madgearu place crimea

7/29/2019 Madgearu Place Crimea

1/16

THE PLACE OF CRIMEAAND OF THE KERCH STRAIT N THESTRATEGYOF THE MIDDLEBYZANTINE EMPIRE17^-r2'nENTURIES)

AlexandruMadgearu

The Byzantine Empire was always aware of the importance of Crimea for the con-trol of the steppe peoples movements and for the commercial traffic with Eurasia.When the peninsula was not under Byzantine dominatiory this control was exertedby shifting alliances with its masters (Khazars, Hungarians, Pechenegs, Russians).A line of fortifications was built in the south-western corner of Crimea during thereign of fustinian I, between Alouston (Aloutcha) and Gorzoubites (Gourzouf); theresidence of the satellite Gothic principality of Doros (Mangoup-Kal6) was too for-tified by Byzantine masonsl. These defensive works were done in order to protectChersory a still prosperous harbor during the 6th century. Unlike many cities fromother provinces that declined by the end of the 6thcentury Cherson was growing inthat period (new buildings, intensive trade)2. Howeve{, the advanced fortifications


2/16

794 AlexandruMadgearu

Khazarian governors, like in other Crimean fortressess. There is however a scarceevidence for the existence of Byzantine officials in Cherson during this period ofKhazarian supremacy, which means that the city was under a kind of condominium.The power was shared between the municipal council, the Khazarian governor andthe Byzantine archon6.Around 70O the Khazars continued the expansiory conquering the eastem Crimeaand the cities Bosphoros (Kerch) and Phanagoria (Thmatarkha), located on the both sidesof the Kerch Strait. The transit trade by the strait was managed by a govemor calledbaliqci ('Lord of the Fishes'), a name that suggests the importance of the fishing for theKhazarian tradeT.The harbors Kerch and Thmatarkha (or Tmutorokan) were the gates ofthe connection with the Don basin. br this way, the establishment of a strong control overthe both sides of the Kerch Strait gave to the Khazars the opportunity to transform theAzov Sea n a'Khazarian Lake', and to prevent the accessof the Byzantines in the Donvalley and on other waterways. Kerch and Tmutorokan were placed in a better positionfor this than Cherson8. In this way, the Byzantine monopoly in the Black Seatumed intoa power sharing with the Khazars who became the masters of the Kerch Strait.The commerce intermediated by the Kerch Strait included not only usual com-modities like fishe, salt and wood, but also luxury goods like furs. The development of the fur trade in the 6th-9th enturies is testified by the Byzantine and Arabiancoins found in the Kama region, arrived there through the commerce exerted bythe Ti.irks and next by the Khazars (with an interruption caused by the Khazarian-


3/16

Crimea and the Kerch Strait (7th- 12thCenturies) 795

in the Middle Ages, the vigorous commercial contactsestablishedby the Tiirk cre-ated a new'world-system', linking the MediterranearL he Near East,Persia, ndiaand China'13.Crimea and particularly Bosphorosbelonged to this system,althoughthe main connectionof the silk trade passedby the northern Caucasusla.The rise of the Khazarian power affected he Byzantine positions in Crimea, in-fluencing the strategy applied in the northern spaceof security of Constantinople.As long as he Khazarswere still powerful, the Byzantinesavoided any conflict withthem,especiallyduring the wars against he Arabs, their common enemies. n thesecircumstances, t was better to preserve good relations with the Khazars, even ifthe Byzantine economic nterests were affected by the conquest of Bosphoros andPanticapaion.The Byzantine-Khazarianalliance started in731 or 732 by the mar-riage of the son of Leo III (777-741),he future ConstantineV (747-775),with Cicak,the daughter of qaganBihor (baptized Irene). The alliance was closed during theArabian attacks n Caucasus,which reached he BlackSeaeasternshores n777-737.Theseoffensiveswere stopped by the Khazars, n the same years when the Franksdefeated he Arabs at Poitiers in 732.The Khazars continued the wars against theAbbasid Caliphate until 79915.Moreovel, the Khazars extended their domination over the Gothic fortresses nthe central and western Crimea,sometime n the 780s.The Gothic ruler from Doros


4/16

196 Alexandru MadgearuByzantine gp"tt.The transmission to a barbarian power of the military architectonictechniques was unusual, and it shows how important was for the Byzantine state thedefence of the positions held by the Khazars north of the Black Sea, as representa-tives of their interests. This denotes the development of the policy based on a powersharing with the Khazars in Crimea and north of the peninsula. The strategic targetof this policy was the stability of the northem steppe, necessary for the security ofCherson. In the same time, the location of Sarkel on the Silk Road made this for-tress an important commercial place, whose function was the same like of the futureVenetian colony of Tana, established near the mouth of Don Riverle. The position ofSarkel was even more favorable, because it was 'a shipping crossroads, for goodswere portaged across the narrow neck of land that separates the two great riversthere'. At Sarkel was established the main Khazarian customs point2o.

