Die protobulgarische Periode der bulgarischen Geschichte
Ves. Beševliev
Verlag Adolf M. Hakkert - Amsterdam, 1980
Pritsak, Hunnen — Pritsak, O., Kultur und Sprache der Hunnen, in: Festschrift für D. Cyžovškyi zum 60. Geburtstag, Berlin 1954, 238-249
Simonyi, Die Bulgaren — Simonyi, D., Die Bulgaren des 5. Jahrhunderts im Karpatenbecken, in: Acta Archaeologica 10 (1959) 227-250
2:
Grosse Wälder waren auch am Unterlauf des Flusses Tiča [24] und an den Südabhängen des Hämus [25] vorhanden. Eine der beiden Anhöhen Abrolevas (j. Bakadžici) in Süd-Bulgarien hiess δασύς “bewaldet” [26]. In der Gegend von Konstantinopel soll es auch einen grossen Wald gegeben haben [27]. Das sog. Gebiet Astika, das zwischen den Flüssen Hebros und Tonzos (j. Tundža) und dem Schwarzen Meer lag, war mit Wälder bis Adrianopel bedeckt [28].
There were also large forests on the lower reaches of the Tiča River [24] and on the southern slopes of the Haemus [25]. One of the two heights of Abroleva (j. Bakadžici) in southern Bulgaria was called δασύς “wooded” [26]. There is also said to have been a large forest in the area of Constantinople [27]. The so-called Astika region, which lay between the Hebros and Tonzos rivers (j. Tundža) and the Black Sea, was covered with forests up to Adrianople [28].
24:
Durch Süd-Bulgarien verlief die in allen antiken Wegweisern verzeichnete, berühmte Heerstrasse [7] von Singidunum an der Donau fast diagonal über Horreum Margi, Naissos, Remesiana, Turres, Serdica, Esco amne, Burgaraca, Egerica (Helice, Skupion), den Pass Succorum claustra (angustiae) oder Succi (Σούκεις), Trajanstors, Bessapara [9], Philippopolis, Ranilum, Pizos, Arzos, Hadrianopolis, Ostudizos, Burtudizos, Drusipara, Tzurulon, Perinthos nach Konstantinopolis [10].
40:
Endlich erscheint unter den Unterschriften einer Eingabe der syrischen Geistlichen in den Akten des Konstantinopeler Konzils von 536 auch die eines Andreas, Abtes des Klosters der Besser [9], das nach R. Janin [10] im westlichen Teil Konstantinopels nahe an der Kirche des Heiligen Mocios lag [11].
... Der Sophist Himerios (300-380) berichtet, dass im 4. Jh. noch Nachkommen der ehemaligen thrakischen Könige in Philippopel vorhanden waren.
42:
The Bishop of Odessos, whose signature is under the answer to a letter sent by Emperor Leon to the Archbishop of Marcianopolis in 458, bears the well-known Thracian name Dizas or Dittas [22]. In Vercela, Northern Italy, the grave slab of Presbyter Marcellinus, who came from the land of the better [23], was found. According to a funerary inscription from Stara Zagora, southern Bulgaria, the Thracian was Flavius Moco, a native of Artacia de vico Calso, domesticus [24]. Both inscriptions belong to the 5th century. At least two generals under Anastasius (491-518) were Thracians: Zemarchus [25] and Vitalian [26], the leader of the uprising 514-518. The Thracian personal name Zemarchus seems to have been very popular during this period. Several high dignitaries bore this name: a Comes Orientis [27], an Eparch of the city of Constantinople [28], a Byzantine diplomat under Justin II. [29] a tribune around 590 [30], a primicerius in a funerary inscription from Aquileia [31] etc.
24. Beševliev, SpätIn. Nr. 192. Über Flavius s. Van de Vyuer in Revue beige de Philol. et d’hist. XVI 40 Amn. 4: “une appellation honorifique qui correspond en anglais à sir suivi du prénom”, dagegen aber kaum richtig Stein 11 793-794; jetzt A. Moscy, Der Name Flavius als Rangbezeichnung in der Spätantike, in: Akte des IV. Internationalen (Kongresses für griechische und lateinische Epigraphik. Wien 1964, 257-263; V. Beševliev, Personennamen 58, mit Anm. 10 und besonders Franco Niccolai, La diffusione del gentilizio “Flavius” nel Basso Impero e nei Regni Barbarici, Milano 1946
26. Malalas 402, 3 f.: Βιταλιανὸς ὁ Θρᾷξ; Euagrios, Migne PG 86, 2696: Βιταλιανὸς θρᾷξ γένος.
43:
The emperors Justin I [32], Justinian I [33], Justin II [34], Tiberius I [35] and Phocas [36] were of Thracian descent. The companions of Emperor Justin I, with whom he came to Constantinople, were also Thracians and simple peasants (γεωργοί). They had the Thracian names Ζίμαρχος and Διτύβιστός [37].
57:
Gegen Ende der Regierung des Kaisers Arkadios gaben sich Sklaven und Deserteure für Hunnen aus und raubten alles in Thrakien, was sie im Freien fanden [33].
33. Zosim. 227, 17-22
58:
Some of the inhabitants of Durostorum even fled from the barbarian invasions to Ankona, Italy, where they brought the relics of the martyr Dasios of Durostorum [41].
41. F. Cumont, Le tombeau de S. Dasius de Durostorum, in: Anal. Bolland. XXVII, 1908, 369-372; J. Zeiller, Les origines chrétiennes dans les provinces Danubiennes, Paris 1918, 112
61:
Constantine the Great defeated the Goths led by Rausimod in 323 and distributed the prisoners to the cities [8]. The same emperor in 334 allowed the Sarmatians, Goths, and other tribes, allegedly over 300,000 in number, to settle in Thrace, Scythia, Macedonia, and Italy [9]. The inhabitants of a city in the Persian region of Adiabene settled in 343 to Thrace [10]. Particularly noteworthy is the settlement of the so-called Gothi minores in the year 348. For religious reasons - they were Christians of the Arian denomination - they settled, led by their bishop Ulfila, with the permission of the Byzantine government in the area of Nicopolis ad Istrum in mountainous landscapes at the foot of the haemus. These Goths were a poor agricultural population who lived until the middle of the 6th century. mentioned. Around 561 they gave up Arianism [11].
9. Anonym. Vales. 6, 32
10. Liban. 18, 206 ff.,; 59, 77-86, vgl. Stein I 137, Anm. 36
11. Philostorg. 17, 3-18, 14; Jordan. Getica 127, 5-11, dazu Schmidt, Ostgerm.; Vetters, Dacia Ripensis 25; E.A. Thompson, The Visigoths in the time of Ulfila, Oxford 1966 (n.v.)
62:
15. ebenda 43. über die Sadagaren s. J. Harmatta, Das Volk der Sadagaren, in: Bibliotheca Orientalis Hungarica V, Budapest 1942-1947, 17-28
63:
In 488 the Ostrogoths emigrated to Italy. Only a small part remained as federates in the Byzantine service [19], on the Balkan Peninsula. The Gothic settlements discovered during excavations in the Pleven area, namely in Sadovsko kale, Golemanovo kale and other surrounding areas, probably belonged to them. They were destroyed during the Avar invasions [20].
20. I. Welkov, Eine Gotenfestung bei Sadowetz (Nordbulgarien), in: Germania Jhrg. 19, April 1935, H.2, 149-158; Vetters, Dacia Ripensis 49-57
64:
According to Prokop [22] Lombards lived in Apros and received 2,000 Kutrigurs in the Diocese of Thrace [23].
22. Bella II 636, 16-17
23. ebenda II 585, 20-586, 8; 636, 24-637,2
<--- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aprus_(Thrace)
Aprus or Apros (Ancient Greek: Ἄπρος), also Apri or Aproi (Ἄπροι), was a town of ancient Thrace and, later, a Roman city established in the Roman province of Europa.
History
Stephanus of Byzantium collects a quote of Theopompus that mentions Aprus.[1] Pliny the Elder notes that Aprus is situated in the interior of Thrace, 22 M.P. from Resisto (likely the same as Bisanthe), 50 Roman miles from Bizya and 180 Roman miles from Philippi.[2]
The city was re-founded as Colonia Claudia Aprensis in the mid-1st century AD, probably in connection with the emperor Claudius's annexation of Thracia, and was intended for retired members of the Roman military. It was situated on the Via Egnatia that ran from the Adriatic coast in the province of Illyricum to Byzantium, the city that was to become Constantinople.[3][4]
In the 4th century, Aprus was the principal city of the region southwest of Heraclea, the capital of the province.
The city was called Theodosiopolis in documents of the 6th century,[5] in honour of Theodosius II, emperor from 401 to 450, or of Theodosius I (347–395).
