RETHINKING THE BYZANTINE BALKANS.A RECENT BOOK ON THE IOth_I2th CENTURIES

ALEXANDRU MADGEARU

The bookr of this young British historian is based on his Ph.D. dissertationdefended at Cambridge in 1996, under the direction ofthe well-known ByzantinistJonathan Shepard. Paul Stephenson has already published since 1994 some parts of

this volume as distinct shtdies in ,Byzantinoslavica", ,,Byzantion" and ,pyzantineand Modern Gre€k Studies". The innovative points of view discussed in his work

were first presented in those studies dedicated to controversial problems like the

significance of the rebellion of Tatos, or the nature of the Byzantine-Hungarianrelations during the reign of Manuel I.

Why ,,Rethinking the Byzantine Balkans"? Because Stephenson reached

several conclusions that are really revolutionary for the study of the Byzantineadministration in the Balkan provinces. The increasing interest for the Balkan

history (not only for the modern times) denotes the need to understand the roots of

the present conflicts. Stephenson's book explains how and why the disintegrationof the Byzantine adminisFation and the emergence of the ethnic states in the

Balkans were possible. His main idea seems to be that ,,Byzantine authority was

almost always exercised through existing local power structures" (p. 7)-The book is divided in nine major chapters (with subchapters) and is

provided with a list of maps and figures, a preface, a note on citation andtransliteration, a list of abbrevations, an introduction, conclusiong bibliographyand index.

The first novelty for the Byzantine studies applied to the Balkan provinces

can be found in the introduction (pp. l-17). Stephenson has payed a special

attention to the significance of the frontier as an ideological limit between the

civilized Oikumene and the Barbaricum2). He also introduces a new concept: the

internal fro;tiers of the territories mastered by the local authochtonous rulers by

whom the Byzantine administration was exerted.

I P Srephcnson, B;zal tium's Balkan Fron ier. A Polirical Strtdy of the Northern Balktw, 900-

/20J, Cambridgc University Press, 2000, XII+352 p.'�By a rn'ere coinci6incc, I made a similar discussion on the character oflhe Byzantinc frontier

into a study written in lhe same timc with Stcphcnson's book (A. Madgcaru, Dtndreo in epoca

bizantint (iecolele X-X ): o frontierd permeobild, .Rcvista lstoricl", SN, 10, 1999' |-2, pp 4l-55)

Rev. Etudes Sud-Est Europ.: XXXIX, l-4, p. 203-212, Bucarcst

Discussions

The book brings valuable arguments for the new interpretation of the I lth centurysupponed by P. Lemerle and more recently by M. Angold against Oshogorska'sold viewpoint. Stephenson sho\vs that the shift to'civilian' govemment was not adecline, because ,,the Byzantine economy was growing rapidly" (p. 9) and that thedefence policy based on warfare was replaced with a more adequate policy basedon trade and gifts for the barbarians ("haiding, not raiding"). He considers thatBasil II left a poisoned legacy: a too large and expensive army (pp.iO-St. t tq),and that his 'civilian' successors hied to transform the general strategy after thehard Pecheneg inroads of 1036, when became obvious that a classical limes is notuseful.

Unlike many works of Byzantine political history, this book gives muchaftention to the rich archaeological and numismatic evidence, carefully used inorder to supply the scarcity of the literary sources. Of course, some points aredisputable or even wrong, but, generally speaking the use of archaeology led himto important conclusions for the history of Paradunavon and Serbia.

The first chapter is dedicated to Bulgaria between 90G-963 (pp. 18-46).Stephenson brings here more light on the principles ofthe Byzantine diplomacy inthe lOth century, when Bulgaria was a state in expansion, even during Tzar Peter(the decline after Simeon is an obsolete idea rejected by the author). He emphasizesthe role played by the Pechenegs, the Serbs and the Croats in the strategf builtagainst Bulgaria, as results from De Administrando Imperio. The Pecheneg chiefswere attracted with gifts in order to become allies, while the Serbian and Croatianrulers were considered subjected to the Byzantine suzeranity, albeit they were infact independent (pp. 25-38). The same type of relations established with thePechenegs was applied to the Magyars after their settlement in Pannonia.