The Byzantine-Khazarian power sharing meant also the reestablishment of a realimperial administration in Crimea, in the form of the new theme of Cherson, createdin 841 by the same emperor Theophilus. Its 2000 soldiers were commanded by thesame Petronas, who was sent to Sarkel. The initial plan was to occupy a larger area,called the theme of Klimata2l. The name of the province was changed after somedecades, becoming the theme of Chersonz. This city was prosperous in the 9ft-10dcenturies, being the Byzantine gate to the trade with Khazars and Rus', and as aconsequence one of the final points of the Silk Road. Cherson was the residence ofa kommerkiarios, the Byzantine customs official. Its importance declined only by the


5/16

Crimeaand the Kerch Strait (7ft - 12s Centuries) 197

futy27. Recent studies are showing that Rus' were an ethnical mixture composedby Vikings, Slavs and Finno-Ugrians, who established together in the 9'h century aqaganate that was at the beginning dependent to the Khazars. In fact, these Rus'were the traders and warriors from the Ladoga Lake area, who wandered on theroute Volga-Oka, and next on the Dnieper valley. Afterwards, the name acquired anethnic meaning, applied to the Eastern Slavs ruled by an aristocracy of Viking ex-traction invited after the middle of the 9m century to give them the necessary forcerequired to take from the Khazars the control over the fur roads. Around 900, theRus' occupied the Khazarian center of Kiev which became the residence of theirprinces (knyazi)28.

The attack of 860 has demonstrated that the Khazarian state was not a real shieldagainst these new enemies. The Rus'were a potential danger not only for Chersorybut also for other Byzantine regions, including the capital, and also for the Khazars2e.Theirboatswere small, buta large number could mean areal threatfor Constantinople.The defence against them required the strengthening of the Byzantine positions inCrimea and the prevention of future attacks by new and effective alliances. Thenew danger which emerged north of the Black Sea was counterbalanced with oneof the brilliant Byzantine diplomatic operations, whose whole significations wererecently emphasized3o.In 861, just after the Rus' attack, two missionaries were sentin Khazaria. After few years, they will become the Apostles of the Slavs: the Saints


6/16

198 Alexand.ru adgearuchannel, at Periprava)3'. The existence of a Byzantine headquarter on the Danubein the 9thcentury is now supported by a lead seal found at Isaccea that belongedto Ioannes Chaldos (stratilates), trategosof Chaldeea, in function in86733.The sealattests a Byzantine authority in the former Noviodunum around 860-870, and, con-sequently, the existence of the Lykostomion theme that included the maritime sectorof the Danube. The base from Lykostomion was a stop in the coast navigation toCherson. Its existence can be admitted only after 863.The new defensive system created after 863, based on the harbors of Anchialosand Mesembria and on the port of call of Lykostomiory ensured the security of thecapital against the Rus' and Bulgaria, while the alliance with the Hungarians securedthe stability in the north. The system was composed from two themes (Chersonand Lykostomion) and an allied people (Hungarians), inserted between Bulgariaand the steppe region. It is very likely that the last operation in which the fleet ofLykostomion was involved was the transshipment of the Hungarians in Bulgariaduring the war of 894-896.The emperor Leo VI planned a two front offensive againstBulgaria, summoning the Hungarian allies, but the Pechenegs were too called as al-lies by Symeory to fight against the Hungarians. The result of the war was the settle-ment of the Pechenegs in Atelkuz (region between Dnieper or Bug and Danube), theplace mastered by the Hungarians between 889 and 895. The failure of the northerncampaign led also to the end of the ephemeral Danubian theme. Mesembria was