Site
Its location is near the modern Turkish village of Kermeyan.[7][8]
<--- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perinthus
Perinthus or Perinthos (Ancient Greek: ἡ Πέρινθος)[1][2] was a great and flourishing town of ancient Thrace, situated on the Propontis. According to John Tzetzes, it bore at an early period the name of Mygdonia (Μυγδονία). It lay 22 miles west of Selymbria, on a small peninsula[3] of the bay which bears its name, and was built like an amphitheatre, on the declivity of a hill.[4] Its site is near modern Marmara Ereğlisi, in Turkey.[5][6]
History
It was originally a Samian colony,[7] and, according to George Syncellus, was founded about 599 BC.[8] German archaeologist Theodor Panofka, however, makes it contemporary with Samothrace, that is about 1000 BC.[9] It was particularly renowned for its obstinate defence against Philip V of Macedon[10][11] At that time it appears to have been a more important and flourishing town even than Byzantium and being both a harbour and a point at which several main roads met, it was the seat of extensive commerce.[12] This circumstance explains the reason why so many of its coins are still extant from which we learn that large and celebrated festivals were held here.[9] After the fourth century AD it assumed the name of Heraclea or Heracleia (Ἡράκλεια);[13] which we find sometimes used alone, and sometimes with additions Heraclea Thraciae and Heraclea Perinthus.[12][14]
87:
The proximity of the Bulgarians to the Gepids, Goths and Erulians explains the occurrence of the Bulgarian people's name as a personal name among the German tribes, in different forms: Bulgar (7th century), Bulgaranus (7th century), Bulgaria (6th century). ), Pulgar (8th and 9th centuries), Pulcari and Polcari (9th century) [68].
68. Ιv. Sišmanov, Bălgarite v “Orlando furioso”, in: Bălgarski pregled, Jahrg. VI (1900), H. 8, 78-81; derselbe, Pregled 711-712; 713; D. Detschew 198-216; //// B. Primov. Balgarskoto narodnostno ime v Zapadna Evropa vàv vrăzka s bogomilite,//// in: IIBI 6 (1956), 372 Anm. 1
101:
According to the so-called Chronicle of Monemvasia, the Avars of Emperor Justinian I got the city of Durostorum as a settlement (Lemerle, Monemvasie 9, 12-13: ἔλαχον παρ’ αὐτοῦ ἔχειν τὴν κατοίκησιν ἐν χώρᾳ Μυσίας ἐν πόλει /// Δωροστόλῳ τῇ νῦν καλουμένῃ Δρίστρᾳ).///
If the Avars are not mistakenly replacing the Slavs, as is the case in the first part of the Chronicle, this could be taken as evidence that the Avars did indeed temporarily reside in Scythia Minor. According to Prokop, however, ///there were Slavs under Justinian I in the area of Durostorum./// (De aedif. 132, 18-22).
124:
A. Maricq, Note sur les Slaves dans le Péloponnèse et en Bythinie et sur l’emploi de “Slave” comme appellatif, in: Byz XXII (1952), 337-355;
131:
Shortly before 645, Emperor Constans II (641-668) made a peace with the Slavic tribes around Thessalonica, which they only ostensibly kept. Perbund, the rex of the Slavic tribe of Rhynchinos (τοῦ τῶν Ῥυγχίνων ῥηγός, τούνομα Περβούνδου) decided in association with the Slavs of Strymon to conquer the city of Thessalonica and began to prepare for this enterprise.
132:
The emperor, to whom this was reported, ordered the city authorities of Thessalonica to arrest the Slav princes who were in the city and send them tied up. When the emperor's order had been carried out, a Slav embassy appeared before the emperor with the request that Perbund be given his life and released. Constans II, who was preparing for the upcoming war with the Arabs in 654 and wanted peace and quiet on the Haemus Peninsula, promised her to free the Slav prince after the war. For the time being he allowed him to move freely in the capital. Perbund took advantage of this freedom to secretly leave the city and hid in an estate near the city of Bizye (τῆς πόλεως τῶν Βιζυτανών), which belonged to an imperial interpreter with whom he had made friends. The sudden disappearance of Perbund from the capital filled the emperor with great concern. He ordered them to be looked for everywhere and to keep a close watch on the city exits. Everything was in vain. Perbund, who was able to ///flee to the Slavic tribes not far north of the city of Bizye/// (πλησίον τυγχάνονται ἑτέρων Σκλαβίνων ἐθνῶν), and to save himself there, stayed calmly in his hiding place and returned to his plan with his tribe wanted to. But it was discovered by chance and brought back to Constantinople. There he tried to run away again, but did not succeed, and was therefore executed.
137:
During the protracted and dangerous Persian Wars of Emperor Herakleios in Asia (610-629), the Balkan Peninsula remained without the care of the empire, and since the power of the provincial administrators and city authorities was very little, the Slavs took advantage of the opportunity to not only carry out their raids across the Danube into the Byzantine provinces opposite them, but also to settle there permanently. After the destruction of the entire fleet of Slavs at the siege of Constantinople (626), the enraged Avarenkhagan ordered those Slavs who had escaped from the boats to be put down. This nefarious act certainly deeply injured the other Slavs, and they were the first to leave after the failed siege [14]. Perhaps these Slavs did not return to their residences across the Danube and settled on Byzantine soil. The defection of the Slavs from the Avars did not take place without fighting [15]. ///In the year 645 their residences were already not very far from the town of Bizye, perhaps in the Strandzagebirge (see here p. 132).///
14. Chron. pasch. 724, 7-725, 8
15. Georg. Pisid. Restitutio crucis 78-81
152:
After Theophanes and Nikephoros, Kubrat advised his sons that they never want to separate from one another, so that their empire would be preserved through their good disposition to one another, they would be rulers everywhere and would not serve any people as servants [18].
18. It is uncertain whether this is reminiscent of the well-known Aesopian fable “The Farmer's Disagreed Children”. It was not until the 19th century that the Aesopian fable was connected with the stories of Theophanes and Nikephoros in Bulgaria and was included in the Bulgarian school books, V. Beševliev, Edna Ezopova basnja v bălgarskata istorija, in: Zs. Prometej I (1937) 4, 20. ///Many scholars wrongly consider the reports of the chroniclers Theophanes and Nikephoros of the foundation of the Bulgarian Empire to be a tribal legend///: J. Marquart, Chronologie 85-86, Streifzüge 503-605; G. Fehér, Relations 34-37; Moravcsik, Onoguren 1014; Artamonov, Hazar 166, et al. See also K. Lambrev, Legendata za kan Kubrat i negovite sinove, in: Istoričeski pregled 3 (1946-47) 350-359. On the other hand, Zlatarski, Istorija I 1, 111. The report by the two Byzantine chroniclers is correct and judiciously assessed by S. Szádeczky-Kardoss, Background 474. A similar warning in the Turkish inscription of Bilgä Qagan (G. Aidarov 317, 13-14): “If you, the Turkish people, do not part with your Qagan, your Begs, your fatherland ... you will be happy yourself live, live in your houses, live without grief ”.
153:
The Bulgarians who stayed in their homeland [23] have been known for a long time under the name “inner” or “black Bulgarians” [24]. Konstantin Porphyrogennetos [25] calls her country ἡ Μαυρὴ Βουλγαρία. The Arab writers of the 10th century report that some of these Bulgarians were Christians, while the others were Mohamedans. Her name is no longer mentioned after the 10th century.
158:
Von der ehemaligen Anwesenheit der Bulgaren in Italien zeugen auch die Ortsnamen mit dem Element Boigare, Bolgheri, Borgheri usw [5].
5. s. auch Codex Traditionum Ecclesiae Ravenatis in Papyro scriptus et in Regia Bibliotheca Bavarica asservatus. Ed. J.B. Bernhart, München 1810, 35, 22: petitio quam petivit curicius dudum tribunus et christophones et patricia iugalis a Joanne archiepiscopo... territorii ariminensis a singulis lateribus autuclanii et fluvius sambronis et fundus sariano atque fine Bulgarisca; 44,22: terra Bulgarorum; 76,27: petitio quam petivit Baro de Bulgaro (im territorium Ausimanum). D. Olivieri, Dizionnario di toponomastica lombarda, Milano 1961, 95 und 99. Vgl. auch K. Jireček, Archiv II (1959) 313.
167:
Still, the city authorities heard something. However, they did not dare to face him openly, since Mauros had the city administration firmly in his hand. He had put his people in the most important military posts. His soldiers were brave, kept watch day and night and took their salaries from the city coffers. The plan for taking the city was as follows: On the night from Easter Saturday to Easter Sunday, the people of Mauros were supposed to start a civil war by lighting fires in several specific places. In the confusion they should conquer the city. However, the city authorities managed to inform the emperor of Mauro's intentions. The latter ordered Sissinios, the commander of the fleet of the Hellas area [29], to go with the naval forces to Thessalonica and enter the city to supervise the activities of Mauros and his people. The presence of the fleet was supposed - that was the pretext for their arrival - to instill more courage in those who were inclined to leave Kuber.
Sissinios landed with the fleet in Thessalonica on the Wednesday of Holy Week. When Mauros saw that his plans were seen through and that his plan was foiled, he became seriously ill or pretended to be ill. The Byzantine admiral was not misled by his illness. Although he showed great sympathy for the sick Mauros, he ordered him to set up camp in the western part of the city, wherever he sent his army under the false pretext that the escape of the Keramisians should be facilitated. For greater security, the emperor ordered that Sissinios should bring Mauros and his people on ships and send them to Constantinople. Mauros was received by the emperor and appointed administrator in the Thracian area [30], perhaps somewhere between the mouths of Nestos and Strymon. This time too, Kuber tried to take advantage of the new situation. He donated Mauros to commit an attack on the emperor on a favorable opportunity.
