Ares and helped the barbarians in Hem (the Bulgarian lands in the region of
the Balkan range - A. M.), were bent together with them, the defeated, and
together they found death.”110
By “Tauro-Scythians”, Choniates (who used this term repeatedly) meant
exclusively the inhabitants of Old Rus’.111 As for the term “Vordona” that he
used in the speech of 1190, F. I. Uspensky established that it was probably
related to the Old Russian бродъ and the term бродники derived from it that
one comes across in chronicles.112 About the brodniki, who pursued a semi-
nomadic way of life in the Black Sea steppe between the Dniester and the
Danube, we know that they held an expressly independent position with
respect to the princes of Rus’ and to the steppe nomads. Their participation in
distant military campaigns was a profitable business for them.113

no Nicetae Choniatae Orationes, p. 93.

111 Litavrin, ‘Dva jetjuda о vosstanii Petra і Asenja’ [Two Etudes of the revolt Peter and Asen],
in Litavrin, Vizantija і slavjane, pp. 359-362.
112 Uspenskij, Obrazovanie Vtorogo Bolgarskogo carstva, Appendix 3, pp. 35-38. - Debate on
this question by G. G. Litavrin and F. Malingoudis see Litavrin, 'Dva jetjuda о vosstanii
Petra і Asenja’, pp. 355- 359-
113 See N. F. Kotljar, ‘Rus’ na Dunai’ [The Rus on the Danube], Ukrains'kij istorichnij zhumal,
1966, nr. 9, pp. 12-23; N. F. Kotljar, ‘Hto taki brodniki (do probierni viniknennja ukrains’kogo
kozactva)’ [Who are Rrodniks (to the problem of Ukrainian Cossacks)], Ukrains’k ij istorich­
nij zhumal, 1969, nr. 5, pp. 95-101; V. T. Pashuto, Vneshnjaja politika Drevnej Rusi [Foreign
Policy of Ancient Russia], (Moscow, 1968), pp. 115-116,203,268-269,282; Litavrin G. G., ‘Rus’
і Vizantija v x ii veke’, pp. 43-48; PI Pavlov, ‘Drevneruskite brodniki v bblgarskata istorija
(x i i - x i i i v.)’ [Old Russian brodniki in Bulgarian history ( x n - x in century)], in Bblgaro-
ukrainski vnzki prez vekoveto [Bulgarian-Ukrainian ties through the centuries]. (Sofia,
1983), pp. 119-135; A. 0 . Kozlovs’kij, Istoriko-kul’tumij rozvitok Pivdennogo Podniprovja v
ix -x iv s t. [Historical and cultural development of the Southern Dnieper in 9th - 14th cen­
turies]. (Kiev, 1992), pp. 164-171; I. 0 . Knjaz’kij, Slavjane, volohi і kochevniki Dnestrovsko-
Karpatskih zemel’ (konec ix - seredina x i n w.) [Slavs, Wallachians and nomads of the
Dniester-Carpathian lands (end 9th - mid-i3th centuries)]. (Kolomna, 1997), pp. 197-211; V.
Spinei, The Romanians and the Turcik Nomads North o f the Danube Deltafrom the Thente to
the Mid-Thirteenth Century. (Leiden: Boston, 2009) (East Central and Eastern Europe in the
Middle Ages, 450-1450, vol. 6), p. 141.

RU SS IA N H IS TO RY 4 2 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 2 7 2 - 3 0 3
300 MAIOROV

The ethnic composition of the brodniki was most probably mixed. Some
researchers believe that the basis of this ethnos was formed by the descendants
of the ancient Scythian-Sarmatian population of the Northern Black Sea.114
Others believe the brodniki were a mixture of various Turkic people.115 It is pos­
sible that in the twelfth-early thirteenth century the ratio of the Rusian element
among them increased, while the Rus’ian name brodniki finally became their
endonym.116 In the lower reaches of the Dniester and the Danube, the brodniki
would come into contact with other Rusian inhabitants of these areas - the ber-
ladniki and the Galician vygontsy, who would come from the Galician land.117
The “branch of Tauro-Scythians” from “Vordona” that Chômâtes mentioned,
was probably the Rusian part of the population from the territory adjoining
the Lower Danube where the brodniki usually prevailed. In the second half of
the twelfth century, in connection with the political strengthening of Halych,
many Rusian migrants came there from the areas of the mid-Dniester region.
Recently, numerous archeological materials of Rusian origin, in particular
objects characteristic for Rusian everyday life, have been found in the region of
the Lower Danube. These attest to the presence of a significant Rusian popula­
tion in the area in the late twelfth-early thirteenth centuries.118
The participation of “Tauro-Scythians”, who most probably should be con­
sidered as natives of the Galician land,119 in the Bulgarian uprising against