7/16

Crimea and the Kerch Shait (7th 12thCetto.i".) 799

spect ncreasedafter the abandonmentof the Lykostom]on theme.Most of all, theseeventshave shown that the Pechenegs ould not be faithful allies.Becausehe Pechenegs volved toward a potential supremacy n the North-Ponticsteppes,t was n"""sury to stop this trend by supporting their rivals. This was ther."b"a solution found for the Pecheneg roblem. The Rus' were a suitablepartneq'becausehey were in the same ime enemiesof the Khazarsand of the Pechenegs.tis true that ihe sameRus' were potential enemiesof the ByzantineEmpire,but theywerenot able o launchoffensives oward the Black Sea f they werehold backby thePechenegs ho controlled the Dnieper cataracts.By this reason t was imperative tokeep hehostility betweenRussiansand Pechenegs.herefore,he strategicobjectivesof the new ByzantineNorth-Ponticpolicy in the 10e century were the destructionofthe Khazarianstateand the counterbalancingof the Pecheneg uPremacy hat men-aced o becomea pole of power rival to Byzantium.Theseobjectiveswere appliedbya policy of oscillationbetweenPechenegs nd Rus'37. rimea was essential or thispolicy and therefore or the securityof Constantinople. t was_recentlyupposed hatbe Administrandomperiodoesnot support the existenceof the Byzantine-Pechenegalliancealong the 10ft century38, ut the interpretation is unconvincing. The text-isclearly tp"ukit g about this allianceas a feature of the Byzantine diplomacy3e. hesinglereil fact s the imitation of the Pecheneg ower by otherallianceswith the Uzoi(lo;atednorth of the CaspicSea)and with the Alans (north-eastof the Black Sea).


8/16

200 AlexandruMadgearuinterpretations are showing that this happened in943. Next, the Russians planned anew inroad in the Byzantine Empire, in alliance with the Pechenegs, but the invasiondid not take place, because the Byzantines payed knyazlgor to stop the war. Igor wasthus convinced to close a treaty with the Byzantine Empire, in944 or 945. He obligedhimself to defend the isthmus of Crimea against the'Black Bulgarians' settled northof the Azov Sea and against the Pechenegs, and not to occupy the Dnieper mouth.In the same time, the treaty allowed to the'Black Bulgarians' to attack the Khazarianterritories in Crimea, because this matched the Byzantine interestsa2.

When the Khazars attacked the west of Crimea in962, the Goths asked the Rus'for help. Svyatoslav (945-972) conquered Sarkel and launched a campaign againstthe Khazarian capital ltil in 965. The Russian offensive changed the balance of forcesin the north of the Black Sea. Cherson remained Byzantine, but the Rus' occupiedmost of Crimea, including Kerclu becoming the masters of the ways along Don andVolga. Tmutorokan was already their possession. In this way, the monopoly overthe Azov Seapassed from Khazars to Rus', who gained free access o the Black Seathrough the Kerch Strait, a much easier way than by Chersona3.A side effect of thedecline of the Khazarian qaganate was the increase of the Pecheneg powe{, whichwill be a major problem for the Rus' in the next perioda.

For the time being, the Rus' remained an useful ally for the Byzantines, if theywere able to contain the Pechenegs and to fight against Bulgaria. In this light, the


9/16

Crimea and the Kerch Strait (7th - 12th Centuries) 207among whom Doros was the most importantaT. The need for a better maritime de-fence against future Russian attacks could explain the appearance of a new function,most probable just after 977: the strategosof Pontus Euxinusa8. Howevel, the fate ofCherson remained uncertain as long as the Rus' were able to threaten it. When BasillI (976-1025)asked the new Rus' ruler Vladimir (980-1015) o help him in the civilwar against Bardas Phokas, the city of Cherson was destroyed by the Rus', becauseit was on the side of the rebels. t is true that Vladimir offered the city to Basil II afterhe married with Anna, the sister of the emperot'e, but the Russian devastations from990 had harsh consequences or Cherson. The city will remain the residence of atheme, but deprived of the previous prosperitys0.