29. Ahrweiler, La mer 27 und 29
167:
Kuber probably intended, when the attack was to succeed, to seize the city of Thessalonica or other localities in the unrest that had broken out. However, the son Mauros revealed to the emperor both the earlier plan for the conquest of Thessalonike and the planned attack on his life. The emperor, who, it seems, did not want to irritate the Keramisians and avoid an open battle with them, did not punish Mauros with death, but contented himself with depriving him of his dignity, removing him from his office and his troops to take and banish him under guard to the suburbs of Constantinople. The Arab-Byzantine wars were probably not over yet. Kuber paid great honor to the women of Mauro and left his relatives and property untouched.
As the Miracula S. Demetrii show, Kuber was an energetic and intelligent person who tried to take advantage of every new situation. It was not his fault that he failed to carry out his plans. Kuber's plan to found their own state with the Slavic tribes [31] shows a striking parallel to the actions of his brother Asparuch, who established his state in Moesia in the same way. Whether this parallelism between the two brothers' actions is a mere coincidence or whether there is a connection between them remains uncertain. As has already been indicated, these events took place in the years 674-678, closer to the year 678 [32].
31. See note 15
32. About the different dates, s. Burmov, Werke I 83 Note 19 and Barišič, Les Miracles 11, on this also P. Lemerle, La composition et la Chronologie des deux premiers livres des Miracula Sancti Demetrii, in: BZ (1953) 349-361 and Invasions 299; Ahrweiler, La mer 27. According to this author, ///the events told by Miracula are identical to those of Theophanes and Nikephoros of the support of the ex-emperor Arthemios - Anastasios II (713-715) by the Bulgarians/// (see here p. 201-202). She even assumes that Kuber was Tervel's successor and dates events to this time, a hypothesis that is completely unfounded.
169:
Kuber's original power decreased significantly after his plans failed. The refugees of Roman origin who came with him left him and went to the hometowns of their fathers. The Bulgarians, who had been under Mauro's command, were probably in Byzantine military service. Kuber had to give up his intentions and settle for a peaceful settlement on Byzantine soil with the emperor's permission. The emperor made a peace with Kuber and his Bulgarians [33] and assigned them residences, probably in the mountainous country between Thessalonike and the mouth of Strymons on the Chalkidike. According to the oldest Madara inscription [34], their residences were on Mount Kissos (l. Chortač) near Thessalonica.
Justinian II, the successor of Constantine IV, did not agree with the agreements made by his father. Soon after his accession to the throne, he broke the peace with the Bulgarians and gathered troops in Thrace to subdue the Bulgarians and Slavs [35]. In 688 Justinian went out against them. The emperor initially repulsed the Bulgarians and reached the area of Thessalonica. He subjugated the Slavic tribes there, partly through struggle, partly through voluntary surrender. The emperor settled a large part of the Slavs in Asia Minor in Thema Opsikion [36], and placed them under the command of a certain Nebulos [37].
36. Theophanes 364, 11-15 und Nikephoros 36, 16-22. Hierzu: B.A. Pančenko, Pamjatnik Slavjan v Vifinii, in: IRAIK 8 (1902) 16 ff. (s. Kulakovskij, Istorija III 360; G. Schlumberger, BZ 12, 1903, 277; P. Charanis, The Slavic element in Byzantine Asia Minor in the thirteenth Century, in: Byz 18, 1946-1948, 70 ff., 74 ff., (vgl. Byz. 22, 1952, 348 ff.); G. Ostrogorsky, The Byzantine Empire in the World of the seventh Century, in: Dumbarton Oaks papers 13 (1959) 5, 8, 15 ff., P. Charanis, Ethnic changes in the Byzantine Empire in the seventh Century, ebenda 38, 42; Lemerle, Invasions 306 f.
- Über den Feldzug: G. Balasčev, Per. Sp. 57 (1898) 50 f., Zlatarski, Istorija 11, 158 ff.; A. Vasilev, An edict of the Emperor Justinian II, September, 688, in: Speculum 18 (1943) 1 ff., derselbe, L’entrée triomphale de l’empereur Justinian II à Thessalonique en 688, in: Orientalia Christiana periodica 13 (1947) 355 ff.; H. Grégoire, Un édit de l’Empereur Justinian II, daté de Septembre 688, in: Byz. 17 (1945) 119 (hierzu 43, 1950, 76)
37. Gy. Moravcsik (Byz II 210) vermutet, dass er ein Bulgare war.
170:
When Justinian returned from the campaign, the Bulgarians lay in wait for him on some mountain pass, attacked him and caused a cruel slaughter among the Byzantine army in which the emperor barely escaped death [38]. The route that the emperor used was probably the well-known Via Egnatia (see here p. 25), which crosses several bottlenecks between Thessalonike and the mouth of the Mesta.
Kuber and his people let 705 hear from them again. The oldest inscription from Madara [39] states that the enthroned Emperor Justinian II, who had come from the Khazar region to the Bulgarian ruler Tervel, also suggested the uncles Tervels of Thessalonica [40] to take part in the campaign to regain his throne. However, he was refused because they did not trust him and returned to the Kissin residences. They didn't think Justinian would keep his promises because he arbitrarily canceled his father's agreements in 688. The inscription from Madara also attests to close ties between the Thessalonica and the Danube Bulgarians.
After a long silence, the Bulgarians of Thessalonica appear again in documents from the 10th century. A Chrysobullos Logos of the Emperor Romanos II. From the year 959/60 reports, among other things, that the Colubu monastery near Hierissos had been taken away by the Bulgarian Slavs who settled there [41].
37. Gy. Moravcsik (Byz II 210) vermutet, dass er ein Bulgare war.
38. Theophanes 364, 15-18
39. Beševliev, PI Nr. 1 I c, hierzu S. 102-111
40. ebenda 1, I c 8-12: τὸν ῾ρινοκοπιμένον τὸν [β]ασιλέαν οὐκ ἐπίοτεααν ὑ θιῦ μου ἰς Θεσσα[λο]νίκιν
171:
According to a Lavra deed by Patriarch Nikolas Chrysoberges from 989, the Gomatu monastery near Orfanu suffered a lot from the raids of the neighboring Bulgarians [42]. The Vita of Saints John and Euthymios from the year 1042/2 states that all countries in the area of the Athos monasteries were abandoned by their inhabitants out of fear of the Bulgarians [43]. Finally, the Vita of St. Georgios Hagiorites [44] reports that the Bulgarians, who were also called Slavs, lived in a village called Livadia, which was located in a remote corner, in a large wasteland, under wild heights covered with oak forest. There passed the dry road to Constantinople, which was undoubtedly the well-known Via Egnatia. The Vita also contains a very important message: the Bulgarians mentioned were still pagans, venerated an ancient female marble statue and were converted to Christianity by the saint mentioned. A passage from a sigil from the period between 960 and 975, again based on the Bulgarians [45], can be connected with it, according to which the pagans [46] destroyed 36 Paroikoi of the Colubu monastery. The Bulgarians mentioned in the cited documents and vitae were not real Slavs. They were either Slavic Bulgarians or a mixture of Bulgarians and Slavs.
41. Fr. Dölger, Ein Fall, hierzu V. Beševliev, Zur Frage der slavischen Einsiedlungen im Hinterland von Thessalonike im 10. Jahrhundert, in: Serta slavica in memoriam Aloisii Schmaus, München 1971, 37-41
42. Actes de Lavra. Edition diplomatique et critique par G. Rouillard et P. Collomp. I (897-1178), Paris 1937, 22 Nr. 8
43. Histoires monastiques géorgiennes. Anal Boll. t. xxxvi-xxxvii, 1917-1919 (1922), § 59, 23-26
44. ebenda 104-105, § 36, 26 ff. hierzu: G. Soulis, On the Slavic Settlement in Hierissos in the tenth Century, in: Byz. 23 (1953) 1954, 67 ff., T. Gerasimov, Svedenie za edin mramoren idol u bălgarskite slavjani v Solunsko, in: Ezikovedsko-etnografski izsledvanija v pamet na akad. St. Romanski, Sofia 1960, 557-561
45. BZ 29 (1929/30) 105, s. auch ein Fall S. 12, Anm. 4 und S.17
46. ἀφανισθῆναι ἐκ τῶν ἐθνῶν
172:
For unknown reasons, these Bulgarians moved in the 10th / 11th century against the properties in the corridor of Hierissos. Perhaps one wanted to take their land away from them or force Christianity on them. Over time, the Bulgarians of Thessalonica were absorbed by the Slavs and in this way disappeared forever.