Stephenson is right when he points that Byzantines dealt rvith certainchieftains and not with all the Magyar tribes. The loyalty was secured not only bygifts, but also by conversion to Christianity. The well-known example ofthe bishopof Tourkia (Hierotheos) is rightly interpreted. The location ofthe territory masteredby Gylas and baptized by Hierotheos is made according to the concentration ofByzantine coi-ns and luxury finds: near the confluence Mureg-Tisa- This is also ourpoint of view'. We are however surprised that Stgphenson does not know the basicbook ofCsan6d BAlint, which confirms his ideas'. On the other hand, he makes aninteresting remark: only this region was known as Tourkia by ConstantinePorphyrogenitus, while the l{ungarian chronicles are speaking only about theregion settled by the ruling Arpad's tribe near the Middle Danube. The emperorestablished relations with a subordinated tribe, not with the leading one. The resultwas that ,,the arrangement ,rvith certain chieftains would have had little effect on

I A. Madgearu, Misaunea episcopului Hierotheos. Conlribulii la istotia Transilvaniei liUngariei in secolul al -f,-led, ,,Rcvisla IstoricA", SN, 5, 1994, t-2, pp. 147-154.

' C. B linl Sitdungarn in 10. Jabhundert, Budapcst, t99|.

Discussions

other distinct groups". In this way we can undersbnd why it was impossible toestablish a real shield against the inroads. ,,The natural answer v,.as - r€marksStephenson - to encourage peaceful processes of exchange with the Magyars, andto provide incentives for them to trade rather than to raid" (pp. 3&-a ).

The author considers that the Maryars were attracted in the Byzantine orbitnot only by the gifu, but also by a developed salt trade. Unfortunately, hisargnments are not valid. He also made a great mistake believing that the nameSiebenbiugen remembers seven salt mines located in Transylvania. TheTransylvanian salt was indeed an object of trade in the Early Middle Ages, butnothing proves that this traffic reached Byzantium. By terrestrial roads it was toodifficult to transport such heavy ware across Bulgaria; by water, it was too difficultto pass through the lron Gates (because the traffic was made by Mureg and Tisa).Among the various goods traded on the Lower Danube around 968, salt was notmentioned by the Russian Primary Chronicle (also quoted by Stephenson at p. 49).

In fact, at least some Transylvanian salt mines were mastered by Bulgaria inthe 9dr century and we know that the export was directed toward Moravia. WhenHungarians began to conquer Tranrylvania in the l0th century, they first settled instraregic poins on the roads used for salt trading (like Cluj and Alba Iulia). Thissuggests they becarne the new masters of this traffic, certainly directed towardwe*. me story about the duke Achtum of Banat illushates just this facls. Theabsencc of Byzantine loth century coins and artifacts in the Transylvanian saltmines area shows that this region had no economic relations with Byzantium. Inthat period, a Hungarian group already conquered this area.

Therefore, we consider that the Byr ;tine gifu were not payed by Magyarswith salt. They payed only with peaceful relations, kept only by the chieftains whoreceived these gifts and honours, Stephenson's suppositions abut the salt trade arefutile. (He admits that ,,there was no need to look as far as Transylvania" for salt,but he considers that salt was a mean to establish peaceful exchanges).

However, the theory about ,,traiding, not raiding" seems to be very valuable,except this point on the salt traffic. By the diplomacy of,,tribute, tade and titles",the barbarians ,,were absorbed into the oikumene, the civilized world". This

advance of the Byzantine fiontier was made first by influence and next by the

,,triumphal militarism" of Basil II (pp.45-aQ.The conquest of Bulgaria and the first steps of the new Byzantine

adminishation on its &rritory are examined in the second chapter (pp. 47-79). Thesubject was often discussed in the last two decades especially by Bulgarian and

Romanian historians. Stephenson's points of view ar€ taking into account some of

the new discovered sources (the seals from Preslav and from other places), but he

t For the Bulgfiian mastqship in th€ salt mincs are4 see A Madgearu, RomAnii in opersNotorului ..lnonim, Cluj-Napoca 2001, pp. 185-192 and ldcm, Sa/, Trade and Wodare in EorlyLledieval Transylvania, fonhcoming in ,.Ephemeris Napoccnsis", I I, 2001.

