Slike stranica


[ocr errors]

years, while he destroyed their children by dashing them against stones.

Henceforward the hill on which Leo had lain in ambush “was named the hill of Leo, and the Bulgarians, whenever they pass that way, shake the head and point with the finger, unable to forget that great disaster.”

The ensuing winter was so mild, and the rivers so low, that an army of 30,000 Bulgarians crossed the frontier and advanced to Arcadiopolis. They passed the river Erginus and made many captives. But when they returned to the river, they found that a week's rain had rendered it impassable, and they were obliged to wait for two weeks on the banks. The waters gradually subsided, a bridge was made, and 50,000 captives were led back to Bulgaria, while the plunder was carried in waggons, loaded with rich Armenian carpets, blankets and coverlets, raiment of all kinds, and bronze utensils.? His censorious critics alleged that the Emperor was remiss in not seizing the opportunity to attack the invaders during the enforced delay.

Shortly after this incursion, tidings reached Constantinople that it was destined soon to be the object of a grand Bulgarian expedition. Krum was himself engaged in collecting a great host; "all the Slavonias” were contributing soldiers; and, from his Empire beyond the Danube, Avars as well as Slavs were summoned to take part in despoiling the greatest city in the world. Poliorcetic machines of all the various kinds which New Rome herself could dispose of were being prepared for the service of Bulgaria. The varieties of these engines, of

a which a list is recorded, must be left to curious students of the poliorcetic art to investigate. There were “ three-throwers and "four-throwers," tortoises, fire-hurlers and stone-hurlers, rams, little scorpions, and “dart-stands,” besides a large supply of balls, slings, long ladders, levers, and ropes (öpvas), and the inevitable “city-takers” (ÉRETóReis). 3 In the stables of the king fed a thousand oxen destined to draw the engines, and five thousand iron-bound cars were prepared. The attempt which had been made on his life still rankled in Krum's 1 ο βουνός Λέοντος.

χαλκώματα εφόρτωσαν πάντα εις αμάξας. Scriptor Incertus, p. 347 Apuevia- He calls the Erginos the 'Pnyiva. τικά στραγλομαλωτάρια και νακοτάπητα ανώτερα και ιματισμών


3 Ib.



memory, and he determined to direct his chief efforts against Blachernae, the quarter where the arrow had wounded him.

Leo had taken measures for the defence of the city. He employed a large number of workmen to build a new wall? outside that of Heraclius, and he caused a wide moat to be dug. But, as it turned out, these precautions proved unnecessary; and, indeed, the work was not completed when

; the death of Krum changed the situation. The most formidable of the Bulgarian monarchs with whom the Empire had yet to deal died suddenly through the bursting of a bloodvessel on the 14th of April 814, and his plan perished with him.


§ 5. The Reign of Omurtag After the death of Krum. Bulgaria was engaged and distracted by a struggle for the throne. Of this political crisis we have no clear knowledge, but it appears that it ended by the triumph of a certain Tsok over one, if not two, rivals. The rule of Tsok is described as inhumane. He is said to have required all the Christian captives, both clerical and lay, to renounce their religion, and when they refused, to have put them to death. But his reign was brief. It


1 See above, p. 94.

of Krum, and his persecution of the αοράτως σφαγιασθείς, streams of Christian captives noticed (Pars ii., blood issuing from mouth, nose,

and ears

Jan. 22, in Migne, P.G. 117, 276-277). (Scr. Incert. 348). The cause of Attila's Loparev (op. cit. 348-349) thinks that death was similar. The date, accord- Dukum, Ditseng, and Tsok were only ing to Roman captives who returned military leaders who played an imfrom Bulgaria, was “the great Fifth portant rôle. I am disposed to of Paschal,” that is Holy Thursday= conjecture that Ditseng (who is April 14, 814 (Krug, Kritischer described as cruel and was slain) and Versuch, 156 ; Loparev, Dvie Zamietki, Tsok were one and the same. These 348). The date 815 maintained by intermediate reigns are not mentioned Schafarik and Jireček cannot be in the Greek chronicles, and Theoaccepted in view of the data in Scr. Inc. phylactus (as well as Cont. Th. 217) (see above, p. 357, n. 8).

represents Omurtag as Krum's successor 3 In the Slavonic Prologue (ed. (Hist. xv. mart. 192). The name Tsok Moscow, 1877, under Jan. 2, p. 42) occurs in the form TŠUkos in an init is stated that after Krum's death scription found north of Aboba, and Dukum seized the throne, but died dated to the year A.M. 6328= A.D. 819and succeeded by the cruel 820, but so mutilated that little can be Ditseng, who mutilated the hands of made of it (Aboba, 226-227). According Archbishop Manuel (see above, p. 356), to the Menol. Bas. it was Krum who and was succeeded by Omurtag. In mutilated Archbishop Manuel, who the Menologion of Basil II., TGókos (acc. to Cont. Th. 217) was put to ο αθεώτατος is named as the successor death by Omurtag.