175:
9. In Theophanes' text, which here too deserves more trust, the onglos is provided with the definite article, i.e. listed as an already known place. It follows that the name Onglos existed before the arrival of the Bulgarians. Nikephoros writes, however, that the place is called Onglos in their language (34, 8-9: Ὄγλον τῇ σφῶν καλούμενον φωνῇ). However, it cannot be inferred from the text to whom τῇ σφῶν ... φωνῇ actually refers. ///It was tacitly assumed that σφῶν meant Asparuch and his people./// But that's just a guess. If one takes into account that Nikephoros gives his model abbreviated, σφῶν could refer to another people z. B. refer to the Slavs. It is also not ruled out that σφ wennν, if one accepts the common interpretation, was a conjecture of Nikephoros. Two etymologies are proposed for onglos, one Slavic: Ongal, “angle” and Turkish: aγil - aγul - aul, s. Moravcsik, Byzturc II 213 with lit., on this M. Vasmer in Zeitschrift f. slav. Philol. I (1925) 466; Iv. Venedikov, Αὐλή, in; IIBE XVI (1968) 111-113; Menges, Introduction 12 and 19 (Slavic). The place name is undoubtedly Slavic.
193:
In the autumn of 705 Tervel, accompanied by Justinian, went to Constantinople at the head of a large army of Bulgarians and Slavs [8]. The route they had taken was through Mesembria. Justinian was there by the future Emperor Leon III. who gave him 500 sheep [9]. From there they probably chose the old, little-frequented coastal road that led from Mesembria along the sea via Deultum, Apollonia, Salmydessos and Phileas to Constantinople (see here p. 28) in order to reach this city unnoticed. This also avoided the heavily fortified city of Adrianople, where the emperor could meet tough resistance. Tervel appeared before the walls of Constantinople and camped opposite the gate of Charision (j. Edirne kapu). Over the course of three days, Justinian tried to get the citizens of the capital on his side. However, the words of the aided emperor were received with scorn and ridicule. He then decided to embark on a bold undertaking. During the night he crept into the city with some companions through an aqueduct [10]. His appearance caused great panic in Constantinople. He took the city from within and soon afterwards occupied the Blachernenpalast.
10. Nach R. Janin (Constantinople 200) der Aquädukt des Valens
195:
23. Beševliev, PI Nr. 1 Dies Ereignis ist auch von Mas’ûdî Kîtâb at-tanbîh, Kairo 1938, 140, (trad. Carra de Vaux 225) verzeichnet: “Ustinyânus al-Akhram qui règna neuf ans pendant le califat d’Abdalmalik, puis fut déposé, eut le nez coupé, s’enfuit chez les Khazares, s’épousa la fille du roi, et avec l’appui de T.r.f.lâ ( = Tervel), roi des Burdjân, réussit à recouvrer son trône dans la première année du règne de Walîd fils d’ ‘Abdalmalik (angeführt bei ////Μ. Canard, Les aventures d’un prisonnier arabe, in: Dumbarton Oaks Papers 9/10, 1956, 65 Anm. 20).”////
199:
34. In the extended version of the chronicle of Georgios Hamortolos (ed. Muralt, Petersburg 1859, 622, cf. also Georgios Kedren. I 780, 15-17) it is stated that Tervel will also receive the Zagoria area as a gift from Justinian II have. Credibility is difficult to maintain; because no other source knows of the cession of the Zagoria area, s. about this in detail Beševliev, PI 59-60
200:
The Arab general Maslama crossed Abydos over the Hellespont to Thrace in the summer of 717 and set up camp in front of the capital. The Arabian fleet was almost completely destroyed by the so-called Greek fire, while the long and severe winter (717/718) destroyed not only many people, but also horses, camels and other animals. In the spring of the next year (718) there was a great famine and the Arabs were forced to eat corpses, the leather of their shoes and other inedible foods, which caused a devastating epidemic in the Arab camp. In the meantime, Emperor Leon III. the patrician Sissinios Rhendakios to the Bulgarians to ask for help against the Arabs [36]. The Bulgarians gladly agreed, which proves that the peace treaty concluded in 716 was still in force, and sent an army to help, probably under the command of the second, probably younger Khan (or Kapkhan) Kormesios [37].
The sources' reports on the operations of the Bulgarian Army are not unanimous. According to Theophanes, Tabari and others [38] the Bulgarians attacked the Arabs and killed 22,000 men, according to the Syrian Chronicle of 846 an Arab general named Ubayda attacked the Bulgarians in their country and was defeated by them [39]. Michael the Syrian reports that the Bulgarians were instigated by Emperor Leon III. attacked the Arab general Maslama when he was moving to Constantinople.
36. Nikeph. 55, 21-24. H. Ahrweiler (La mer 29) considers him identical with the Admiral Sissinios in the Miracula S. Demetrii for no reason, s. here p. 167
38. s. Canard, Les éxpéditions 90-91
217:
Constantine in turn, relying on his agents, secretly sent people to Bulgaria, who abducted the Sklavunos, leader of the Severen [24]. This Slav tribe had been entrusted with the protection of the southeastern part of the Bulgarian state since it was founded (see here p. 181).
24. Theophan. 436, 14-21. At the same time, Christianos, an apostate from Christianity and leader of the so-called Skamarians, was seized. It is uncertain whether he went out on robbery with the Severen chief or whether his capture coincidentally coincides with the kidnapping of Sklavunos. /// About the Skamarer s. S. Szádeczky-Kardoss, Scamarae in: RE Suppl. XI, 1239-1242 and A. Kollautz, Franconia 241-242 note 30 ///
224:
Im Oktober 774 erhielt Konstantin von seinen heimlichen Freunden in Bulgarien, d.h. von seinen Agenten, die Nachricht, dass der Khan [Teleryg] 12,000 Mann starke Truppen mit Boilen entsenden wollte, die Berzitia [5] besetzen und seine Bevölkerung nach Bulgarien umsiedeln sollten.
228:
Teleryg (777), for unknown reasons, was forced to flee Bulgaria and seek refuge with Emperor Leon IV (775-780), the son of Constantine V. He was received very kindly by him, baptized as Patricius [13] and received a niece of the Empress as a wife. He also enjoyed his great respect and friendship [14].
13. The title “Patricius” was the highest that was bestowed on foreign princes in Teleryg's time, cf. W. Ohnsorge, The Patricius title of Charles the Great, in: BZ 53 (1960) 300-321; R. Guilland, Contribution à la prosopographie de l’empire byzantin - Les Patrices, in: Byz. 40 (1970) 2, 317-360, via Teleryg 325. It is noteworthy that Sabinos, as far as is known, was not honored with this title. See now the lead seal of the Teleryg at Zacos-Veglery No. 3188: Χριστέ, βοήθει τῷ σῷ δούλῳ Τελέρυγ θεοφύλακτῳ πατρικίῳ.
231:
At the beginning of July 792, Constantine VI. a campaign against the Bulgarians, presumably to punish them for their interference in the internal affairs of Byzantium or to avenge themselves for its failure. He came to the border fortress of Markellai, which he had repaired. This time the emperor set out with a large army, as Cardam, as Theophanes reports, confronted the Byzantines with all his military power on July 20 and occupied the fortresses [23].
232:
The chronicler does not disclose where they were or what kind of fortresses were. It was probably about the forts, moats and ramparts that were in the Verigava pass. The young emperor, to whom Pankratios, the astronomer and fortune teller, had prophesied victory, began the fight, rashly and without order, but suffered a crushing defeat. Not only did many simple warriors come around, but also some high dignitaries. Among them were the Magistros Michael Lachanodrakon, the Patrikios Bardas, the protostrator Stephanos Chameys, the former strategists Niketas and Theognostos, many emperors' people (βασιλικοὶ ἄνθρωποι) and the false prophet and astronomer Pankratios himself. Money fell into the hands of the Bulgarians , Horses and the imperial tent with the service. The emperor returned to the capital “as a refugee” [24]. After this brilliant victory, Kardam concluded a peace treaty. In 796 the Bulgarenkhan Kardam demanded the payment of a tribute from the emperor. He threatened that if it did not do so, he would come to the Golden Gate and devastate all of Thrace. The fact that Theophanes uses the word πάκτα without the specific article justifies the assumption that the claim made by the Bulgarian ruler was not asserted on the basis of a contract. Constantine VI not only rejected the request, but also inflicted a grave insult to the khan.
24. ibid. 467, 27-468, 7 According to the editorship of the Vita Ioannicii written by Sabbas Monachos in the 9th century (AASS Nov. II 1, Bruxelles 1894, 337 C338 A, II 6), one of the then great powers (ἕνα τότε τῶν μεγιστάνων) caught with a lasso by the Bulgarians in the battle of Markellai and would have almost been captured by the Bulgarians if Saint Ioannikios, who also took part in the war, had not cut the rope with his sword (see Symeon Metaphrastes in Migne PG 116, 41 AC). According to the version of the same vita written by Petros Monachos again in the 9th century, this mighty emperor was Constatin VI. itself (AA SS II Nov. 1, 386 C - 387 B, 5: 1): ὡς καὶ αὐτὸν ἤδη τὸν βασιλέα ὑπὸ τινος μηχανήματος σωκισθέντα ὑπὸ χείρας ἁλόντα ἕλκεσθαι καὶ κραθείσαι υπό τῶν ασεβών ἐκείνων. The first version dates the war in 792, obviously mistakenly confusing it with the one in 796.