Discussions

surprisingly ignores the ultimate solutions given to some disputed problems (the

Romanian bibliography is in pan outdated). For instance, he believes (pp. 5G57)that Presthlavitza was located at NuIEru (like N. Oikonomides6), although sincelong time it was proven that Presthlavitza is PreslavT. Moreover, he considers thathis opinion could be supported by the numismatic evidence. In fact, just thisevidence shows that the site was developed only after 971". If Presthlavitza wasthere, one could expect to find many coins and other objects dated before 968' Onthe other hand, it seems that the name Theodoropolis was not given to a Danubiancity (p. 53), but to Euchaita in Asia Minor'. Much more important is thatStephenson did not understand the real nature of the Bulgarian-Romanian debateabout Paristrion, He believes that the point is if Paristrion was a part of Bulgaria.As anybody knows, the polernics concems the presence of the Romanianpopulation in Dobrudja (a fact which is admitted by Stephenson - p' 87, as like asthe Romanian point of view about the fortress Pacuiul lui Soarc - p. 57). Anotherexample: Stephenson considers that the archbishop of Bulgaria named George wasappointed in this function by the Byzantines, during the reign of Basil II (p. 64).Although he cites the study of P. Diaconuro, he ignores the solution given by thelatter (which seems to be definitive: a date between 870 and 918). The exclusiveuse of Hungarian literature and an insufficient knowledge of the problem explainanother mistake: the source that speaks about Achtum (not Ajtony) is Vita tVajorSancti Gerardi, not Vita Gerardi Maioris (p. 65). The name Marosvdr is aHungarization of the name Morisma, which seems to reflect a Romanian formMoresana, from rVIores, Mureq.

Except such enors, the chapter is remarkable. Stephenson presents here anew vision ofthe policy followed by Basil lI in his conquest (a vision developedinto a further studyrl). He argues that the emperor had not the intention to be a,,Bulgar-slayer", as he was considered in the l2th century (Stephenson has shownhow this legend was created). On the contrary, Basil II planned until 1005 to leavefree a part of Bulgaria; he was forced to conquer all the tenitory in 1014-1018because Gabriel Radomir achieved some victories. During the wars and after theconquest, Basil II gave Byzantine titles to Bulgarians and ,Jre granted the empire's

" N. Oikonomides, Presthlovitza, the little PreE av, ,,S0dost-Forschungen", 42, 1983, pp. l-9.1 P. Diaconu, ,ldour de ls locolisation de ld Perire Prcrrav, RESEE, 3 , 1965, l-7, pp. 38+3;

ldem, De nouveau d propos de Prcsthlavitza, ,,Sudost-Forschungen" , 46, 198'7 , pp. 279-293 ." G. Minucu-Adamctteantt, Circulalio nonetard la Nujdru tn secolele ,Y-Xlf, ,,Peuc€', 10,

1991, l-, pp. 497-554.' Scc P. Diaconu, Oi se trouvait Thiodoropolis, nom consignd tur cerlains sceaur du Grond

Preslav?, it Vtori meldunaroden kongres po bdlgoristika (Sofru 1986), DokJadi, vol. 6, Sofia 198?,pp. 437-447.

to P. Diaconu,.Sur l'organisation ecclesiastique dans la tigion du Bas-Danube (dernier ttersdu f,-Xlf siCcles), ,,Etudes Byzantines et Post-Byz{ntin€s", II, Bucar€st, l9l, pp. 77-82,

" P. Stephenson, The Legend of Batil the Bulgar-slayer, ,,Byzantine and Modem GreekStudies", 24, 2000, pp. 102-132.

Discussions

newest subjects a degtee of authonomy and removed a potential focus for nativeunresr" (pp. 62--77'1. For instance, he appointed dte commander of Verria, DamianDobromir, as duke of Thrace and Western Mesopotamia (p. 67). The fact rvasidependently observed by usr2; Stephenson seems to be right when he identifiesdrc forrress with Verria in Thessaly, not with Berrhoe in Macedonia, This canimprove our supposition about the possible Vlach origin of Damian Dobromir(anotber commander of Samuel was Niculitzas from Servi4 who was perhaps tooof Vlach origin).