114 O. B. Bubenok, Jasy і brodniki v stepjah Vostochnoj Evropy (vi - nachcdo x m v.) [Vases and
Brodniks in the steppes of Eastern Europe (6th - early 13th century)]. (Kiev, 1997), pp. 125-137.
115 Ph. Malingoudis, ‘Die Nachrichten des Niketas Choniates über die Entstehung des
Zweiten bulgarischen Staates’, Byzantina, vol, 10. (Thessaloniki, 1978), pp. 136-137.
116 V. P. Shusharin, ‘Svideteľstva pis’mennyh pamjatnikov korolevstva Vengrija ob jetniches-
kom sostave naselenija Vostochnogo Prikarpaťja pervoj poloviny х ш veka’ [Evidence of
written records of the kingdom of Hungary on the ethnic composition of the population
o f East Carpatian first half o f the thirteenth century], Istorija SSSR, 1978, nr. 2, pp. 41-42;
Litavrin, ‘Dva jetjuda о vosstanii Petra і Asenja’, pp. 358-359.
117 See A. V. Maiorov, Galicko-Volynskaja Rus'. Ocherki social’no-politicheskih otnoshenij v
domongol'skijperiod. Knjaz’, bojare igorodskąja obshhina [Galicia-Volhynian Rus. Essays
on the socio-political relations in the pre-Mongol period. Prince, nobles and urban com­
munities]. (St Petersburg, 2001), pp. 237-240.
118 M. Komsha, ‘Izdelija drevnerusskih gorodov na territorijah к jugo-zapadu ot Kievskoj
Rusi’ [Products ancient Russian towns in the territories to the south-west of Kievan Rus],
in Trudy v Mezhdunarodnogo kongressa slavjanskqj arheologii [Proceedings of the v
International Congress of Slavic archeology]. (Kiev, 18-25 September 1985,) vol. iii/ia.
(Moscow, 1987), pp. 100-110.
119 As the analysis conducted by G. Litavrin o f the six known occurrences in History by
Niketas Choniates term “Tauro-Scythians” four or five cases recorded in the news of
Halych Rus, see: Litavrin, ‘Dva jetjuda о vosstanii Petra і Asenja’,, pp. 360-361.

R U SSIA N H IS TO RY 4 2 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 2 7 2 - 3 0 3
T H E A L L IA N C E BE T W E E N BY ZA NTIU M 301

Byzantium, can be explained by the old connections between the Byzantine

emperor Andronikos i Komnenos with the Galician prince Yaroslav Osmomysl.
There are grounds for believing that Andronikos and Yaroslav were cousins.
Osmomysl’s aunt Irina, the daughter of Prince Volodar Rostislavich of Przemyśl
(?-u24), was given in marriage to the younger son of Alexios I Komnenos
(1081-1118), Sebastokrator Isaac, the father of Andronikos I.120
When he was pursued by his cousin, Emperor Manuel 1 (1143-1180),
Andronikos received asylum in Halych where he spent a number of years. He
also tried to flee there in 1185 after his dethronement. There are data suggesting
that Andronikos was probably the only one among the Byzantine emperors
who knew the Rus’ian language - the language of his mother.121
The dethronement and the cruel murder of Andronikos undoubtedly
received a negative assessment in Halych. The Galician princes most likely
looked upon the new rulers from the Angelos dynasty as unlawful usurpers.
One can agree with G. G. Litavrin who suggested that in the last years of his
rule Yaroslav Osmomysl had sufficient grounds for becoming hostile to
Byzantium and for supporting the Bulgarian revolt.122
It is likely that with the silent consent of the Galician princes Yaroslav
Osmomysl and, apparently his son Vladimir, the Rusian inhabitants of the Lower
Danube, the “branch of the Tauro-Scythians” from “Vordona” as Niketas
Chômâtes calls them, whose significant part was comprised by the natives of the
Galician land, turned into some of the most dangerous enemies of the empire.
Chômâtes’ statement about the Tauro-Scythians, who “helped the barbarians in
Hem”, that he pronounced in 1190 referring probably to the events of 1186 -1187,123
is supported by another Byzantine author’s evidence dating from 1201.

120 Vasilievskij, ‘Iz istorii Vizantii v XI1 veke' [From the history of the Byzantine Empire in the
12th century], in V. G. Vasilievskij, Trudy [Proceedings], vol. iv, (Leningrad, 1930), p. 76;
S. Papadimitriu, 'Brak Mstislavny s Alekseem Komninom’ [Marriage of Mstislavna with
Alexios Comnenus], Vizantijskij Vremennik, vol. xi. St (Petersburg, 1904), pp. 73-98;
S. Shestakov, ‘Vizantijskij posol na Rus’ Manuil Komnin' [Byzantine ambassador to Rus’
Manuel Comnenus], in: Sbomik statej v chest’ D. A. Korsakova [Collection o f articles in
honor o f D. A. Korsakov], (Kazan, 1913), p. 367; N. de Baumgarten, Généalogies et mariages
occidentaux des Ruricides Russes. D uX° a u x i n 0 siècle. (Roma, 1927) (Orientalia Christiana,
ix, ser, 1, nr. 35), tabi. ш . -T h e most detailed argument see: O.Jurevich, Andronik 1 Komnin
[Andronikos і Komnenos], (St Petersburg, 2004), pp. 50-53.
12 1 See more:Jurevich 0., Andronik 1 Komnin, chap. iv.
12 2 G. G. Litavrin, ‘Stanovlenie Vtorogo Bolgarskogo carstva і ego mezhdunarodnoe znache-
nie v х н і stoletii’ [Formation o f Second Bulgarian Kingdom and its international signifi­
cance in the 13th century], in Litavrin, Vizantija і slavjane, p. 372.
12 3 Litavrin, ‘Dva jetjuda о vosstanii Petra і Asenja’, p. 354.