235:
[Krum]
The Bulgarian state expanded to the northwest, including present-day Eastern Hungary with Transylvania within its borders, thus becoming a neighbor of the Frankish Empire [4]. The border probably ran along the rivers Theiss and the Danube to the mouth of the Sawa [5].
4. Whether the Bulgarian rule was already extending to the north from the central Danube in 796, i.e. before Krum, extended, is according to Zlatarski, Istortija 11, 248 note 2, likely, but not certain. This could be deduced from the message of Monachus Sangallensis (MGH. SS. II 748):
“A Bulgaribus vero ideo manum retraxit, quia videlicet, Hunnis exstinctis, regno Francorum nihil nocituri viderentur.”
"From Bulgaria and so forth withdrawn, because the Huns were extinguished, and that the French would not hurt."
5. According to the so-called Hungarian anonymous, the area between the Danube and Tisza up to the Ruthenian and Polish borders was conquered by the great Keanus (= canoe “Khan”), the Bulgarian leader (after Moravcsik = Krum). He had settled Slavs and Bulgarians there (Scriptores rerum Hungaricarum tempore ducum regumque stirpis Arpadianae Gestarum, ed. Em. Szentpétery I, Budapestini 1937, 48, 10-13):
“Terram vero, que iacet inter Thisciam et Danubium, preoccupavisset sibi Keanus magnus, dux Bulgarie, avus Salani ducis, usque ad confinium Ruthenorum et Polonorum et fecisset ibi habitare Sclavos et Bulgares”.
"Earth, however, that lies between the Danube and the Tisza, preoccupavisset Keanus great leader of Bulgaria, grandfather Salan, as far as its Ruthenians and Poles and the Bulgarians, Slavs had settled there."
The country was allegedly conquered by the Bulgarians after Attila's death (ibid. 51, 17-20):
“Qumodo mortuo Athila rege magnus Keanus, preavus ducis Salani, dux de Bulgarie egressus auxilio et consilio imperatoris Grecorum preoccupaverat terram illam.”
"Attila are now dead king great Kean, préavis leader Salani, the leader of Bulgaria left to help the commander of the Greeks had seized land."
For this, Gy. Moravcsik, The Hungarian Anonymous on the Bulgarians and Greeks, in: RESEE VIII (1969) 167-174. See also Fehér, Relations 132-135, s. also Kollautz, Franconia 266; Cf. also V. Gjuselev, Bulgarian-Frankish relations in the first half of the IX. Century, in: Byzantinobulgarica II (1966) 15-39.
237:
One of his first worries was to improve the financial situation through a series of measures to increase state revenues and to strengthen the army [6]. The numerous Slavic population of Greece, which in time threatened to turn it into a Slavic country, forced the emperor to turn his attention to these Slavs. A revolt of the Slavs in the Peloponnese at the beginning of the 9th century. gave him cause to deal a decisive blow to them. The Slavs plundered the Greek population and attacked (805) Patras. However, they suffered a defeat [7]. Since then the measures to restore the Greek element in the Peloponnese began. In order to dilute the Slavic population, Nikephoros transplanted a very large number of the inhabitants of Asia Minor Issues to the Slavic countries of Greece [8]. After Nikephoros had taken other measures to strengthen the empire, he now turned his attention outwardly to the two neighboring states of Byzantium: the Arabs and the Bulgarians.
He first tried his luck against the Arabs. The tributes that Empress Irene had undertaken to pay were suspended immediately after he took office. The Arabs then began to invade the Byzantine Empire again and conquered several important border fortresses. Nikephoros (806) was forced to make a humiliating peace agreement.
A year later, in 807, he turned against the Bulgarians. He broke the existing peace and went out against them. Apparently he wanted to regain the reputation he had lost in the Arab war.
8. P. Charanis, Nicephoros I, the saviour of Greece from the Slavs (810 A.D.), in: Byzantina-Metabyzantina 1 (1946) 75-92, besonders 86: "Nicephoros I gave to the Slavs of the Peloponnesus a mortal blow... Nicephoros I saved Greece from becoming slavonized”.
239:
When Nikephorus found out about the fall of Serdika, he immediately went out against Krum and only for appearance (δῆθεν), as Theophanes reports, i.e. H. to save his reputation. That took place on the third day of Holy Week. However, the emperor could not start a fight with the Bulgarians. In his embassy sent to the capital, he assured the citizens, like Constantine V, that he had celebrated ///Easter in the camp (ἐν τῇ αὐλῇ) [13] of Krum///. On the road to Serdika, Nikephorus met the officers who had escaped the slaughter and who pleaded with him for mercy and impunity. However, he refused this request, whereupon they were forced to go over to the enemy. Among them was the Spatharios Eumathios, a skilled mechanic.
13. Theophan. 485, 12-14. Bury, Eastern Empire 341 and others understand the capital of Bulgaria as αὐλή, whereas Zlatarski, Istorija I 1, 253 Note 1. This interpretation cannot be correct. The war report of the emperor Nikephoros deserves no trust. According to Theophanes' words, Nikephorus set out from Constantinople on the third day of Holy Week. So he only had 4 days until Easter. In four days with an army he could neither cover the distance Constantinople-Serdika, which today is about 580 km on the asphalt motorway, nor the Constantinople-Pliska, which is no less than 500 km. It should be noted in particular that the route passed over paved passes that did not allow rapid advance. ///Therefore, αὐλή here means the camp or tent of Krums rather than its capital.///
250:
When Emperor Michael saw that Krum was carrying out his threat and he was unable to counter it himself, he convened a council on November 1st, at which the patriarch, the bishops of Nikaia and Kyzikos, Theodoros, the abbot of the Studion monastery and other notable people attended to re-examine Krum's peace proposal. The emperor, the patriarch and the bishops agreed to make a peace. Theodoros Studites and the others took the opposite point of view.
254:
50. Über die Blachernen Janin, Constantinople 124-128 und 303-304
258:
When Krum arrived at Adrianople, where he had left his brother to besiege the city, he intensified the siege [72]. He used siege engines and after several days the city fell into his hands. Its inhabitants, who died of hunger and hoped for no help, surrendered. Manuel, the bishop of Adrianople, suffered a great shame as the most respected of all prisoners or ///perhaps as a substitute for the emperor.///
259:
///According to Byzantine triumphal customs, the bishop was thrown to the ground and Krum stepped on his neck [73]./// In the besieged Adrianople there was apparently no high military figure on whom the custom of triumph could be exercised. The inhabitants of Adrianople, including the parents of the future emperor Basil I [74] and whose number was 40,000 [75] according to a hagiographic source, and 10,000 according to Georgios Continnatus [76], were after the Byzantine model with all their possessions moved to Bulgaria across the Danube [77]. With this, Krum aimed on the one hand to reduce the Byzantine population in Thrace, on the other hand to create a military border settlement in the area threatened by raids.
73. Synaxarium 415, hierzu Beševliev, PI 270-2272
273:
18. In addition to the Synaxarium and Menologium Basilii, a mass that was discovered and published by E. Follieri (Un 'acoluta inedita per i martiri di Bulgaria dell' anno 813, in; Byzantion XXXIII, 1963, 71-85) is important because it has some Brings details of the execution of Christians in Bulgaria. According to this source, the executed were: Τίμιοι ἱερεῖς καὶ ἱεράρχαι, στρατηγοὶ καὶ ἄρχοντες πρεσβύτεροί τε καὶ νέοι ... σὺν γυ20ναιξὶν (p. 81-116). They were killed with clubs and swords (Τοῖς ῥοπάλοις συντριβόμενοι καὶ ὠμοτάτως τεμνόμενοι ξίφει p. 77, v. 39-40). Manuel, the Bishop of Adrianople, was split in two after his hands had first been cut off. The Petros has cut off his head and ripped the Leon's belly (Μανουήλ ὁ ἱερώτατος τμηθεὶς τὰς χεῖρας ἐδιχοτομήθη, καὶ Πέτρος ἱερομάρτυς τὴν κάραν τέτμηται, Λέων τε ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς ἀναρρήγνυται γαστέρα καρτερικῶς, p 77, V. 45-50). The bodies of those executed were 40 days unburied and leave the dogs Frass (καὶ ἐν ἡμέραις πλείοσιν ἄταφοι κείμενοι S. 77, V. 41-42; Τῶν γενναίων ἀθλητῶν ἐν τεσσαράκοντα ὅλαις ἡμέραις ὄντα τὰ θεῖα σώματα κυσὶν εἰς βρῶσιν ἐκδεδομένα S. 82, V. 146-149). One of the executed, Petros, suffered death together with his wife (p. 79, v. 58 f.). In the Mass (Stichera and Canon) over 40 names are mentioned, among which the following 6 names deserve special attention: Ἀρτάβασδος, Ἀσφήρ (p. 76 and 210), Βαρδάνης, Κούπεργος (p. 76, v. 27), Λουβομηρὸς (p 84, v. 217) and Χοτόμηρος (p. 76, v. 231) The bearers of the names Artavasdos and Vardanes are Armenians who probably belonged to the Armenian colony settled by Emperor Constantine V in Thrace (see here p. 206) . The names Lubomir and Hotomir are Slavic and therefore their bearers were Slavs. The name Asfir represents a previously unused form of Asfar = Aspar (see F. Justi, Iranisches Namenbuch, Marburg 1906, 46 see above Aspar). Its carrier could either again be an Armenian or a proto-Bulgarian. The transition a> i (cf. ‘Hρνάχ = Irnik, or Isperih) should speak in favor of the last conjecture. Compare but Ispor from Aspar with o from a. The name Koupergos is strongly reminiscent of the proto-Bulgarian name Kouber. The ending -gos, which could be the Iranian hypocoretic suffix -agos, and the numerous Iranian names such as Abragos, Aspurgos, Mourdagos, Maniagos etc. (see L. Zgusta, The personal names of Greek cities on the northern Black Sea coast, Praha 1955) the identification questionable. Both the Slavic and possibly Proto-Bulgarian names show that Christianity had already gained a foothold under the Bulgarians and Slavs. Most of the Christians who were executed are clergy, which suggests that their main fault was that they preached Christianity among the Bulgarians. In addition, her execution could perhaps also be understood as a response to the atrocities committed by Emperor Leon V in Bulgaria (see here p. 269).