The Byzantine Empire annexed all the eastern Crimea, leaving to the Russians theport placed in front of Kerch. After few years, in7027, the region east of Tmutorokanrich in oll (naphta), the raw material for the 'Greek Fire', Zichia, was too included inthe empiresl. In this way it was established a sort of Byzantine-Russian condomi-nium over the Kerch Strait (the city of Kerch was Byzantine, while Tmutorokan wasRussian). A speech of Manuel Straboromanos remembers that Alexios I took again'the lands located near the Cimmerian Bosphoros's2.This could concern the regionrecovered by a group of English knights who were in the service of the Byzantinearmy, sent in 1082 in Zichia, in order to protect this area against the neighboringbarbarians (the Cumans, perhaps). The location of the territory conquered by these


10/16

202 Alexandru Madgearutension was auspicious for the development of the Byzantine trade with the north.It is very significant that the privilege granted in 1169 by Manuel I Comnenus to theGenoesemerchants specified that they can trade freely all over the Byzantine Empire,but with the exception of 'Russia' and Tmutorokan (praeterRussiam et Matracham)%.This Russia could be identified with a city from the eastern part of Crimeas7. Theexception clause did not mean that the accessbeyond Kerch was forbiddery as it wasconsidered before, but only that the Byzantine Empire preserved the right to takecustoms taxes for the merchandise arrived from the Azov Seas8.A Genoese docu-ment from the same time remembered that the Genoese and Venetians are makingtrade at Tmutorokanse, while the existence of aByzantine customs service is attestedin the same point around 118060.This concern for the Byzantine monopoly in the Azov Sea denotes that theByzantine state was aware of the importance of the Kerch Strait for the connectionwith the northern trade routes. In a similar way acted the Genoese in1269, when theyforbad to the Venetians the accessat Tana by the Azov Sea(quodnon iretur adTanam),in order to preserve only for themselves the profit took from the trade with orien-tal products arrived on the Silk Road61.Like in the 8th-9th enturies, the ByzantineEmpire preferred to keep the control over the most important points in Crimea, leav-ing to the barbarians the inner part of the peninsula. During the 12mcentury most ofCrimea entered under the domination of the Cumans. The cities from the peninsula


11/16

Crimea and the Kerch Strait (7h - 12h Centuries) 203concern for the recovery of this distant region denotes the awareness hat Crimeawas in somewhay mportant for Byzantium. Chersonwas the best place to meet thenomad warriors who were the target of the Byzantine diplomacy. The fight for sur-vival and next for revival in the 7ft-9ftcenturies required alliancesagainst Bulgariaand the Arabs. The partnership with the Khazarsmade easier he fight againsttheArabs for some decades,while the next alliance with the Hungarians was one of theelementsof the offensive system createdagainst Bulgaria. A similar action was un-dertaken n966, without taking into consideration he lessonsof the past. n all thesecases,Chersonwas the place of contact.From the economicpoint of view, Cherson was of minor importance,becausetwas placed oo far from the main waterway,the Don river. Instead, he harbors ocat-edonboth sidesof the KerchStrait,Bosphoros Kerch)and Phanagoria Tmutorokan)were essential or the Byzantine trade with the north. Thesame mportancehad thisstrait for the Khazars and for the Russians,who managed to extend their controlover ig when the Byzantineswere too weak to defend it.


12/16

204 AlexarulruMadgearuBIBLIOGRAPHY

Ahrweileq,H.1966:Byzancet la mer.La marine eguerre,lapolitique t les nstitu-tionsmaritimes eByzance ux Vll" - XV"sidcles, aris.Alekseenko,N. 1996:Un tourmarqueeGothie ur un sceauneditdeCherson,REB54,271-275.Auz6py,M. F. 2000:Gothieet Crimdede 750 h 830dans essources ccl1siastiquest

monastiquesrecques, AHET 7, 324-331.Barnea, . 1993:Sceaux yzantinsn1ditsdeDobroudja,SBS3, 55-67.Bdnescu,N. 1941:La dominationbyzantineh Matracha Tmutoroknn), n Zichie,enKhazarie t en < Russie h l'epoque esComnines,Bulletin de la SectionHistorique del'Acad6mie Roumaine22,2, 57 77Boba, I. 1967:Nomads,Northmenand Slaos.EasternEurope n the Ninth Century,The Hague.Bortoli, A., Kazanski M. 2002:Kherson nd Its Region,n EHB II, 659-665.Brdtianu, G. 1.999:MareaNeagrd.De la origini pdna a cucerirea tomand, d. byV.Spinei,Iagi.