By the conquest of Bulgaria, ,,much that had been foreign policy becamedomestic, and diplomatic techniques employed to ensure stability across theanpire's borders became techniques of accommodation within them" (p. 79).Stephanson gives here one ofhis basic conhibutions to the history ofthe Byzantinepcriphery: the new conquercd provinces became a bufrer zone between the centralpart of the empire and Barbaricum. In this light, the history of Paradunavon can beeasily understood.

This history of Paradunavon is researched in the next chapter, entitled,Northem nomads (1025-1100)" (pp. 80-116). The author considers that thistheme was not established by Basil II, but by Constantine IX (see also p. 94).Indee4 the first known commander of this province is attested in 1043 (KatakalonKekaumenos), but we think that Paradunavon was organized as a distinct provincein the same time with the themes of Bulgaria and Serbia, in l0l8-1020. It is certainthat the Serbian theme existed since 1018, and seems difficult to sustain that onlythe westem part ofthe Danube was organized as a province. Stephenson is right inother point: dre change in the frontier policy initiated by John Orphanotrophus inorder to discouage the Pecheneg inroads by allowing to the nomads the access tothe Byzantine goods, by trade and gifu (pp. 80-83). In this new vision, theseftlement ofa Pecheneg group in 1046 was only the second act ofa long processof accommodation between barbarians and Byzantines.

Stephenson gives a very inter€sting interpretation of the policy follorved byMichael IV and by his minister John Orphanotrophus in Paristrion: a concentrationof resources in order to supply the payments for the Pechenegs and their controlledaccession to Byzantine goods. This policy secured ten years of peace on theDanube, but caused a supplementary burden for the people of the theme ofBulgaria wfto revolted against it in 1040 (pp. 82-39). Stephenson remarks theeconomic boom of the Paristrian towns in the '30-ies and '40-ies, as results fromdre growth of the coin circulation. He associates this with the payment of a hibutefor dle Pechenegs. Unfortunately, Stephenson failed to give solid proofs for theexistence ofthese payments. A good proofstill €xists: a lot ofgold and silver coinsissued between Roman III and Michael VII found in Bessarabia (Cetatea Alb5"

'' A. Madgearu, The Military Organizstion of Parqdu avon, ,.Byzantinoslavica", 60, |999, 2,o. 4211.

Discussions

Cinigeuli, Colibaqi, Musaid, Purcari, Teia) and in Wallachia (Borenefti, BuziuCounty, Teg4 Zimnicele)r3. These coins could arrive there by raids but also bytribute. On the other hand. the statistics of the low value coins found in Paristrionneeds a comparison with other provinces or towns in order to see if the level wasinfluenced or not by the position near the frontier.

Stephenson argues that this policy of payments towards Pechenegs wasnecessary because the defence based on a regular /ines with many fortresses andtroops was not possible on the Danube. The successors of Basil II chose to applyguerilfa tactics, more adequate against the Pechenegs (pp.92-93). In fact, someparts of the frontier were indeed neglected. The abandonment of a strategic pointlike Dervent after 1036 illustrates very well the incapacity of the Byzantinecommanders, explicitly blamed by Kekaumenos and Skylitzes when they havewritten about the invasion of Tyrach, and not a shift to another strategyro.Stephenson uses every opportunity to contradict the old theory that the,,civilian"emperors neglected the deience of the frontiers. In this case we can not be on hisside. The defence was weakened and further events are showing how easy thetroops of Paradunavon were defeated by the Pechenegs. On the other hand, we donot understand why Stephenson states that Constantine X realized that he had toorganize the Pechenegs as defenders ofa buffer zone in Paradunavon (p. 96).