RU SS IA N H IS TO RY 4 2 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 2 7 2 - 3 0 3
302 MAIOROV

The skeuophylax of the Church of the Virgin of the Pharos at the Great
Palace of Constantinople, Nicholas Mesarites, delivered a speech on the occa­
sion of the suppression of the revolt of John Komnenos the Fat, in which he
mentioned that the participants of the action on 31 July 1201 demanded from
the imperial authorities that numerous barbarians would never be allowed to
defeat the Romans again. The long list of these barbarians follows: the rebels
demanded that neither a “Scythian”, nor a “Bulgarian”, nor a “Tauro-Scythian”,
nor an "Illyrian", nor a “Trivallian”, nor a “Paeonian”, etc. would plunder them
again (the three last ethnonyms are related to the Serbians).124
Commentators of Mesarites see the Cumans in the “Tauro-Scythians” men­
tioned by him.125 However, in the light of the terminological search performed
by G. G. Litavrin, one can agree that this report is about the Rusian inhabitants
of the Lower Danube, who sided with the rebellious Bulgarians.126
The above evidence shows that the imperial authorities needed urgently to
normalize the relationship with Halych and to establish a military and political
alliance with it. That is why the government of Alexios III placed its hopes on
the “igemon of Galicia” and was willing not only to propose that he marry one
of the Byzantine princesses, but also to agree to the conditions that he laid
down concerning the order of its conclusion.

Summary of the Results of our Study

Roman Mstislavich became the main military ally of the Byzantine Empire in
the early 13th century. Byzantium was going through a severe political crisis
caused by the Serbian and the Bulgarian uprisings and by the crushing raids of
the Cumans. According to Niketas Choniates, the nomads’ aggression could
have been stopped only thanks to the aid of the Galician prince Roman. The
circumstances and the time of Roman’s campaign in Choniates’ account are
the same as in the Russian chronicles reporting the steppe campaigns of the
Galician-Volhynian prince.

12 4 Nikolaos Mesarites, Die Palasrevolution des Johannes Komnenos, ed. A. Heisenberg.

(Würzburg, 1907), p. 21.
12 5 Ibid, p. 58.
12 6 Bibikov, Vizantijskie istochnikipo istorii Drevnej Rusi i Kavkaza, pp. 155. - See also: Litavrin,
‘Dva jetjuda о vosstanii Petra і Asenja'; A. P. Kazhdan,’Nikifor Hrisoverg i Nikołaj Mesarit:
opyty sravnitel’noj harakteristiki' [Nicephoros Chrysobergos and Nicholaos Mesarites:
comparative experiments characteristics], Vizantijskij vremennik, vol. 30. (Moscow, 1969),
pp. 94-112.

RU SS IA N H IS TO RY 4 2 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 2 7 2 - 3 0 3
THE A L L IA N C E BE TW EE N BY ZA NTIUM 303

All the Byzantine sources name Roman Mstislavich the “igemon of Galicia".
The term igemon, unlike other Byzantine titles of Rusian princes, meant the
Emperor’s ally and relative (or in-law). This fact we see as an additional confir­
mation of the dynastic marriage between Galician-Volhynian prince and a
relative of the emperor in the early 13th century.
The alliance between Alexios h i and Roman led also to more stable rela­
tions with the Rusian population of the Lower Dniester and the Lower Danube
(called “the branch of the Tauro-Scythians” from “Vordona” in the Byzantine
sources).

RU SS IA N H IS TO RY 4 2 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 2 7 2 - 3 0 3
 CONTENTS

ARTICLES

H U G H D. H U D SO N , JR ., A Failure o f Modernization: Police Reform,

The “Common Good,” and Serfdom in Eighteenth-Century Russia 249

A LEX A N D ER V. MAIOROV, The Alliance between Byzantium and

Rus’ before the Conquest of Constantinople by the Crusaders in 1204 272

CH RIS MONDAY, An Intellectual’s Revolt against the Sun: Alexander

Chayanov and Abram Bragin’s Albidum (1928) 304

DA N IEL STO T LA N D , PHD, The War Within: Factional Strife and

Politics of Control in the Soviet Party State (1944-1948) 343

OBITUARY

N A N C Y S. K O LLM A N N , In Memoriam: Edward L. Keenan 371

ISSN: 0094-288X / e-ISSN: 1876-3316 brill.com/ruhi