13/16

Crimeaand the KerchStrait (7th 12thCenturies) 205

Krist6,G. 1996:HungarianHistory n the9th Century,Szdged'Litavrin,G. G. 1965A prop sdeTmutorokan,y zantion35,7, 227234'Lounghis, T. 1999: Uber die zwei gegensritzlichenichtungender byzantinischenlulienpolitik m osteuropriischenaum m 10.ahrhundert,nByzanzundOstmitteleuropaW-1453. Beitriige u einer table-rondees XIX InternationalCongress f ByzantineStudies, openhagen996 Mainzer Verciffentlichungenzur Byzantinistik, 3), ed' byG. Prinzing, M. SalamoryWiesbaderu35-43.Madgearu,A. 2003:Despre NouaAnglie" de a MareaNeagrdGecolul l XI-Iea),Revistastoricd,S.N.14,5-6, 37-744.Malamut, E. 1995: ' ma ebyzantnedesPe ch6ni ue ,By zantinischeZeitschrif 88,t,105-147.Martin, M.E.7979: TheFirstVenetiansn theBlackSea, P 35,777-122'Minorsky,v. 1960:Balgitzi 'Lord of theFishes"wiener Zeitschrift iir die KundedesMorgenlandes56,130-137'Nikolov 5.1997:TheMagyarConnectionrConstantinendMethodiusn theSteppes,Byzantineand Modern GreekStudies21.,79-92.Noonan,Th. S.1982:Russia,heNearEast nd hesteppen theearlymedieaaleriod:


14/16

206 AlexandruMadgearuPritsak, O. 7978:The KhazarKingdom'sConaersiono ludaism,F{US 2, 267-287 =Studiesn MedieaalEurasianHistory,Variorum Reprints, London, L981,XI).Shepard, .7974:AnotherNezo ngland? Anglo-Saxon ettlementn theBlackSea,BS1, 1, 18-39.Shepard,1.1979:TheRussianSteppe-Frontiernd the BlackSeaZone,AP 35,218-237.Shepard, .7998:TheKhazars'formaladoption fJudaism ndByzantium's orthern

policy,Oxford SlavonicPapers,N.S.31,11-34.Smedley, . 1979:Archaeologynd the History of Cherson: Suraeyof someResultsand Problems, P 35,172-192.SmedleyJ.1980:Traden Cherson, th 10th enturies,n Actesdu XV' Congris nter-nationald'ttudes byzantinesAthbnes,Septembre 1976) V. Histoire.Communications,Athbnes, 291.-297.Sokolova,I.V. 1993: es ceauxbyzantinseCherson, BS3, 99-711,.Soloviev, . V. 1960:Domination yzantine u russe u nordde a merNoireh 'epoquedesComnines?, in Akten desXl. lnternationalenByzantinisten-KongressesMilnchen,1958),Miinchen, 569-580.


15/16

Crimea and the Kerch Strait (7th 12thCenturies) 207

ZuckermaryC. 1997:LesHongrois u paysde Lebedia une nouaelle uissanceuxmorlnfinseByzancet de aKhazariea.836-889,nByzantiumatWar (gth 12th .),ed.byK- Tsiknakis,Athens, 51.-74.ZuckermaryC.2002: On theorigin of theKhazarDiarchyand theCircumstancesfKluz.aria's onaersiono Iudaism, n TheTurks,51,6-523.


16/16

208 Alexarulru MadgearuLIST OF ABBREVIATIONSAEMA Archivum EurasiaeMediiAevi. Wiesbaden.AP Archeion Pontou. Athens.BS ByzantineStudies.Pittsburgh.Byzsl Byzantinoslavica. rague.EHB TheEconomic istory ofByzantiumfrom theSeaenthhrough heFifteenthCentury,ed. by A. E. Laiou, 3 vol., Dumbarton Oaks, WashingtonD.C,2002.HUS Harvard UkrainianStudies.Cambridge Mass.).MAHET 7 Materials in Archaeology, History and Etnography of Tauria,Simferopol,7,2000.ODB TheOxfordDictionaryf Byzantium,preparedt DumbartonOaks, d.byA. P.Kazhdan, New York - Oxford,1991..REB Revuedes6tudesbyzantines.Paris.RESEE Revuedes6tudessud-est-europ6ennes.ucharest.SBS Studies n Byzantine Sigillography.WashingtonDC.TheTurks TheTurks, d. by H. C. Giizel, C. C. Oguz,O. Karatay, ol. I, Ankara,2002.

madgearu place crimea

Documents