Another part of the policy toward Pechenegs was their conversion toChristianity. Stephenson is right when he emphasizes the importanc€ of this act,but we do not think that the establishment of a metropolitan seat at Dristra wasmade with this purpose (p. 97). The first known metropolitan bishop, Leontios(anested in l07l ) is the same with the owner of a seal, which gives only the title ofepiskopos" . Therefore, the eparchy of Dristra was transformed from bishopric intoa metropolitan seat, and its ruler Leontios became a metropolitan bishop, into amoment that seems to be more recent than 104G1047.

In sum, Stephenson's assertions on the Byzantine-Pecheneg relations are notentirely convincing, but they really brought a new comprehensive view on thehistory of Paradunavon. The most important contributions concem the rebellionstarted in 1072 by the local population against the financial policy practiced byNikephoritzes. Stephenson admits that this population included Vlachs, but hemakes an unfounded distinction between them and ,,Proto-Romanians". He isothenvise right when remarks that both Bulgarians and Vlachs were called rl1),soiby the Byzantine authors (p. 87).

Stephenson demonstrates that the rebellion led by the Pecheneg Tatous wascaused by the intention of Nikephoritzes to ensur€ the payments for the Pechenegs

rr Sec G. Custure4 C,rculatia monedei bizantine in Dobrogea (sec. IX-X!), Constan[4 2000,pp. 185-195.

t4 Sce A. Madgearu, The ililitary..., p.424." I. tordnov, PeCati na orhierei na Ddstdr ot Xl ve& ,,Dobrudla", Vam4 q 1992, pp. 163-164.

Dis€ussions

from Paradunavon only by local means, cutting the subsidies from the centre(pp.9t-100). As it is known, the Pecheneg crisis was stopped only in 1091, whenAlexios I began fte reorganization of Paradunavon, almost lost for the empireduring the last two decades.

Stephenson emphasizes that the new strategr in th€ l2th century was based onthe defance along the Haemus Mountains, while only few ganisons were presewedon the Danubian frontier, He remarks that ,Alexius' Achilles' heel was the loyalty ofthe mountain dwellers", the Vlachs (pp. 103-105). Paradunavon remained a richpovince during the l2th century, but some cities d.isappeared. Stephenson quotes thecsse of Demnitzikos, wrongly locarcd at Dinogetia'" (p. 107).

The overview of the history of Paradunavon ends with some interestingremarks on the Byzantine image ofthe barbarians seftled in the frontier zones. Hefollows the way opened by two recent studies of E. MalamutrT and H. Ahrweillerr8,thinking the realities ofthe Danubian Byzantine frontier according to the classicalantithesis between Oikumene and Barbaricum: the settlement of the Pechenegsdetermined the arising of ,"an intermediary category, the semi-civilized worldwhich was Byzantium's Balkan frontier", peopled by n ixobarbtoi (pp. I I l-l l4).

The fourth chapter of the book deals with the 'Southem Slavs (1025-1100)"(pp. I 17- 155). Srcphenson empbasizes the role played by the local aristocrats ofSerbian origin in the Byzantine administration of Dalmati4 Diocleea and Ra.5ka.They were monitored by Blzantine stategoi settled in the main cities. Therelations between the stategoi and the local mchontes were based on gifts,stipends and honours, like the relations between the emperor and the barbarianchieftains. In this way, the Byzantine power was exerted over territories included inthe empire, but sepanted by intemal fiontiers (pp. 123-130). However, the loyaltyof these rulers was not permanent. Stephenson examines how and why theyrebelled several times between 1040 and l08l . Of great value is his analysis of thesituation ofthe Bulgarian theme before and after the mutiny of Peter Deljan (1040).As we have already noted, Stephenson argues that the increasing need ofmoney forParadunavon was supplied by introducing cash taxes in Bulgaria (pp. 130-138).