[ocr errors]




was possibly before the end of the year (A.D. 814) that he was slain, and succeeded by Omurtag, the son of Krum.

The first important act of the sublime Khan Omurtag? was to conclude a formal treaty of peace with the Roman Empire (A.D. 815-816). It is probable that a truce or preliminary agreement had been arranged immediately after Krum’s death, but when Krum's son ascended the throne negotiations were opened which led to a permanent peace. The contracting parties agreed that the treaty should continue in force for thirty years, with a qualification perhaps that it should be confirmed anew at the expiration of each decennium.5 A fortunate chance has preserved a portion of what appears to be an official abstract of the instrument, inscribed on marble column and set up in the precincts of his residence at Pliska by order of the Bulgarian king. Provision was made for the interchange and ransom of captives, and the question of the surrender of deserters, on which the negotiations between Krum and Michael I. had fallen through, was settled in a manner satisfactory to Omurtag. All the Slavs who had been undoubtedly subject to the Bulgarians in the period before the war, and had deserted to the Empire, were to be sent back to their various districts. The most important articles concerned the delimitation of the frontier which

1 That Omurtag was son of Krum expiration (ouvem\ýpovv oxedov, Gen. is directly affirmed by Theophylactus loc. cit.). Jireček dates the treaty A.D. (loc. cit.); and would be probable from 815, Loparev and Zlatarski 816. the fact that Omurtag's son Malamir am inclined to believe that 815-816 calls Krum“my grandfather”(inscrip- is right (not 814, as I argued op. cit.). tion in Aboba, 233)—the alternative We must not press too far the oxedov being that Omurtag was Krum's son-in- of Genesios ; and other evidence makes law.

it likely that the twentieth year of 2 The true form of the name, attested the period determined c. 836, and the by his inscriptions ('Nuovpráy), is thirtieth c. 846. preserved in Latin sources (Omortag). 6 This seems to be implied in the Theophylactus (Hist.xv. mart.192) calls passage of Genesios. him 'Oußpítayos, the Greek chronicles 6 The inscription of Suleiman-keui have Μορτάγων or Μουτράγων.

(Aboba, 220 sqq.). Uspenski proposed 3 I have conjectured (Bulgarian to refer it to the beginning of the Treaty of A.D. 814, pp. 286-287) that a reign of Michael II. I have shown fragment of such an agreement may (op. cit.) that it contains a text or be preserved in the inscription of abstract of the Thirty Years' Treaty. Eski-Juma (Aboba, 226).

common people (private 4 Cont. Th. expressly ascribes the soldiers) were to be interchanged, treaty to Omurtag (658 apos aútbv), man for man. A ransom of so much a Genesios (41 apos aŭtoús) leaves it open. head was to be paid for Roman officers. For the further evidence of the in- A special arrangement was made for scription of Malamir see my article on the redemption of Greeks who had the treaty (op. cit.). In 823 the first been found in forts which the comdecennium of the thirty years was near

manders had deserted.

7 The


divided Thrace between the two sovrans. The new boundary ran westward from Develtos to Makrolivada, a fortress situated between Hadrianople and Philippopolis, close to the junction of the Hebrus with its tributary the Arzus. At Makrolivada the frontier-line turned northward and proceeded to Mt. Haemus. The Bulgarians, who put their faith in earth works and circumvallations, proposed to protect the boundary, and give it a visible form, by a rampart and trench. The Imperial government, without whose consent the execution of such a work would have been impossible, agreed to withdraw the garrisons from the forts in the neighbourhood of the frontier during the construction of the fortification, in order to avoid the possibility of hostile collisions.

The remains of the Great Fence, which marked the southern boundary of the Bulgarian kingdom in the ninth and tenth centuries, can be traced across Thrace, and are locally known as the Erkesiia.? Some parts of it are visible to the eye of the inexperienced traveller, while in others the line has disappeared or has to be investigated by the diligent attention of the antiquarian. Its eastern extremity is near the ruins of Develtos," on that inlet of the Black Sea whose horns were guarded by the cities of Anchialus and Apollonia: It can be followed easily in its westward course, past Rusokastro, as far as the river Tundzha, for about forty miles; beyond that river it is more difficult to trace, but its western extremity seems to have been discovered at Makrolivada, near the modern village of Trnovo-Seimen. The line roughly





It is possible that some small district was conceded to the Bulgarians. Michael Syr. 26 states that Leo made peace with them, surrendering to them the marsh for which they fought.

Megáln coúda, Cedrenus, ii. 372. 3 So called from the Turkish jerkesen, a cutting in the earth. The eastern part of its course is described by Jireček, Fürstenthum, 505 sq. Surviving legends as to the origin of the structure are mentioned by Jireček (Arch.-ep. Mitth. X. 137) and Shkorpil (Aboba, 542). Jireček heard at Rusokastro the tradition that the rampart was sinor (oúvopov)—a boundary (between the dominions of two brothers : Shkorpil); it was wrought, by a tsar's

orders, by men and women, and so pressing was the work that only one woman was left at home to take care of nine children. The same story is told elsewhere among the Slavs, of the erection of great buildings.

4 Colonia Flavia Pacis Deultensium, or Deultum, founded by Vespasian, was called in Byzantine times Δεβελτός. The traces of the “wall” begin at the west end of the lagoon of Mandra.

5 The length of the western section from the Tundzha is 64 kils., a little less than the eastern.

6 Near the junction of R. Hebrus and R. Arzus, now called Sazly-dere. The Roman station Arzus is doubtless to be identified with the ruins at TekeMusachevo, and here the rampart was


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

corresponds to the modern boundary between Turkey and Bulgaria. The rampart was on the north, the ditch on the south, showing that it was designed as a security against the Empire; the rampart was probably surmounted, like the wall of Pliska, by timber palisades, and the Bulgarians maintained a constant watch and ward along their boundary fences.? In the eastern section, near the heights of Meleona, the line of defence was strengthened by a second entrenchment to the south, extending for about half a mile in the form of a bow, and locally known as the Gipsy Erkesiia, but we do not know the origin or date of this fortification. It would seem that the Bulgarians contented themselves with this fence, for no signs have been discovered of a similar construction on the western frontier, between Makrolivada and the mountains.

Sanctity was imparted to the contract by the solemn rites of superstition. Omurtag consented to pledge his faith according to the Christian formalities, while Leo, on his part, showing a religious toleration only worthy of a pagan, did not scruple to conform to the heathen customs of the barbarians. Great was the scandal caused to pious members of the Church when the Roman Emperor, "peer of the Apostles," poured on the earth a libation of water, swore upon a sword, sacrificed dogs, and performed other unholy rites. 4

Greater, if possible, was their indignation, when the cut by the great military road from 1 Cp. Theoph. 490, the of Hadrianople to Philippopolis. The ξύλινα οχυρώματα. western section was cut by another 2 Nicolaus, Responsa, 25. road which branched off from the 3 Aboba, 542-543.

Tradition says military road at Lefke and led over that the Tsar's soldiers were called the Balkans to Nicopolis on the away before they had completed the Jantra ; and also by the road from chief entrenchment, and ordered the Hadrianople to Kabyle (Sliven), which gipsies to finish it. The gipsies defollowed the right bank of the flected the line to the south, and the Tundzha (Aboba, 539-540). Shkorpil soldiers when they returned continued thinks that the frontier continued their entrenchment in its previous westward (no traces of the wall are direction. found beyond Teke - Musachevo) to 4 Ignatius, Vit. Nic. p. 206. This Constantia (S. Kostenets) in the passage is ignored by Bulgarian hisnorthern foothills of Rhodope, and torians, though it points to some thence northward to the pass of Succi curious and obscure customs. εν αις (Βουλγαρική κλείσις) near Ichtiman ; (συμβάσεσι) ην οράν τον βασιλέα Ρωμαίων whence beyond the mountains it fol- εκ κύλικος ύδωρ κατά γης επιλείβοντα, lowed the line of the middle entrench- επισάγματα ίππων αυτουργώς αναστρέment of West Bulgaria (from Khairedin φοντα, ιμάντων έντρίτων απτόμενον, και to Kiler - bair-kale on the Danube). χόρτον εις ύψος αίροντα και διά πάντων But Constantia, which is mentioned τούτων εαυτόν επαρώμενον. For the in the inscriptions as on the frontier, sacrifice of dogs see Cont. Th. p. 31; was probably a different place.

Jireček, Geschichte, p. 132.

[ocr errors]


« PrethodnaNastavi »