275:
After the brief reign of Ditzevg, Omurtag ascended the throne of the Bulgarian khans probably in March 815. He was, as all sources agree, the son of Krum. Under the new Khan, the persecution of Christians was not only not stopped, but continued with increasing strength. In a sermon, Theodoros von Studion [1] announced that the Christians who were captured by Bulgaria, including those who fell into the hands of the Bulgarians during the defeat of Emperor Nikephoros (811) [2], were to be used during the great Lent to eat meat necessary before Easter. Those who defy the order should be killed. The greater part of the prisoners obeyed the order. It goes without saying that one could not really make the Byzantine prisoners apostate from Christianity and harmless in this way, or force them to break off their relations with Byzantium.
Finally, among the signatures of a submission by the Syrian clergy in the files of the Constantinople Council of 536, that of Andrew, abbot of the Monastery of the Besser [9], which according to R. Janin [10] in the western part of Constantinople near the Church of the Holy Mocios lay [11].
282:
Im Herbst 822 mischte sich auch Omurtag in den Kampf ein. Sei es aufgrund eines Vertrages oder mit der Einwilligung, bzw. auf die Bitte des Kaisers Michael II., fiel Omurtag in Thrakien ein und kam bis Herakleia in das Feld Kidukt ( = Aquaeduct, s. hier S. 252).
287:
Omurtag was one of the most distinctive personalities in Bulgarian history. Through his love of peace, skill and level-headed domestic and foreign policy, which brought him great success, he proved to be a great statesman. By replacing the federal and tribal principle with the centralist in the structure and administration of the state, he created a healthy and strong unitary state, the stability of which was clearly evident in the events that followed. To the north, Bulgaria roughly encompassed present-day Romania within its borders. In the west the rivers Theiss and Morava formed the border [34]. The border continued south west of Serdika (j. Sofia), turned east and reached the Black Sea at Debeltum, with Philippopel remaining in Byzantine hands. In terms of importance and power, Bulgaria under Omurtag took third place in Europe after Byzantium and the Frankish Empire.
34. P. Ratkos, K otázke hranice Vel’ky Moravy a Bulharska, in: Historicky Časopis (Bratislava) III (1965) 213 f.; J. Linderski, Alfred the Great and Ancient Geography, in: Speculum 39 (1964) 3, 437
<-- Важна! Намерена.
301:
The Bulgarians are sometimes identified especially by the later Byzantine writers with ancient peoples that have already disappeared: Μυρμιδόνες (see Moravcsik, II 207), Μυσοί (ibid 207-208), Παίονες (ibid 243), Σκύθαι (ibid 280-283). This identification is mostly based, as Moravcsik rightly noted [5], on the equality of place of residence and geographical location. Of course, such identifications have absolutely no value in correctly determining the ethnicity of the Proto-Bulgarians.
... There is also no lack of attempts to explain the popular name “Bulgarians”. It comes either from the name of a leader “Bulgaros” (Genesios 85, 22-86, 1, Leon Diak. 103, 22-23) [6] or from the river Volga (Nik. Gregoras, Hist. 1 26, 19- 21).
310:
The theory of the identity of the Proto-Bulgarians with the Huns was particularly fervently defended by the classical philologist D. Dečev. According to this scholar, the Proto-Bulgarians were “the Attilan Huns and their descendants” [40].
“The Attilan Huns did not disappear soon after Attila's death ... They continued to exist by renaming themselves Bulgarians, as Zeuss and Müllenhoff have already correctly guessed. After the Attilan Huns, under Ernach's leadership, organized a new Hunnic state in the period between 470-482 with the help of the tribes closest to them, the Kutrigurs and the Utigurs, they contributed to the fact that their new popular name “Bulgarians” was established in the course of the Time was taken up by these tribes ”[41].
After him, the Unnogunduroi, i.e. the Hunnugurs [42]. Dečev presented the same evidence as Zeuss and his followers. Finally, the view of the origin of the Bulgarians from the Huns is also represented by Fr. Altheim and O. Pritsak [43].
40. Der ostgermanische Ursprung des bulgarischen Volksnamens, in: Zeitschrift für Ortsnamenforschung II (1927) 207. The same view with F. Altheim, Hunnen V 309: “Die türkischen Bulgaren sind die Fortsetzer von Attilas Hunnen gewesen”.
41. op. cit. 212
311:
Gy. Moravcsik [46] initially denied the identity of the folk names Onogur and Utigur, but assumed that the Kutrigurs and Utigurs were closely related to the Onogurs (ie the Proto-Bulgarians after the author) and that the Bulgarians living under the Avars " are identical to the defeated kutrigures who are under Avar domination ”. D. Simonyi expressed himself against the identity of the Kutriguren with the Bulgarians who had appeared since 480 [47]. He noted that the Kutrigurs “are only mentioned in the sources between 547-568” and that the Kutriguren's identification with the Bulgarians “does not correspond to the sources”. The same researcher also rejected G. Nagy's theory that the Kutrigurs came to Pannonia for the most part with the Avars and that the Pannonian Bulgarians were their descendants. According to him, the thesis that the Bulgarians Asparuchs were of kutrigur origin is also irrelevant [48]. A. Burmov [49] also declared himself against the identity of the Kutrigurs [50] and Utigurs with the proto-Bulgarians proposed by Zlatarski.
363:
d. The remaining deities
Theophanes Continuatus reports that the Bulgarians called on the dogs as witnesses when taking the oath, to which the pagans also used to make sacrifices [36]. The same thing is mentioned by the Archbishop of Achrida, Theophylactus. After him, the Bulgarians worshiped the sun, moon and stars. Some of them, the source continues, even used to offer sacrifices to the dogs [37]. The news comes from a time when the Proto-Bulgarians and Slavs were almost melted together, so it is uncertain whether they are referring to the Proto-Bulgarians or the Slavs, especially since the latter is known to be the sun, moon and worshiped the stars [38]. Their cult is also well attested for some Altaic peoples, so that the worship of the heavenly bodies mentioned could also be present among the Proto-Bulgarians. The Shan-yü of the pre-Christian Huns was “created by heaven and earth, instituted by the sun and moon”. The Uighurs say: “The famous, wise Khagan who got his dignity from the moon” [39].
36. Theoph. Cont. rec. J. Bekker, 31
37. Migne PG 126, 189, 28: Οἱ ( = Βούλγαροι) Χριστοῦ μὲν ὄνομα οὐδ’ ᾔδεσαν. Σκυθικῇ δὲ ἀφροσύνῃ δουλεύοντες ἡλίῳ τε καὶ, σελήνῃ καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς ἄστροις· εἰσὶ δέ, οἵ καὶ τοῖς κυσὶ θυσίας προσέφερον.
38. Fontes historiae religiones Slavicae, coll. C.H. Meyer, Berolini 1931, 21; alii solem alii lunam et sidera colebant [ = some sun, moon and stars were among others]. Vgl. G. Krek, Einleitung in die slawische Literaturgeschichte 2 Aufl., Graz 1887, 390; K.H. Meyer, Slawische Religion, in: C. Clemen, die Religion der Erde, München 1927, 268-69
365:
419/5000
f. The idols and shrines
The 41st answer of Pope Nicholas I mentions that the Bulgarians had idols which they worshiped and to which they made sacrifices [53]. This is confirmed by Theophylactus of Achrida, who also reports of sanctuaries [54]. According to the Gruzinischen vita of Saint Georgios Hagiorites, the Bulgarians venerated an ancient female statue in the hinterland of Thessalonica [55].
366:
The Chinese sources for the pre-Christian Huns report that one of their kings used a golden image when making sacrifices to heaven [56]. The Byzantine chronicler Malalas [57] relates that the Huns who lived near the Bosporos had images made of silver and electron.
55. Vie de St. Géorges d'Hagiorite, in: Anal. Boll XXXVI-XXXVII (1917-1919), 104 36, hierzu T. Gerasimov, Svedenije za edin mramoren idol usw., in: Festschrift Romanski, Sofia 1960, 557-561; V. Beševliev, Zur Frage der slawischen Einsiedlungen im Histerland von Thessalonike im 10. Jahrnundert, in: Serta slavica in memoriam Aloisii Schmaus, München 1971, 37-41 mit Lit.