Another important conclusion concerns the significance of the I lth centurymutinies. The self-interest of the local aristocrats is seen as the main factor, but

,,the principal means to galvanize popular support for a secessionist movement was

16 Tte location of Dcmnitzikos at Dinogetia was dcfinitively rejected by P. Diaconu' lesCoumans ou Bos-Darabe at/l Xf et XIf siickJ, Bucarcst, 197t, pp. 86-88. Another mistlke is theidcntification of Chilia with Aklia recorded by tdrisi (p. 106). Chilia was not s€ttl€d bcforc the l3thccntury. See S. Baraschi, Les sources byzantirwr et la localisation de la citd de Kilia 6lf-Xltsrdc/es7, RESEE, 19. l9tl,3, pp.473+84.

t1 L'image byzantine des Petcdnigucs, ,,Byzantinische Zcilschrift", 8t, I95, I, pp. 105-14?.ts Byzantine Concepts of the ForeigtEr: the Cose ol the Nonads, irr Studiei on the Internal

Diqspora of tha Brzotrtine Empirc, ed. H, Ahrwcilcr, A.E. Laiou, Dumbarton Oaks, Washington'l99t, pp. l-15.

2t0 Discussions

to appeal to the common memory of an independent ruler ofthe northern Balkans,whose authority resided in the title 'emperor of the Bulgarians"' (pp. la3-laa).The mutinies had no ethnic determination in the llth century and they usuallyoccuned when the empire was confronted with invasions or civil wars. However,such eveDts increased the distance between the local Serbian rulers and theByzantine centre. They began to search ahemative sources for the lggitimation oftheir power, outside Byzantium (the Papacy, the Normans, and next Hungary andVenice). In this way, the Serbian lands evolved toward independence after 1077(pp. l5zt-155), while Bulgaria remained a stable province, s€en by the Byzantinesas a semi-barbarian hinterland (pp. 153-154).

The gr€at geopolitical changes began with tlre Norman occupation ofDynachion (lOEl) are presented in the fifth chapter: ,,The rise of the west, I:Normans and Crusaders (10E1-l1lE)' (pp. l5Glt6). Unlike the former chapter,this one is mostly a nanation ofthe military and politicat events along the reign ofAlexios I Comnenus. However, Stephenson used this opportunity to examine howfunctioned the frontier defence in the case of a major threat. He presents thefortification system built around Dyrrachion - an archaeological and militaryapproach that is not usual in the Byzantine hisoriography (pp. l6G-164). Thedefence of the area near Dyrrachion was secured not only by these fortresses, butalso by the contribution ofthe locat Albanian tribes (p. 167).

The next chapter continues to pregent the expansion of the Western powers:,,The rise of the west, II: Hungarians and Venetians (1100-t143)" (pp. lE7-210).Stephenson examines the evolution of the Bfzantine-Hungarian political andeconomic relations. The confrontation between these states took place in the areanear Sirmium and in Dalmatia. The Huncarian annexation of Croatia in ll05changed the whole balance ofpower in the 6akans. The future Byzantine policy inthe Balkans was compelled to take into account this new factor. Stephenson arguesthat John II Comnenus ried to keep good rclations with Hungary, in order toconcentrate his forces in the eastem part of the empire. The Byzantine-Hungarianwars of I 127-1129 had only a defensive target and ,,there is no indication that theemperor intended for his conquest of Frangochorion to be permanent, or that heaspired to annex any lands beyond the Danube" (p. 207).

The seventh chapter is entitled ,,Manuel I Comlenus confronts the West(1143-1 156)" (pp.211_238). The author shows here that the German allianceestablished by John ll Comnenus was not efficient. The Norman thread was notremoved and Byzantium lost the southem Italy in 1156. On the other hand, thesame westem policy fulfilled by the first two Comneni allowed the expansion ofHungary toward Dalmatia and Ra5ka. M.nuel reacted against Hungary, but - asStephenson argues - he did not wish to annex this counw. A revised chronolosvofthe Hungarien-Byzantine wars in the ,50-ies is proposed.

The second part of the Balkan policy of Manuel is examined in the eighthchapter: ,,Advancing the frontier. The annexation of Sirmium and Dalmatia fl 156-

Discussions

ll80)" (pp. 239-274). The tasks assumed by the emp€ror were to recover theByzantine authority in the areas previously conquered by Hungary and to preventthe rise ofa Serbian independent state. The Danubian frontier was stenghtened byManuel after I 156. Stephenson uses the archaeological evidence into a great extentin order to establish the chronologSr and the significance of the Byzantine defensivepolicy on the Middle Danube, against Hungary. Stephenson also argues thatManuel's intention was to transform Hungary into a buffer state betwe€nByzantium and the German Empire; the relations between Manuel and Frederick IBarbarossa after 1 156 could be charaaterized as a kind of,,cold war,' (an idea firstexpressed by Paul Magdalino).