56. De Groot, Die Hunnen 120 und 121
57. Malalas Chronographia ex rec. L. Dindorfii, Bonnae 1831, 432, 5-13
377:
According to their news, the Byzantine Emperor Leon V performed the Bulgarian oath rites when the 30-year peace treaty was signed and the Bulgarians performed the Byzantine, i.e. christian. According to Vita Nicephori [117] the emperor poured water from a cup onto the ground, knocked horse saddles over with his own hands, and lifted grass in the air and cursed himself through all these actions. According to Theophanes Continuatus [118] the Byzantine emperor slaughtered dogs and used them as overseers and witnesses of those who were discussed and negotiated. He also did not hate to use the word to confirm or to express what they are inspired by. At first glance it seems that the two accounts speak of different things and therefore do not refer to the same event. On closer inspection of the information contained therein, however, it turns out that they communicate different moments of the oath and therefore complement each other. Every oath is basically a magical act, the effect of which the swearer wishes to have against himself in the event that he has sworn wrongly [119]. The author of the first report expressly notes that the emperor curses himself through the acts described (διὰ πάντων τούτων ἑαυτὸν ἐπαρώμενον). So all actions had this meaning. The pouring of water onto the earth can be interpreted as a libation, which was not unknown to the Turkic peoples [120].
381:
The message of the Liudprand about Baian, the son of Tsar Symeon, is probably connected with shamanism, according to which he could transform himself into a wolf or another animal [140].
Baian, who gave up his Christian name Benjamin and ostentatiously wore the Bulgarian costume [141], was obviously a follower of the old Bulgarian faith. He probably disguised himself as a wolf or another animal in order to gain greater magical power [142].
140. Liudprandi Antapodosis III 29: Oui ( = Symeon) duos filios habuit, nimm nomine Baianum, alterum, qui nunc usque superest potenterque Bulgaris principatur, nomine Petrum. Baianum autem adeo foere magicam didicisse, ex homine subito fieri lupum quamvecumque cerneres feream. Hierzu K.M. Menges, Igor’Tale 16
141. Theoph. Cont. 412, 2
384:
The pre-combat magical acts mentioned in the 35th answer are confirmed by the report of the Byzantine chronicler Johannes Zonaras, according to which in 519 the Pannonian Bulgarians inflicted a crushing defeat on the Byzantines because they used spells and magical acts (see here p. 81 ). According to John of Antioch [152] the Huns, which the rebel Vitalian brought with him and among whom were Bulgarians, caused such a great darkness (probably the solar eclipse in 514) that the Byzantine troops' eyes with darkness covered so that they got into sloping abysses and perished there [151].
440:
The oldest Romanian anonymous chronicle of Moldova is written in Bulgarian.
454:
The Proto-Bulgarian inscriptions also raise purely linguistic questions. The Greek language of the inscriptions is not the literary language of the time. It shows all the characteristics of the colloquial language of the broad vocabulary of the time. The Proto-Bulgarian inscriptions therefore also have a special place in the history of the Greek language in this respect. Their language is one of today's northern Greek dialects. The Greek who worked as a translator probably came from the ancient Greek population found in northeastern Bulgaria. He was without a doubt a Christian. Whether he was also a monk is unknown, but it is very likely. Before the Proto-Bulgarian inscriptions became known to science, there was a dispute about the origin of the Bulgarian form of the word grăk “Greek”. The word can neither come from the Greek Γραικὸς (lies grekos) nor from the Latin graecus = grekus), since the sound e was preserved in Old Bulgarian and would not have become ă. Therefore the assumption was made that a Greek form Γρικὸς with i probably existed on the Balkan Peninsula, which was regularly changed to ă in Old Bulgarian. This assumption is fully confirmed by the Proto-Bulgarian inscriptions in which the name of the Greeks is actually exactly the same [16].
466:
In building inscription no.55, the palace in Pliska is soon called ὁ παλαιὸς οἶκος (z. 4-5: τὸν παλεὸν ὖκον), soon ἡ αὐλὴ ἡ ἀρχαῖα (z. 17-18: τὴν αὐαλίν ... τὴν ἀρχέαλίν ... τὴν ἀρχέαλίν ... τὴν ἀ. The two terms are therefore used synonymously. The Greek word αὐλή means, as is well known, from Homer until today “court or apartment” in the courtyard [16], later “ruler's residence [17], royal court, Hofburg [18] or just“ palace ”, cf. Ἡ κτιζομένη αὐλὴ τοῦ ἀμῖρ Ἀλμουμνῖν [19].
467:
The Latin word aula, borrowed from the Greek, has the same meaning. The Greek word αὐλὴ has undergone the same change in meaning as the German “Hof”, French “cour” and the old Bulgarian “dvor”. Αὐλὴ as the ruler's seat means a building complex in a courtyard, as was the city center or the courtyard of Pliska, which was surrounded by the brick wall. The same word is used to refer to the residence of the Bulgarian ruler in the Byzantine sources. An example for. The fortune teller Sabatios, whose prophecy is preserved in the epistle of the patriarch Christophoros (+ 836) to the emperor Theophilos (829-842) [20], prophesies the emperor that he will put his sword in the copper threshing floor of the Bulgarian ruler's residence (εἰς τααν χαλωνῆν ἅλλων τῆς αὐλῆς αὐτῶν) will strike. Perhaps that meant the pagan temple inside or outside the brick walls.
The purely Greek word αὐλὴ has been erroneously declared to be proto-Bulgarian because of the echo of the Turkish aγyl (see here pp. 401-402) [21] by referring to passages like Theophanes 436, 21-24, but where αὐλαί die The vast farms with the associated apartment and stable mean that Slavic villages are known to consist of.
513:
The personal names given in the new French and English translations do not represent a true transcription, but a presumed identification based on the breviary.
W. N. Zlatarski [8] was the first to draw the researchers' attention to the message in the Chronicle of John of Nikiu. He said the news was a welcome addition to the information about Kubrat in the breviary. Zlatarski's view, which was well received by many, was decidedly rejected by I. Smirnov [9]. According to him, the names Quetrâdas and Kuernâka must not be identified with Kubrat and Organas. He also pointed out that, according to the chronicle, Qatrâdes is said to have been in Kapadokian, where he had a position and was a Christian. As a result, Qetrâdes and Kubrat cannot be identical to one another. G. Balasčev [10] and A. Burmov [11] followed I. Smirnov's criticism.
In order to better understand and correctly assess the two messages, a comparison of the information about Kubrat in the chronicle with the information in the Braviarium seems inevitable. In the Chronicle, Kubrat is introduced with the words: “... Kubratos, chief of the Huns, the nephew of Organa”, that is, just like in the breviary: Κούβρατος ὁ ἀνεψιὸς Ὀργανᾷ ὁ τῶν Οὐνογουνδούρων κι difference, that Kubrat only with this difference the chronicle “chief of the Huns” in the breviary is ὁ τῶν Οὐνογουνδούρων κύριος. The term “nephew of Organa” in the chronicle is quite strange when you consider that Kubrat grew up at the imperial court and was therefore a well-known person in the city. Organas, on the other hand, which does not appear anywhere else in the chronicle, was hardly known and the mention of his name could therefore not contribute to better publicizing the Kubrat.
514:
Things are completely different in the breviary. Here the designation ὁ ἀνεψιὸς Ὀργανᾶ is necessary, since Kubrat was otherwise unknown to the readers and no other characteristics existed. The submission of the breviary was probably a city chronicle in which the events were listed under the relevant year, as can be seen from the text of the breviary itself [12]. In this chronicle, Organas is undoubtedly mentioned in connection with other events which reported more about him and made him known. This message, which requires the information about Kubrat in the breviary, was not included in his work by the Patriarch Nikephoros.
After the breviary, Kubrat concluded a peace treaty with the emperor Herakleios through an embassy after the Avars had been driven out of his country, which the two rulers kept until their death. This was followed by friendly relations, with the emperor sending gifts to the Kubrat (ἔπεμψε) and giving him the patrician award. From the words διαπρεσβεύεται and ἔπεμψε in Nikephoros it is clear that Kubrat was not in Constantinople, but the making of the peace and the handing over of presents by ambassadors happened. According to the chronicle, however, Kubrat's friendship with Herakleios dates back to his childhood, when he was still at the imperial court in the capital, where he was converted to Christianity and grew up. The chronicle does not know the great honor of Kubrat through the award of the patrician dignity, and the breviary, on the other hand, his conversion to Christianity.
J. Marquart [13] has suggested that Kubrat was sent to Constantinople as a hostage in his youth. This assumption was rightly rejected by G. Fehér [14].
515:
After Μ. I. Artamonov [15]
“It is also very doubtful that Kubrat von Organa (= Mohodu) stayed in Constantinople in 619 when he visited this city. If the above mentioned mentions about Kubrat's lifetime are correct, then he was not only not a child this year, but also not a youth, he was already around 35 years old. Kubrat got to Constantinople very early, but when and under what circumstances remains unknown ”.
If Kubrat had really grown up at the imperial court of Herakleios, it could not have been earlier than after this emperor had come to power in 610 and taken Martina as his wife in 613, since he showed a particular fondness for the children of the latter and not for those of Eudokia. Therefore the assumption of J. Marquart [16] that Kubrat could possibly have come to Constantinople in the time of Phocas is completely absurd.
The chronicle reports: “And after he had been baptized with life-giving baptism he overcame all the barbarians and heathens through virtue of holy baptism”. V. N. Zlatarski [17] related these words to the driving away of the Avars by Kubrat. However, they do not fit well with the mentioned event. The driving out of the Avars can hardly be described as a victory or victories over all barbarians and pagans. There are evidently many fights from which Kubrat emerged victorious. So who were these barbarians and pagans? They were, without a doubt, the barbaric and pagan peoples with whom the Byzantines waged wars. If this is correct, then Kubrat was not a Hun ruler but a leader of Byzantine troops or a Byzantine officer. For one can hardly call the victor of all barbarians and pagans one whose own troops were themselves barbarians and pagans. So the words of the Chronicle are more appropriate for one who fights on the side of Christians.
516:
The chronicle tells us that
“... the troops in the province of Capadocia ... produced a letter to the following effect: 'This letter was sent by Martina and Pyrrhus ... to David ... to make a vigorous war, and to take Martina to be his wife, and to put down the sons of Constantine ... 'And when the inhabitants of Byzantium heard this news, they said:' This project is concerned with Kubratos ... '. ”
It is not very clear what is meant by “this project”: the writing of the wrong letter or its contents. Apart from what is right, it remains incomprehensible why Kubrat instead of wrong letters or. has not vigorously tried to militarily intervene in unworkable plans in order to really protect the interests of the Empress Martina and her son Herakleonas.
According to the chronicle, the uprising of the people and the troops in Constantinople was a consequence of the “this evil report”. It is also not very clear what is meant by “this evil report”. Does it mean the bogus letter and its contents or the revolt of the Byzantine troops in Asia Minor?
If one reads the chronicle carefully, the passage about Kubrat gives the impression of an interpolation that has nothing to do with the events. The Kubrat, who is shown in the chronicle as the author of the bogus letter or the project mentioned therein, as a friend and supporter of Empress Martina and her son and who is said to have caused the uprising in the capital through his machinations, no longer plays a role in the further development of events and is no longer mentioned in the chronicle neither as a defender of the empress nor as someone who tried at least to defend her, although as a ruler of the Hun he had to dispose of considerable military power. The man referred to as Kubrat in the chronicle was probably a very powerless person and not a Hun ruler.
W. N. Zlatarski has already noted the similarity between the Chronicle and the Breviary [18].
517-18:
According to this scholar, Nikephoros did not use John of Nikiu, but both chroniclers drew their information from a common source [19]. In addition, Zlatarski claimed without providing any evidence that John of Nikiu was more credible. The words "And between him and the elder Heraclius great affection and peace had prevailed" are strongly reminiscent of σπένδεται εἰρήνην μετ ’αὐτοῦ, ἥνπερ ἐφύλαξεν μέχρι τέλους τῆς ἑαυτῶν ζωῆς.
...
The distinguished Bulgarian historian has partially misunderstood this news. He assumed [22] that they were only aware of the baptism of the archons of the Hun ruler, who was not mentioned by name, that he had been baptized earlier and that he had received the patrician dignity at that time. He believed that the use of the perfect τετίμηκε instead of the aorist was a confirmation of his view. Unfortunately, he missed the fact that the perfect in late Greek or in the Byzantine chroniclers is often used instead of aorist [23]. The explanatory patricle γὰρ “because”, “namely” refers to the words ἀξιώμασι ἐφιλοτιμήσατο, which means that the award of the patrician title took place at the same time as the distribution of the imperial gifts. Here the second version is clearer. Only a dignity ἀξιώμαχι is reported. W. N. Zlatarski also understood the verb δέχομαι in its usual meaning “hospitably receive”. The verb here has the ecclesiastical meaning “to receive a baptized person from the baptismal font”, i.e. “To be a godfather” or “baptize”, as can be seen very clearly from the words ἐκ τῆς ἁγίας κολυμβήθρας ὑπεδέξατο in the second version. Accordingly, the translation in question would read roughly as follows:
“... he asked the emperor to initiate them into Christian teaching. He baptized him with joy and the Rhomean archons adopted the Hunnic archons through the divine bath (= holy baptism) and the wives of the former adopted the wives of the latter. To those initiated into Christianity he amicably distributed imperial honorary gifts and dignities, because he honored this ruler with the title of patrician ... = ... and he asked the emperor to baptize him and his companions and give them enlightenment through the divine bath. And Theodoros, the brother of the emperor, received him from the holy baptismal font, and the Rhomean archons received the Hunnic archons, as did the wives of the former, the wives of the latter. Those so enlightened were honored with imperial gifts and dignity. Because their ruler was appointed Patricius. "
519:
The baptism, which C. de Boor dates to the year 619, was probably not a private matter for individuals, but the conversion of a Hunnic people to Christianity. So first the ruler and his high dignitaries were baptized, who would later see to the baptism of the whole people. They probably returned accompanied by Christian priests who were to continue teaching the converts the Christian doctrine and baptizing the Hunnic people. The definite article ὁ at ὁ τῶν Οὔννων τοῦ ἔθνους κύριος or just ὁ τῶν Οὔννων κύριος shows that both the Hunnic ruler and the Huns themselves were either already mentioned in the source of the breviary or were well known, so that a more detailed designation is unnecessary.
W. N. Zlatarski [24] and Gy. Moravcsik [25] were of the opinion that the Bulgarians were meant by the name Huns, referring to the fact that the names “Huns” and “Bulgarians” were synonymous with Nikephoros. A. Burmov [26] firmly rejected this claim as unfounded. Both places at Nikephoros (33, 13-14) and 69, 3) where the names Huns and Bulgarians appear to be synonymous, are, as we have shown elsewhere [27], spoiled. In both places τῶν Οὐνογουνδούρων Βουλγάρων, as in Theophanes [28], who better reproduces the original wording of the common template, and τοὺς Οὐνογουνδύρους Βουλγάρους can be read.///J. Marquart [29], on the other hand, assumed with good reason that the Huns in question can be identified with those “in whose land Herakleios had to withdraw from the Persian army leaders Sahrbaraz and Sahin in 625 (Theophanes, p. 310, 19)”. ///
520:
///The Byzantine emperor probably went to these Huns because they had good relations with him and were baptized by him in Constantinople six years ago. The same Huns are probably also meant, whose bishop is listed in a diocese list from the 8th century [30].///
Regarding the personal name of the baptized Hun ruler, V. Zlatarski [31] assumed that it was identical to Kubrat, which not only was not approved by any researcher, but also decidedly rejected by A. Burmov [32] and M. Artamonov [33] has been. The identification with Organas, the Ju. Kulakovskij [34] and Gy. Moravcsik [35] have suggested. According to J. Marquart [36] it is also possible, but according to M. Artamonov [37] it is not very likely. However, if this identification is correct, it would be easy to explain why Organas was a well-known figure in Constantinople. But then it should not have been a Unogundure or Bulgarian. The word ἀνεψιός means, as is well known, both “brother and sister son. Organas' sister could therefore be Kubrat's mother, as Artamonov [38] assumes.
The news about the baptism of the Hun ruler with his high dignitaries in the breviary seems to shimmer through in part in the passage about Kubrat in the chronicle: “... chief of the Huns ... was baptized in the city of Constantinople and received into the Christian community ... ”= ... Ὁ τῶν Οὔννων ... κύριος ... εἰς Βυζάντιον ... μυεῖσθαι δὲ τὰ Χρισταιανῶν ... αὐτὸν ὑποδέχεται (= ἐκδμβοβ) .γαςς ὑκδεοβ ἁρταέξς ποεοβ κρταέξς ποετβ τρταέξς ποεοβ κρταέξς ὑκδεοβ).
30. Moravcsik, Mission 9
521:
In the original work by Johannes von Nikiu, which has passed through many hands, the passage about Kubrat was probably very different and had nothing to do with Kubrat. It was said that a small child of Hunnic descent was baptized and raised at the imperial court. It was very fond of the Empress Martina and well known as a great schemer in the capital, so that one thought of him as soon as the bogus letter became known. The passage was later given its current form by a copyist or translator who knew the breviary. To a certain extent he supplemented the original work of Johannes von Nikiu with the two messages from the breviary when he mixed them up and combined them with what he found in the original work about the Hunnic child. The episode about this child was so insignificant and unimportant that neither Nikephoros nor Theophanes thought it necessary to mention it. The Unogundurs were probably unknown to the interpolator and he replaced them with the more well-known Huns or could not possibly resolve the abbreviation of the common name correctly.
The news of Nikephorus comes without a doubt from the city chronicle of Constantinople, to which he, living in the capital itself and as a patriarch, had easy access as John of Nikiu, who wrote his world chronicle far away in Lower Egypt. Be that as it may, the dates about Kubrat's life in the chronicle are very dubious and should therefore not be taken seriously.