The successful expansionist poliry of Manuel lasted with him. The breakdownofthe Byzantine domination in the Balkans is presented in the last chapt€r, ,,Castingoff the 'Byzantine Yoke' (l lE0-1204)" (pp. 275-315). The author establishes a linkbetween the factions in the capial and the centrifugal movements: ,,By the b€ginningof the thirteenth c€ntury the Byzantine prestige was so low that the peoples of thenorthem Balkans considered the pafonage of any westem potentate superior to thatof the eastem empero/'. In facg this was already remarked by Nicetas Choniates,who said ,,fratricide spread as a pattem, model and general law from the queen of thecities to the far comers ofthe earth" (p. 315).

One of the basic Stephenson's ideas is the role played by the western powersin the Bulgarian and Serbian anti-Byzantine movements. He rejccts the ,,national"reasons of the revolts and considers that ,,the increased centifugalism of thetwelfth century was exaccrbated by the extension of the empire's frontiers"(p.2E0). The former administration exerted by local aristocrats was preserved, butthe weakness of the central power determined them ,,to look elsewhere foraltemative patons or symbols of power and prestige" (p. 2tl). This explains thepolicies followed by the rulers of the new Serbian and Vlacho-Bulgarian states.

Stephenson gives an objective account of the rebellion led by the Asanbrothers. He emphasizes the role ofthe Vlachs and the importance of the alliancewith the Cumans, but otherwise than the usual ,rationel" int"rptrt tion. followedboth by Romanian and Bulgarian historians. He remarks that the rebetlion had noethnic background, because ,,both Vlachs and Bulgarians played a major role in theescalation of the rebellion, but others fought on the Byzantine side". The civilunrest evolved into a separatist movement because the Cumans improved tlremilitary forc€ of the rebels and because the Byzantine army was wronglycommanded. The wish of independence was a result and not a cause of themovement: ,,Peter and Asen saw the possibility of a permanent settlement freefrom Byzantine interference or suzerainty. Naturally, they sought to draw ontraditions of indopendent - which had been called, rnd therefore was once againcalled, Bulgarian - rule in the northern Balkaas" (pp.293-29\. The final resultwas the orientation of the new stat€ toward another center of legitimation, the

2ll

I O2t2 Discussions

Papacy. The dissolution of the Byzantine domination in the northern Balkans wasinfluenced by the Norman attacks and by the third and founh Crusades. In thiscontext th€ Balkan rebelled rulers searched the support ofthe western powers.

On the other hand, the independence ofthe new Vlacho-Bulgarian state wasstrrnghtened because Byzantium tried to defend only the Balkan range, whichbecame its new northem frontier, instead of the Danube. The defence in themountains was ensured with the aid of the pro-Byzantine Vlachs and Bulgarians(p. 306). Byzantium will never recover Paradunavon.

Stephenson's viewpoints on the northern Balkan regions during the l0th-l2thcenturies are in many respects innovative and incentive for the progress ofthe South-Eastem European studies. We tried to present above some of them. The main itemsare summarized by the author himself in his Conclusions (pp. 3 I G323).

There are some mistakes in the book, but of small importance. We point herethe most striking: Plcuiul lui Soare is wrongly located (p. 20, map l.l); Salzburg isOcna Sibiului; Sdnpaul, not San Paul; the names of the riven should be given inRomanian forms (only Somes is written in Romanian); the numbers must beexplained in the legend of map 1.3 (p. 42); Pdcuiul lui Soare should not betranslated in ,,the Island of the Sun", because it is a placename, where Soare is aperson name (p. 57 and others); phrowia arc not watchtowers, but small fortresses(pp. 84, I l ). Such small mistakes could be easily corrected into a second editionor translation. They do not decrease the value ofthis book.

We can be sure that the work of Paul Stephenson will be considered a majorcontribution to th€ history ofthe South-Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages.