5
Georgios Kardaras
If we look at ancient and Byzantine sources, there is a multitude of characterizations about the Danube, especially its lower part (Ἵστρος/Ister), including fictions, exaggerations, literary expressions, etc. and emphasizing specific features (the greatest of all rivers, savage, barbarian, cold, etc.) as well as its role, either as barrier or as intermediary.1 A historiographical commonplace, indicative of the ignorance about regions and peoples beyond the river, is the Herodotian reference to the region north of it as a desert.2 Its role, whether that of a barrier to hostile nations or the natural political and cultural frontier of Rome, is more often listed in the Roman and early Byzantine sources in accordance with the concept of Romanitas, namely, the limit between civilization and barbaricum.3 The need for the frontier’s protection led to the development of an extensive limes along the river, combined with the construction of a road network and bridges connecting the southern with the northern bank of the Lower Danube.4 Up to the 6th century, the Empire kept under control certain bridgeheads on the northern bank that had a key role for the military and trade.5 In the 3rd and 4th centuries, the Danube region became more familiar because of people’s migrations and their settlement, mostly the Goths, on the northern bank of the river. Consecutive raids and pressure on the Danubian limes turned the interest of the eastern Roman Empire, as well as that of historiography, in this direction. Gradually, the historiographic stereotypes for the northern barbarians were mixed with real and direct knowledge due to contacts or clashes with them.6
Concerning trade activity, the Byzantine-Gothic peace treaty of Noviodunum in 369 restricted both trade and markets to only two unknown cities on the bank of the Danube. One of the reasons for that decision was the activity of merchant spies in the free markets of the river.7 The stipulation that limited trade was enforced with a decree of 370–375, which prohibited the export of weapons, wine, olive oil and other liquid products to barbaricum, aiming mostly to suppress illegal trade.8 In the mid-6th century, in the shadow of numerous invasions from the north, mostly by the Slavs and nomadic peoples, a great defensive work was undertaken from the 530s to 554 that covered both the Danubian limes and the Balkans’ interior, especially at some key points of the road network.9 In Justinian’s era too, the Danube continued to be considered in a negative light. According to an edict issued in 538, officers who refused to assist the augustales in collecting taxes in Egypt faced being transferred north of the Danube with their forces as punishment “to watch at the frontier of that place”.10
Having caused the beginning of the so-called People’s Migration in 375, the Huns formed a temporary hegemony in modern Romania in c. 390.11 During that phase, we have information about Hunnic raids south of the Danube, for example, in the winter of 404–405 or in 422 in Thrace, possibly followed by treaties with the Byzantines12 and a limited collaboration, such as the so-called “episode of Gainas”.13 In c. 422, the Huns migrated to the Carpathian Basin.14 The second phase of their kingdom, although also short, was full of events during the reign of Attila (435–453), who disputed Byzantine sovereignty over the Danube region. The first major attacks by Attila in 441–442 destroyed important frontier cities such as Sirmium, Singidunum, Viminacium, Margus and Ratiaria, as well as others to the south.15 With another raid in 447, the Huns capturred Ratiaria, defeated the Byzantines near the river Utus in Lower Moesia and captured several cities in Thrace. According to the new treaty, the Byzantines had to send back fugitives and to pay debts from 444, which totaled 6,000 pounds of gold, while the annual tribute was fixed at 2,100 pounds. Also, the Byzantines had to pay 12 gold coins for every captive in the Hunnic kingdom and could not to accept any Hun fugitive.16 With the exception of a few finds in the sector between Lederata and Aquae, the Hunnic attacks caused great damage to the frontier forts and the temporary collapse of limes on the western Lower Danube until the beginning of the 6th century.17
After their alliance with Justinian in 558, in a short time the Avars succeeded in subduing several peoples, such as the Onogurs, the Zaloi (of Hunnic origin), the Sabirs and the Antes. In 562, they settled to the northeast of the Lower Danube, likely under threat from the western Turks.18 The Avars demanded settlement within the Byzantine Empire, in Scythia Minor; however, the negotiations failed as Justinian offered them settlement in a part of Pannonia II. For Byzantium, maintaining the Lower Danube frontier was a way to ensure against attacks on the Balkan provinces and Constantinople, while the Avars regarded the Lower Danube as a possible area of settlement under the pretext of defending the Balkan provinces from attacks by other peoples. In fact, they sought to bring under control the area of the Byzantine frontier and the Slavic tribes living there, as well as to use pressure on the Byzantine frontier in order to secure an annual tribute.19 In 568, after the collapse of the Gepidic kingdom and the flight of the Lombards to Italy, the Avars established their khaganate in the Carpathian Basin, initially between the Danube and Tisza Rivers, which survived for more than two centuries.20 The Avar khaganate had quite a heterogeneous population, which, besides the ruling Avars, included Romance populations, Bulgars (Kutrigurs and Utigurs), Gepids and Slavs.21
Taking into account the topic of the chapter, we may eliminate our references to the Byzantine-Avar relations in the Danube region. For the next 14 years after 568, the main target of the Avars was the capture of Sirmium. Initially, in 568 they failed to achieve their target by siege.22 The Byzantines refused to do it voluntarily in negotiations in both 568 and 569,23 and finally the city fell to the Avars after a three-years siege (579–582). The occupation of Sirmium was the final stage of the Avar settlement in Pannonia and the conquest of all of the territories controlled by the Gepids before 567. After that, the Avars made no further territorial demands and launched attacks on Byzantine territories aiming to obtain a larger annual tribute.24 From the political point of view, the primary goal of the Avars after 558 was to enter into alliance (foedus) with the Byzantine state either by peaceful negotiations or by attacks. However, from the scrutiny of the relevant testimonies, it appears that no simultaneous provision of regular annual payments, land for settlement or presents took place, which would have turned the Avars into federates of Byzantium. The initial voluntary flow of Byzantine coins, outcome of occasional alliances, was secured on annual base with peace treaties since 574.25 On the other hand, the Byzantine-Avar struggle on the Lower Danube after the establishment of the Avar khaganate led to formation of local alliances with the Slavs. The Byzantines maintained their alliance with the Antes, concluded in 545/46, while the Avars had the Sclaveni on their side.
In the summer of 584, the Avars attacked and occupied Singidunum, Viminacium (Kostolac) and Augustae (Ogost),26 and in autumn 585 they attacked Ratiaria (Archar), Bononia (Vidin), Aquis (Prahovo), Dorostolon (Silistra), Zaldapa (Abrit), Panassa on the river Panysus (now Kamchiia), Marcianopolis (Devnia) and Tropaeum Traiani (Adamclisi).27 In the area of the Lower Danube (Zaldapa and Tomis), conflicts between the Byzantines and the Avars took place in 586.28 In 587, the Avars occupied Appiaria on the Danube, employing war engines.29 The cities that the Avars attacked in 584–585 indicate that their intention was to disrupt the Byzantine defense system along the Lower Danube and, simultaneously, to make it quite difficult for the Byzantines to operate north of the river.
From 592 to 602, Emperor Maurice followed an aggressive policy in order to remove the Avars and Slavs from the Balkan provinces and to establish the Byzantine border on the Lower Danube.30 In 592, the Avar khagan ordered subject Slavic tribes to attack Singidunum, but the Byzantines managed to destroy the Slavic fleet on the river Sava. The khagan withdrew the Slavs, receiving in return 2,000 gold coins, a gilded table and one garment.31 In the spring of 593, Priscus marched against the Slavs of the chieftains Ardagast and Mousocius. The campaign was interrupted after the emperor ordered them to spend the winter in the lands north of the river and his troops were on the brink of mutiny.32 In September 594, a clash with Bulgar troops, operating on behalf of the Avars, took place on the southern bank of the Lower Danube. Peter’s offering of presents and a sum of money succeeded in assuaging Avar dissatisfaction.33 Earlier, Peter had moved northward and passed by the Danubian forts of Pistus, Zaldapa, Iatrus, Novae/Svishtov and Asemus,34 before moving against the Slav chieftain Peiragast.35 In the spring of 595, the Avars entered Singidunum, destroyed its walls and attempted to move away its population, but soon general Priscus retook the city and restored its fortifications.36
In the autumn of 597, the Avars followed the road along the Danube and reached the outskirts of Tomis, an operation that ended in the spring of 598, when the two opponents met and the Avars slaughtered many of the Byzantines on the banks of the river Iatrus (Iantra).37 According to the treaty of 598, “the Ister was agreed as the intermedium between Romans and Avars, but there was a provision preventing the Sclavenes from crossing the river; the peace payments were also increased by an additional 20,000 gold solidi. On these precise terms, the war between Romans and Avars reached its conclusion”.38 Having Viminacium as their base, the Byzantines conducted a great attack in 599, with continuous victories north of the Danube and in the area of the river Tisza.39 Fruitful negotiations and military movements along the Lower Danube in September 601 (Palastolon, Iron Gates, Constantiola) are recorded.40 In the summer of 602, the Byzantine major-general Godwin was commanded to carry out mopping-up operations against the Slavs north of the Danube,41 while the Avars, led by Apsikh, turned against the Antes, who were allies of Byzantium.42 On the other hand, Maurice’s command that the soldiers spend the winter in the lands north of the Danube led to a mutiny and the proclamation of the centurion Phocas as emperor (602–610). This development brought an end to the ten-year counterattack of the Byzantines and the abandonment of the Byzantine possessions on the Lower Danube.43
Archaeological finds suggest that the collapse of the Lower Danubian limes in Moesia I and western Dacia Ripuaria (to the west from Ratiaria) took place in 595–596,44 while that in Second Mysia and Scythia Minor is dated, with few exceptions, to the era of Phocas and to the first years of Heraclius, around 614/15, respectively.45 However, although the failure of the Avars to take Constantinople in 626 put a definitive end to Byzantine-Avar hostilities, it did not result in the restoration of Byzantine rule to the Danube. According to disputed testimony of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, the Byzantine general of Belgrade in Heraclius’ era handled the settlement of the Serbs. Some have interpreted that testimony as an indication of the restoration of Byzantine control on the Danube, but others believe that the entire story is the emperor’s fabrication.46
Priscus’ History is the most important source for the study of the diplomatic relations of Byzantium and the Huns, as the author participated in the embassy of 448 under Maximinus. Despite the hostilities between the Huns and the Byzantines, from Priscus’ testimonies it arises that the Danube was also a bridge of communication and influence for the two sides. Regarding daily life, professional ferrymen with their monoxyls undertook, as in the case of Maximinus’ embassy, to transfer people to the opposite bank of the river,47 while others from both sides of the river could move to the opposite bank for hunting.48 Considering Simocatta’s testimony, the Byzantines crossed the Danube once for military operations against the Avars in 599,49 while the Avars used often the flote of their allies or subject Slavs for the same purpose.50 On the other hand, the Byzantines passed to the northern bank of the river three times for operations against the Slavs (spring of 593, September of 594 and autumn of 602).51
In Simocatta’s account, we remark on the frequent Avar claims for control over the Lower Danube region. In the spring of 593, Priscus received the Avar envoy Kokh, who inquired about the purpose of the scheduled campaign and the Byzantine general assured Kokh that the campaign was directed against the Slavs.52 The next year (594), while Priscus was south of the Danube, the Avars sent another embassy to inquire about his movements. The Byzantine general was not able to reassure the Avars of his good intentions, so the khagan therefore ordered subject Slavic tribes to enter Byzantine territory.53 Soon after, the khagan asked that part of the booty that the Byzantines had taken during the last operations against the Slavs be given to him, for he believed that Priscus had entered a territory under Avar jurisdiction and had waged war against subjects of the khagan. Priscus agreed to release 5,000 prisoners of war, recognizing indirectly that the Slavic area north of the Lower Danube was within the sphere of the khagan’s influence and that whenever the Byzantines renewed the war against the Slavs, the khagan could make a similar claim on the basis of the principle acknowledged by Priscus.54
In the spring of 595, the Avars broke the peace treaty with Byzantium and invaded the northwestern Balkans. The pretext for the attack was general Priscus’ crossing of the Danube at the Upper Novae (Česava) and his operations in the lands on the north bank of the river. Priscus’ argument that the area was rich in water and suitable for hunting did not persuade the khagan, who accused the Byzantines of entering a territory that was not theirs. In reply, Priscus defended the rights of the empire to the region.55 Soon after, Priscus moved to Singidunum, and after he camped on a Danubian island named Singa, he entered negotiations with the Avars. The khagan disputed the right of the Byzantines to rule on the Danube, while Priscus asked for the return of Singidunum to the Byzantines.56 According to Miloje Vasić, the khagan’s claim that “the Ister is foreign to you, its swell hostile. This we have won with arms, this we have enslaved by the spear” was a direct mirror of the actual situation in Moesia I.57 On the occasion of the Byzantine-Avar treaty in 598,58 Theophylactus Simokatta, using some literary schemes about the symbolic and ideological role of the Danube, mentions the river as intermedium, while in another case as docile. Both characteristics concern the bridge role of the Danube, contrary to the spectacle of war during the negotiations between General Priscus and the Avar envoy Kokh.59
Likely the most important influence in rendering the Danube a bridge for cultural, economic and ideological ties was the emergence in the Hunnic kingdom and the Avar khaganate of a “court culture” imitating the Roman and Byzantine patterns. For the maintenance of such a court, as well as the personal riches and prestige of Attila and the Avar khagans, two parameters were crucial: the annual tribute and gifts of the Empire as an expression of the Empire’s wealth and power, both political and financial, and the imperial ideology, aimed at strengthening relationships with foreign rulers. On the one hand, the imperial gifts and annual tribute increased the prestige of a nomadic ruler and, along with the loot from raids, contributed to the cohesion and survival of his hegemony through the distribution of the prestige goods and booty to his subjects (the so-called “prestige/ostentatius economy” or “economy of violence”).60 In the case of both nomadic peoples, Byzantine “cultural diplomacy” found fertile ground to penetrate and contributed to the “wandering nomads” transitioning to organized hegemonies.
During the reign of Theodosius II, considerable amounts in the form of annual tribute entered in the Hunnic kingdom, but in 450 Emperor Marcian (450–457) ceased the payments.61 Testimonies for the latter are probably finds of golden coins and other objects on the Hungarian plain.62 According to a law issued by Marcian in 455–457, the sale and export of weapons and iron to the peoples outside the Empire’s borders were strictly prohibited, most likely because part of such activities was taking place either illegally or even with the tolerance of the Empire’s authorities.63 The majority of Byzantine numismatic finds in the Avar khaganate dates to between 565 and 626, and the golden coins (solidi) entered the khaganate primarily as part of the annual tribute paid by the Byzantine emperors in order to ensure peace with the Avars. The latter received about 6.5 million golden coins from the treaties with Byzantium, in addition to what they got from ransom payments, plunder, etc. By 574, the annual tribute amounted to 80,000 solidi, but that amount increased to 100,000 in 585, 120,000 in 598, 140,000 in 604 (probably 180,000 between 620 and 623), and to 200,000 from 623 until 626.64
In Priscus’ account, Attila was surrounded by certain important persons – members of his multinational court, namely, the military and social elite of his kingdom – known as λογάδες/logades (the elected or “aristocrats”) or even επιτήδειοι (capables/competents).65 Leaders among his higher officials and dignitaries were the Greek Onegesius, the Goth Edecon, Scotta, Berich and Orestes, a Roman in origin and secretary to Attila. Another secretary was Rousticius, a former prisoner of war from Upper Moesia.66 The members of the Avar elite are also called logades67 and sometimes ἄρχοντες (leaders), δυνατότατοι (the most powerful) or ἔξαρχος (commander).68
The riches of Attila’s higher officials were complemented by actions of “bribery”, for example, Onegisius, Attila’s “prime minister”, after being convinced by the Byzantine ambassadors of the necessity of their mission, interceded in turn to persuade the Hun ruler to accept them – in exchange he took rich gifts and money.69 In another case, the head of the Byzantine embassy, Maximinus, offered to Edecon and Orestes “silke garments and Indian pearls”.70 Further, Attila used to send relatives and favorite officials to Constantinople in order to exploit the Byzantine gifts to foreign envoys and to simultaneously strengthen the ties of the Hunnic aristocracy with the Byzantine one.71 Onegesius had a captive from Sirmium working as architect for his luxurious lodges and baths who, while Greek in origin, was formerly a wealthy merchant from Viminacium and a higher official, who was satisfied with his new life in the service of Onegesius.72 According to Priscus, the interior of Attila’s wooden palace imitated the patterns of Greek and Roman architecture.73 Apart from the court, the “dark side” of the Hunnic kingdom appears from the many fugitives who asked for asylum in Byzantium. Attila’s demand to the Byzantines for their return was permanent, and the death punishment was imposed on them.74 Such a case is referenced by Simocatta in 602, when many Avar soldiers defected and sought asylum in Byzantium.75
Other aspects of the “cultural diplomacy” that projected the wealth and power of the Roman/Byzantine court to foreigners were the attribution of honorary titles to foreign rulers and the conclusion of intermarriages. For the first case, we know that Attila received from Valentinian III the title of magister militum,76 while for the second case, a marriage was arranged for Rousticius by envoys of the Western Empire.77 On the other hand, it is unclear whether the reference to Scythian nomads at the end of the 4th and beginning of the 5th centuries in the Danube region, connected with the missionary work of John Chrysostom, concerns the Huns or the Goths. In contrast, missionary activity to the Huns in this period seems to have been developed by Theotimos, Bishop of Tomis (390–407), but it did not result in a massive conversion.78 Unlike other nomadic or Germanic rulers, the khagans of the Avars never received such titles as patrician or magister militum from the Byzantines, nor concluded any intermarriage with the latter. Furthermore, no evidence exists of either missionary activity from Constantinople to the Avars or any conversion of the latter to Christianity prior to the Frankish wars led by Charlemagne.79 However, of special importance among the decorative motifs in the Avar khaganate are the Christian symbols, the presence of which may be explained as mere imitation of Byzantine decorative patterns or as the survival of small Christian communities in Pannonia, but not as a sign that the Avars converted to Christianity, for they appear to have remained pagans until their subjugation by the Franks.80
According to Simocatta’s account for the year 594, some of the Avar higher officials, with Targitius at their head, favored peaceful relations with Byzantium, in sharp contrast to the khagan’s hostile attitude as well as that of another group of officials, who, according to Menander Protector, incited the khagan to wage war.81 Targitius, an experienced envoy, was a respected man in the Avars and probably one of the most powerful, who had prevented the execution of the Byzantine envoy Comentiolus in 584. The case of Targitius leaves no room to doubt the existence of rival aristocratic factions inside Avaria, especially after the fall of Sirmium in 582. Their main difference seems to have been the choice between maintaining the already conquered lands (the Avars had occupied all of the former territories of the Gepids and the Lombards) and waging war against Byzantium in order to increase the annual tribute.82 The approach with Byzantium was likely the reason for the disagreement with and the murder of Vleda by Attila in 444/45.83 Another explanation may be the possible Byzantinization of the Avar court. However, we note that in some cases the Avars rejected Byzantine gifts under the pretext that they could lead to their loss of power and their subjection to the suzerainty of Constantinople, like other peoples in the past (namely the Byzantine policy to control and incite one people against the other).84 Menander the Guardsman mentions, for example, the gifts to the Avar envoys in Constantinople in 558 and 562,85 as well as the presents that Baian unsuccessfully demanded after the siege of Sirmium in 568 (a silver plate, a small amount of gold and a Scythian tunic).86 Among the many gifts sent to the Avars were also girdles and saddles decorated with gold.87
Regarding the early Avar Period I (568–626/30), the cultural patterns of late Antiquity and early Byzantium had a considerable role in the development of Avar crafts, as in the ornamental repertoire of dress accessories. Besides the activity of local workshops, some of the artifacts found in Avar-age assemblages may well have been made by Byzantine craftsmen inside the khaganate, working for the Avar elites and transferring their skill and techniques to the Avar craftsmen. Authentically Byzantine objects (“imports”), which had a representative role for the Avar elite, were mostly coins, amphorae, belt sets, buckles, earrings, luxury weapons and crosses, which were obtained by means of diplomatic gifts, trade or booty after raids.88 Also worth mentioning is the transfer of “know-how” from Byzantium to the Avars, as when the Khagan Baian asked Justin II to send him craftsmen to build a luxurious home and baths, but who were later used for the construction of a bridge over the Danube.89
In the realm of trade, the Byzantines concluded their first treaty with Attila and Vleda in Margus (today Dubravica, east of Belgrade) in 434/35, which provided for the mutual surrender of fugitives, the avoidance of alliances against the Huns, equal access by both sides to the large local market and an increase in the annual tribute to the Huns from 350 to 700 pounds of gold (i.e. 50,400 gold coins).90 Keeping in mind the lessons from the episode with Margus’ bishop in 442 (on the southern bank of the Danube), who desecrated the tombs of the Hun kings, Priscus quotes the operation of a trade fair in this city when the Huns captured its fort. Apart from the trade activity of the Byzantines and the Huns, it seems that spies were also acting in the city.91 Another great commercial center in the era of Attila was Viminacium.92 The disastrous Hunnic raids of the 440s in the Byzantine provinces caused economic collapse and a serious retreat of trade activity, which also affected the Danubian region. In 448, Attila demanded from Theodosius II the transfer of the market from the bank of Danube to Naissus, the new frontier with Byzantium.93
For the rulers and the aristocracy of the Huns and the Avars, the development of trade relations with both the eastern and western Roman Empire and the import of certain products were also substantial in increasing the prestige of the nomadic courts. From Priscus’ account, some products that the Byzantine envoys offered to the members of the Hunnic aristocracy are known, obviously because they did not exist in the Hunnic kingdom. When the members of Maximinus’ delegation visited the queen of a village, the members returned her hospitality by offering silver bottles, red skins, Indian pepper and other exotic products.94 Indian spices and perfumes were also offered by the general Priscus to the Avar khagan, satisfying his demand, in the spring of 598 after the conclusion of a five-day truce in the area of Tomis (Constanza).95 On the other hand, the Byzantine envoys in 448, apart from achieving the freedom of the captives, had the opportunity to buy slaves, horses and various products from the Huns.96 Horses were also offered as gifts to the Byzantines, along with skins that had been used by the kings of the Huns.97
There is limited information on trade relations between Byzantium and the Avars. In 562, the Avar envoys extended their stay in Constantinople in order to buy weapons and clothes. However, Justinian ordered general Justin to confiscate the weapons that the envoys had bought.98 Of special importance were the silk garments either offered to the Avars as presents or purchased by them in Constantinople.99 Others may have entered the Carpathian Basin, for example, as part of the annual tribute paid in kind in Constantinople, likely because of the absence of commercial centers on the Danube border.100 Furthermore, a significant number of copper coins (more than half of all coin finds) seem to point to trade relations between Byzantium and the Avars, at least until 626.101
The last topic we will consider are the influences in matters of warfare, particularly the armament, heavily armored horsemen, tactics and siege engines. The Byzantines familiarized themselves with the warfare of the steppe nomads, mostly after suffering serious defeats at the hands of the Huns during the reign of Attila. However, by that time the Huns had already been hired as mercenaries in the Roman army, especially as mounted archers. Later, their skills played a key role in the success of the expeditions that Emperor Justinian sent against the Vandals and the Ostrogoths.102 Byzantium attempted to exploit the fighting ability of the nomads and the recruitment of Hun mercenaries. The latter, among them many higher military leaders, are often mentioned, for example, during the long-term wars of Justinian against the Persians.103 Also, after 481/82 the Byzantines had come into contact with Bulgar tribes (the Onogurs and the Kutrigurs), who used similar methods of waging war.104
With the contact with Huns and Bulgars and their recruitment as mercenaries in the Byzantine army, the importance of mounted archery increased. Moreover, the adoption of the “Hunnic” composite (or reflex) bow improved the efficacy of the Byzantine cavalry which, along with the infantry, was practicing the so-called “Parthian shot”. The Hunnic and Bulgar influences upon the heavy Byzantine cavalry gradually led to the appearance of the so-called “composite cavalryman”, who was both lancer and archer. The nomadic influences may be observed, apart from the lamellar armor of the horse, in the clothing and the equipment of the horseman, that is, the coats of mail, round aventails, greaves, bows, quivers, swords, lances and a small, circular shield without a handle on his left shoulder, to cover his face and his neck. The latter, mentioned by both Procopius and the Strategikon of Maurice, became necessary because wielding the lance required both hands. This manner of fighting spread from the nomads to Byzantium and Persia.105 As Hunnic innovation is considered the hard wooden saddles, decorated with sheet metal appliques, which provided better stability for stirrup-less riders.106
The fact that the “manner of the Avars” appears five times in the Strategikon has been regarded as sufficient evidence that the Byzantine cavalry forces were modeled after the units of heavily armored Avar horsemen.107 Such a conclusion is based on five specific points raised in the Strategikon: the use of a lance with a leather thong in the middle of the shaft and a pennon under the head; the use of a circular aventail, with linen fringes on the outside and wool inside; the use of armor for the heads, breasts and necks of horses, especially those of officers and special troops; the use of broad clothes made of linen, goat’s hair or rough wool to cover the knees of the horseman; and the use of Avar tents on campaigns.108 The examination of how the heavily armored Byzantine cavalry was influenced by the steppe peoples and the Sassanians points to a number of key changes taking place well before the contact with the Avars or the late 6th century, when the Strategikon was most likely written. If we scrutinize these five references to the “manner of the Avars”, an innovation was most certainly the use of the thong and the small pennon on the lance, while one may regard as Avar peculiarities the use of the aventail of textile fabric, the use of lamellar armor for the horse and the specific clothes of the horseman. The reference to the “Avar tents” may also concerns, in a wider sense, the typical nomadic yurts. As a consequence, at closer examination, the “manner of the Avars” appears to be restricted to just a few elements, which are little more than additions to or modifications of elements that had already been adopted earlier either from nomad mercenaries or from the Sassanians. In other words, “Avar” is used here as an umbrella term for everything nomadic, because during Maurice’s reign the principal nomads that the Byzantine army had to meet on the battlefield were the Avars.109
Avar-age burials have also produced evidence of Byzantine militaria. For example, conical helmets (of the so-called Spangenhelm type) used by the late Roman army were made of four or six attached parts, with nasal protection and, in certain cases, with side-whiskers.110 Furthermore, many early Avar double-edged swords with a bronze guard and pommel above the grip are believed to be of Byzantine manufacture.111 The one element that was truly an innovation, not just for the Byzantine military but for the entire medieval period, was the stirrup, believed to have been introduced to Europe by the Avars.112 Another possible Avar influence on the European military may be the P-shaped scabbard mounting and the hourglass-shaped quiver.113
The Huns, along with other nomads, exercised influence too on the adoption of certain nomadic tactics by the Byzantines, such as the stratagem of the feigned retreat and the tactics of guerrilla warfare. The most important was the adoption of a “Scythian model” for Byzantine tactics, as is depicted later in Maurice’s Strategikon, namely, the formation of different battle lines based on highly mobile archers able to provide an effective defense against a powerful cavalry and to undertake a successful counterattack.114 As far as siegecraft is concerned, it is hardly believable that the Avars learned it from the Byzantine captive Bousas, at the siege of Appiaria in 586/87. The examination of several sources clearly points out that the Avars may have learned siegecraft from contacts with nomadic peoples who lived on the East European steppe lands, two to three decades before the siege of Appiaria.115
To summarize the presentation of our topic, we may conclude that, as with the earlier cases, for example, the Goths, the Danube also had a dual role in the relations of Byzantium with nomadic confederations (Huns and Avars) north of the river. Either with military conflicts and treaties or with their rhetoric, both sides disputed the power of the other on the Danube, and a common compromise for meeting the interests of both was the recognition of each one’s jurisdiction on the northern and southern bank, respectively. A crucial point to Byzantine-Avar relations was also control over the Slavic tribes living in the lands north of the river. As an object of dispute through direct conflicts and local coalitions, the Danube maintained its traditional role as a political and, partially, cultural and commercial frontier until the early 7th century, as Christianization was not spread to the nomads and some laws prohibited the export of weapons and consumer goods.
On the other hand, the role of the Danube as a bridge between Byzantium and the two nomadic confederations was more or less similar for both the Huns and the Avars. After their consolidation on the Hungarian plain, the formation of a powerful elite, namely, a court, was observed and marked a continuation from the Hunnic to the Avar period in the Carpathian Basin. The new elite structures were able to survive thanks to the annual tribute and the various luxury objects that entered from Byzantium. This phenomenally political “power network” between Constantinople and the unknown “capital cities” of the Huns and the Avars posed the requirements for the stabilization of power and as well as the socioeconomic dependence of the latter on the Empire through the flow of money, luxury objects and consumer goods to the nomadic rulers and their higher officials. A difference we observe concerns the lack of local markets on the Danube during the Avar era. In the case of the Avars too, the capture of Sirmium in 582 was probably the turning point for the rise of rival factions among the Avar logades, as some of them began to promote a different policy toward Byzantium. Finally, the recruitment of nomadic mercenaries from both nomadic hegemonies, other than being important on the battlefield, simultaneously led to reforms in the warfare of Byzantium during the 5th and 6th centuries. Despite the borderline the Danube was for the delimitation of the power spheres, the Byzantine influences on the nomadic hegemonies, considering their administrative and economic structures, render the river more of a bridge to a “journey of things and ideas” than an “impenetrable frontier” from the narrow political and military point of view.
Notes
· 1 Sofia Patoura, “O Δούναβης μεσίτης ή ῥευστὸν ἀντίφραγμα και τεῖχος; μύθοι και πραγματικότητα,” in Η μεθόριος του Δούναβη και ο κόσμος της στην εποχή της μετανάστευσης των λαών (4ος–7ος αι.), ed. G.Th. Kardaras (Αθήνα: Iνστιτούτο Βυζαντινών Ερευνών/Εθνικό Ίδρυμα Ερευνών, Ερευνητική Βιβλιοθήκη 6, 2008), 15–16, includes a great number of relevant records.
· 2 Herodotus, Histories, trans. Alfred Denis Godley, vol. 3 (Books V–VII), London and Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1938), lib. V, c. 9, p. 9: “[C]ross the Ister and you shall see but an infinite tract of deserts”. Strabo, Geography, trans. Horace Leonard Jones (Loeb Classical Library 182), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1924, VII, 3.14, 217: “In the intervening space, facing that part of the Pontic Sea which extends from the Ister to the Tyras, lies the Desert of the Getae, wholly flat and waterless”. Hannelore Edelmann, “Ἐρημίη und ἔρημος bei Herodot”, Klio (1970): 79–86; Patoura, “O Δούναβης μεσίτης ή ῥευστὸν ἀντίφραγμα και τεῖχος,” 16.
· 3 Patoura, “O Δούναβης μεσίτης ή ῥευστὸν ἀντίφραγμα και τεῖχος,” 17–24; Roger Batty, Rome and the Nomads. The pontic danubian Realm in Antiquity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 264–83, 480–94; Maria Boletsi, Barbarism and Its Discontents, ch. 3 (It’s All Greek to Me: The Barbarian in History) (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2013), 63–114.
· 4 See Georgios Κardaras, “Ο ‘δρόμος του Δούναβη’ κατά την Ύστερη Αρχαιότητα (Δ΄–ΣΤ΄ αι.),” in Η μεθόριος του Δούναβη, op. cit., n. 1, 267–84.
· 5 Alexandru Madgearu, “The Province of Scythia and the Avaro-Slavic Invasions (576–626),” Balkan Studies 37 (2003): 295–314.
· 6 Patoura, “O Δούναβης μεσίτης ή ῥευστὸν ἀντίφραγμα και τεῖχος,” 19–20; Florin Curta, “Introduction,” in Neglected Barbarians, ed. Florin Curta (Studies in the Early Middle Ages) 32 (Brepols: Turnhut, 2010), 2, 5–6.
· 7 Herwig Wolfram, Das Reich und die Germanen. Zwischen Antike und Mittelalter (Berlin: Siedler, 1998), 113–14; Sofia Patoura, “Influences culturelles du Bas-Empire sur les peuples du Bas-Danube aux IVe-Ve siècles,” in Η μεθόριος του Δούναβη, op. cit., n. 1, 150.
· 8 Codex Justinianus, ed. Paul Krueger, CJC II, Berlin 1877, lib. IV, c. 41.1, 178. Patoura, “O Δούναβης μεσίτης ή ῥευστὸν ἀντίφραγμα και τεῖχος,” 26–27.
· 9 Procopius, De Aedificiis, eds. Jacob Haury and Gerhard Wirth, Procopii Caesariensis Opera Omnia, vol. 4 (Leipzig: Teubner, 1964), lib. IV, c. 5–7, 124–33 and 11, 145–49. Sofia Patoura-Chatzopoulos, “L’oeuvre de reconstitution du limes danubien à l’époque de l’empereur Justinien Ier (territoire roumain),” RESEE 18, no. 1 (1980): 95–109; Miloje Vasić, “Le limes protobyzantin dans la province de Mésie Première,” Starinar 45–46 (1994–1995): 41–53. Florin Curta, The Making of the Slavs: History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region, c. 500–700 (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 74–89, 150–69, 181–85, argues that the Justinian fortifications prevented Slavic attacks from 552 until 576–577. Dejan Bulić, “The Fortifications of the Late Antiquity and the Early Byzantine Period on the Later Territory of the South-Slavic Principalities, and Their Re-occupation,” in The World of the Slavs. Studies on the East, West and South Slavs: Civitas, Oppidas, Villas and Archeological Evidence (7th to 11th Centuries AD), ed. Srđan Rudić (Belgrade: The Institute for History, 2013), 137–227; Alexander Sarantis, “Eastern Roman Management of Barbarian States in the Lower-Middle Danube Frontier Zones, ad 332–610,” in Grenz/übergänge: Spätrömisch, frühchristlich, frühbyzantinisch als Kategorien der historisch-archäologischen Forschung an der mittleren Donau, eds. Orsolya Heinrich-Tamaska and Daniel Syrbe (Remshalden: Verlag Bernhard Albert Greiner, 2016), 161–88; Georgios Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 6th–9th Century AD. Political, Diplomatic and Cultural Relations (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2018), 38; R. Ivanov, The Defence System Along the Lower Danube Between Dorticum and Dorostorum from Augustus to Mauricius (Sofia: Editura Universităţii “Alexandru Ioan Cuza”, 1999).
· 10 Novellae, eds. Rudolf Schöll and Guilelmus Kroll, CJC III (Berlin, 1895), 13, ΧΙ.1, 785. Curta, The Making of the Slavs, 77; Patoura, “O Δούναβης μεσίτης ή ῥευστὸν ἀντίφραγμα και τεῖχος,” 27.
· 11 Otto Maenchen-Helfen, Die Welt der Hunnen (Wien, Köln and Graz: H. Bohlau Nachf, 1978), 15–30, 44; Wolfram, Das Reich und die Germanen, 133, 184; Hrvoje Gračanin, “Avari, južna Panonija i pad Sirmija,” Scrinia Slavonica 9 (2006): 29–30.
· 12 Maenchen-Helfen, Die Welt der Hunnen, 46–48; Wolfram, Das Reich und die Germanen, 186. For the Hunnic raids, see Gerhard Wirth, Attila. Das Hunnenreich und Europa (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1999), 60–63, 69.
· 13 Maenchen-Helfen, Die Welt der Hunnen, 44; Wolfram, Das Reich und die Germanen, 185–86.
· 14 Maenchen-Helfen, Die Welt der Hunnen, 56; Wolfram, Das Reich und die Germanen, 188.
· 15 Maenchen-Helfen, Die Welt der Hunnen, 81–82, 86–87.
· 16 Priscus, Fragmenta, ed. Roger C. Blockley (The Fragmentary Classicising Historians of the Later Roman Empire, vol. 2: Eunapius, Olympiodorus, Priscus and Malchus) (Liverpool: Brill, 1983), 9.3, 236; Maenchen-Helfen, Die Welt der Hunnen, 83–89, 92. See also, Walter Pohl, The Avars: A Steppe Empire in Europe, 567–822 (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 2018), 232, 251.
· 17 Vasić, “Le limes protobyzantin dans la province de Mésie Première,” 41; Perica Špehar, “The Danubian Limes Between Lederata and Aquae During the Migration Period,” in The Pontic-Danubian Realm in the Period of the Great Migration, eds. Vujadin Ivanišević and Michel Kazanski (Paris and Beograd: Arheološki Institut Beograd, 2012), 46, 52.
· 18 Menander, History, fr. 5.2–3, 50; Ibid., 253, 276, n. 23–24, 225; Evagrius Scholasticus, Historia Ecclesiastica, eds. M.-A. Aris et al., vol. 1–2 (Τurnhout: Brepols, 2007), Ε 1, 552; Karl Czegledy, “From East to West: The Age of Nomadic Migrations in Eurasia,” AEMA 3 (1983): 39, 105; Daniel Ziemann, Vom Wandervolk zur Grosmacht. Die Entstehung Bulgariens im fruhen Mittelalter (7. bis 9. Jh.) (Cologne, Weimar and Wien: Bohlau, 2007), 104; Edward N. Luttwak, The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire (Cambridge, MA and London: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2007), 60; Peter B. Golden, “The Stateless Nomads of Early Medieval Central Eurasia,” Materialy po Archeologii, Istorii i Etnografii Tavrii 20 (2015): 351; Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 22–23; Pohl, The Avars, 21–23, 47–50.
· 19 Menander, History, fr. 5. 4, 50–52 (Ibid., 253–54, n. 26–29); Madgearu, “The Province of Scythia,” 263 (in 563); Hrvoje Gračanin, “Avari, južna Panonija i pad Sirmija,” Scrinia Slavonica 9 (2009): 8; John H. W. G. Liebeschuetz, “The Lower Danube Region Under Pressure: From Valens to Heraclius,” in East and West, Invasion, Settlement, Ethnogenesis and Conflicts of Religion (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2015), 441; Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 23–24; Pohl, The Avars, 54–55.
· 20 Falko Daim, “Avars and Avar Archaeology. An Introduction,” in Regna et Gentes, the Relationship Between Late Antique and Early Medieval Peoples and Kingdoms in the Transformation of the Roman World, eds. Hans-Werner Goetz, Jörg Jarnut, and Walter Pohl (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 469; Tivadar Vida, “Neue Beiträge zur Forschung der frühchristlichen Funde der Awarenzeit,” in Acta XIII Congressus Internatiaonalis Archaeologiae Christianae II. Citta del Vaticano – Split 1998 (Bonn: Habelt, 2009), 529–40; Tivadar Vida, “‘They Asked to Be Settled in Pannonia’. A Study on Integration and Acculturation – The Case of the Avars,” in Zwischen Byzanz und der Steppe: Zwischen Byzanz und der Steppe. Archäologische und historische Studien. Festschrift für Csanád Bálint zum 70. Geburtstag/Between Byzantium and the Steppe. Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honour of Csanád Bálint on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday, eds. Csanád Bálint, Ádám Bollók, Gergely Csiky, and Tivadar Vida (with assistance from A. Mihaczi-Palfi and Zs. Masek) (Budapest: Institute of Archaeology, Research Centre for the Humanities, Hungarian Academy of Science, 2016), 253–56; Erwin 2014, 295–323; Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 27–29; Pohl, The Avars, 60–68.
· 21 Czegledy, “From East to West,” 118; Ziemann, Vom Wandervolk zur Grosmacht, 104; Tividar Vida, “Conflict and Coexistence: The Local Population of the Carpathian Basin Under Avar Rule (Sixth to Seventh Century),” in The Other Europe in the Middle Ages. Avars, Bulgars, Khazars and Cumans, ed. Florin Curta (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2007), 13–46; Vida, “‘They Asked to Be Settled in Pannonia’,” 251, 253, 255; Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 29; Pohl, The Avars, 103–5.
· 22 Menander, History, fr. 12. 3–5, 130–36; Ibid., 267, n. 154–55); Gračanin, “Avari, južna Panonija i pad Sirmija,” 8–9; Peter Golden, “War and Warfare in the Pre-Činggisid Western Steppes of Eurasia,” in Central Eurasia in the Middle Ages: Studies in Honour of Peter B. Golden, eds. István Zimonyi and Osman Karatay (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2016), 96; Ekaterina Nechaeva, Embassies – Negotiations – Gifts. Systems of East Roman Diplomacy in Late Antiquity (Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 2014), 62–63, 97, 134; Liebeschuetz, “The Lower Danube Region Under Pressure,” 441; Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 30; Pohl, The Avars, 69, 72–74.
· 23 Menander, History, fr. 12. 6–7, 138–42; Ibid., 268, n. 161–62); Ziemann, Vom Wander-volk zur Grosmacht, 101–2; Gračanin, “Avari, južna Panonija i pad Sirmija,” 9; Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 31–32; Pohl, The Avars, 74–76.
· 24 Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 40–42. Pohl, The Avars, 222–24.
· 25 For details, see Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 34–37.
· 26 Simocatta, History, Ι, 3. 13–14. 4, 46–47; Liebeschuetz, “The Lower Danube Region Under Pressure,” 443–44 (in 583); Florin Curta, “Avar Blitzkrieg, Slavic and Bulgar Raiders, and Roman Special Ops: Mobile Warriors in the 6th-Century Balkans,” in Central Eurasia in the Middle Ages, op. cit., n. 22, 70–71; Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 43; Pohl, The Avars, 90.
· 27 Theophylacti Simocattae, Historiae, ed. C. de Boor (Leipzig, 1887) Engl. trans. Michael and Mary Whitby, The History of Theophylact Simocatta (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), I, 8. 10, 54–55 (hereafter Simocatta, History); Theophanis abbatis agri atque Confessoris, Chronographia annorum DXXVIII, ed. C. de Boor (Leipzig: Teubner, 1883), 257. Engl. trans. C. Mango and R. Scott, The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor. Byzantine and Near Eastern History AD 284–813 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997). (hereafter Theophanes, Chronography); Madgearu, “The Province of Scythia,” 43; Ziemann, Vom Wandervolk zur Grosmacht, 108; Liebeschuetz, “The Lower Danube Region Under Pressure,” 444 (in 586); Curta, “Avar Blitzkrieg, Slavic and Bulgar Raiders,” 71; Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 46; Pohl, The Avars, 95–96.
· 28 Simocatta, History, II, 10. 9–13, 90–91; Theophanes, Chronography, 257; Madgearu, “The Province of Scythia,” 44; Ziemann, Vom Wandervolk zur Grosmacht, 108–9; Liebeschuetz, “The Lower Danube Region Under Pressure,” 445 (in 587); Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 46; Pohl, The Avars, 96–98.
· 29 Simocatta, History, II, 15. 13–16. 12, 101–3; Theophanes, Chronography, 259; Ziemann, Vom Wandervolk zur Grosmacht, 109; Liebeschuetz, “The Lower Danube Region Under Pressure,” 445; Curta, “Avar Blitzkrieg, Slavic and Bulgar Raiders, and Roman Special Ops,” 71; Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 47; Pohl, The Avars, 98–99.
· 30 Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 48–49.
· 31 Simocatta, History, VI, 3. 9–4. 3, 225–26; Liebeschuetz, “The Lower Danube Region Under Pressure,” 445–46; Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 50; Pohl, The Avars, 168.
· 32 Simocatta, History, VI, 6. 2–10. 3, 230–39; Theophanes, Chronography, 270–72; Curta, The Making of the Slavs, 100–3; Curta, “Avar Blitzkrieg, Slavic and Bulgar Raiders, and Roman Special Ops, 82, 86–87; Ziemann, Vom Wandervolk zur Grosmacht, 116; Anna Kotłowska and Łukasz Różycki, “The Role and Place of Speeches in the Work of Theophylact Simokatta,” Vox Patrum 36 (2016): 369; Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 51; Pohl, The Avars, 171–74.
· 33 Simocatta, History, VII, 4. 1–7, 251–52; Theophanes, Chronography, 275; Ziemann, Vom Wandervolk zur Grosmacht, 118–19; Liebeschuetz, “The Lower Danube Region Under Pressure,” 449–50; Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 54; Pohl, The Avars, 178.
· 34 Simocatta, History, VII, 2. 13–3.10, 248–51; Theophanes, Chronography, 274–75, who confuses Asemus with Novae; Curta, The Making of the Slavs, 104; Ziemann, Vom Wandervolk zur Grosmacht, 118; Liebeschuetz, “The Lower Danube Region Under Pressure,” 439, 449; Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 53; Pohl, The Avars, 177–78.
· 35 Simocatta, History, VII, 4. 8–5. 10, 252–54; Theophanes, Chronography, 275–76; Madgearu, “The Province of Scythia,” 49 (autumn 595); Curta, The Making of the Slavs, 104–5; Ziemann, Vom Wandervolk zur Grosmacht, 119; Liebeschuetz, “The Lower Danube Region Under Pressure,” 450; Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 54; Pohl, The Avars, 178–79.
· 36 Simocatta, History, VII, 10. 1–11. 8, 262–65. Theophanes, Chronography, 276–77; Madgearu, “The Province of Scythia,” 50 (in 596); Liebeschuetz, “The Lower Danube Region Under Pressure,” 452; Kotłowska and Różycki, “The Role and Place of Speeches,” 370–71; Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 55; Pohl, The Avars, 179–83.
· 37 Simocatta, History, VII, 13. 1–14. 10, 267–70; Theophanes, Chronography, 278–79; Madgearu, “The Province of Scythia,” 50; Ziemann, Vom Wandervolk zur Grosmacht, 119–20; Liebeschuetz, “The Lower Danube Region Under Pressure,” 453–54; Curta, “Avar Blitzkrieg, Slavic and Bulgar Raiders,” 72; Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 57–58; Pohl, The Avars, 187–89.
· 38 Simocatta, History, VII, 15. 9–14, 272–73 (Whitby, Simocatta, 201); Theophanes, Chronography, 280; Evangelos Chrysos, “Byzantine Diplomacy, ad 300–800: Means and Ends,” in Byzantine Diplomacy: Byzantine Diplomacy: Papers from the Twenty-Fourth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Cambridge, March 1990, eds. Jonathan Shepard and Simon Franklin (London: Ashgate, 1987), 36; Curta, The Making of the Slavs, 105; Liebeschuetz, “The Lower Danube Region Under Pressure,” 454; Kotłowska and Różycki, “The Role and Place of Speeches,” 371–72; Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 58–59; Pohl, The Avars, 189–90.
· 39 Simocatta, History, VIII, 1. 9–2. 2 and 8, 284–86; Ziemann, Vom Wandervolk zur Grosmacht, 121; Liebeschuetz, “The Lower Danube Region Under Pressure,” 454; Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 60–62; Pohl, The Avars, 191–94.
· 40 Simocatta, History, VIII, 4. 9–5. 7, 290–92; Theophanes, Chronography, 284; Ziemann, Vom Wandervolk zur Grosmacht, 122; Liebeschuetz, “The Lower Danube Region Under Pressure,” 455–56; Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 63; Pohl, The Avars, 195–96.
· 41 Simocatta, History, VIII, 5. 8–12, 292–93; Theophanes, Chronography, 284; Ziemann, Vom Wandervolk zur Grosmacht, 122; Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 63; Pohl, The Avars, 196.
· 42 Simocatta, History, VIII, 5. 13, 293 (Whitby, Simokatta, 217): “But the Chagan, when he had learned of the Roman incursions, dispatched Apsikh with soldiers to destroy the nation of the Antes, which was in fact allied to the Romans”; Theophanes, Chronography, 284; Curta, The Making of the Slavs, 81, 105; Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 63–64; Pohl, The Avars, 196.
· 43 Simocatta, History, VIII, 6. 2–11. 6, 293–305; Theophanes, Chronography, 286–90; Curta, The Making of the Slavs, 105–6; Madgearu, “The Province of Scythia,” 51–52; Ziemann, Vom Wandervolk zur Grosmacht, 122–23; Liebeschuetz, “The Lower Danube Region Under Pressure,” 456–58; Pohl, The Avars, 196–97.
· 44 Vasić, “Le limes protobyzantin dans la province de Mésie Première,” 52–53; Alexandru Madgearu, “The Downfall of the Lower Danubian Late Roman Frontier,” RRH 34, no. 3–4 (1997): 317–22; Curta, The Making of the Slavs, 163; Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 45, 59–60.
· 45 See Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 69–77, for a discussion on other views.
· 46 DΑΙ, 32, 152; Ralph-Johannes Lilie, “Kaiser Herakleios und die Ansiedlung der Serben. Uberlegungen zum Kapitel 32 des De Administrando Imperio,” Südostforschungen 44 (1985): 24–28, 31–42; Božidar Ferjancić, “Dolazak Hrvata i Srba na balkansko poluostrvo,” ZRVI 35 (1995): 152; Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 87.
· 47 Priscus, Fragmenta ed. R. C. Blockley (The Fragmentary Classicising Historians of the Later Roman Empire, vol. 2: Eunapius, Olympiodorus, Priscus and Malchus) (Liverpool, 1983), 11, 2, 248–50 (hereafter Priscus, Fragments); Patoura, “O Δούναβης μεσίτης ή ῥευστὸν ἀντίφραγμα και τεῖχος;” 24.
· 48 Priscus, Fragments, 11, 2, 250; Patoura, “O Δούναβης μεσίτης ή ῥευστὸν ἀντίφραγμα και τεῖχος;” 25.
· 49 See above, n. 39.
· 50 See Havlíková, “Slavic Ships in 5th–12th Centuries Byzantine Historiography,” Bsl 52 (1991): 89–104.
· 51 See above, n. 32, 35, 41.
· 52 Simocatta, History, VI, 6.6–12, 231–32; Theophanes, Chronography, 270–71; Curta, The Making of the Slavs, 100–3; Curta, Avar Blitzkrieg, Slavic and Bulgar Raiders, 82, 86–87; Ziemann, Vom Wandervolk zur Grosmacht, 116; Kotłowska and Różycki, “The Role and Place of Speeches,” 369; Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 51; Pohl, The Avars, 172, 242.
· 53 Simocatta, History, VI, 11. 4–6, 242; Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 51; Pohl, The Avars, 175–76.
· 54 Simocatta, History, VI, 11. 7–21, 242–45; Theophanes, Chronography, 273–74; Curta, The Making of the Slavs, 103; Ziemann, Vom Wandervolk zur Grosmacht, 116–17; Nechaeva, Embassies – Negotiations – Gifts, 125; Kotłowska and Różycki, “The Role and Place of Speeches,” 369–70; Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 52; Pohl, The Avars, 176–77.
· 55 Simocatta, History, VII, 7. 1–5, 256; Theophanes, Chronography, 276; Chrysos, “Byzantine Diplomacy, ad 300–800,” 34; Ziemann, Vom Wandervolk zur Grosmacht, 119; Liebeschuetz, “The Lower Danube Region Under Pressure,” 451–52; Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 54; Pohl, The Avars, 179–81.
· 56 Simocatta, History, VII, 10. 2–11. 6, 262–64; Theophanes, Chronography, 276–77; Madgearu, “The Province of Scythia,” 50 (in 596); Liebeschuetz, “The Lower Danube Region Under Pressure,” 452; Kotłowska and Różycki, “The Role and Place of Speeches,” 370–71; Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 55; Pohl, The Avars, 181–82.
· 57 Simocatta, History, VII, 10. 5, 263 (Whitby, Simocatta, 193); Chrysos, “Byzantine Diplomacy, A.D. 300–800,” 35; Vasić, “Le limes protobyzantin dans la province de Mésie Première,” 52; Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 60.
· 58 See above, n. 38.
· 59 Simocatta, History, VI, 3.9, 226· VI, 6.8, 231· VII, 15.14, 273. Patoura, “O Δούναβης μεσίτης ή ῥευστὸν ἀντίφραγμα και τεῖχος; μύθοι και πραγματικότητα,” 27–28.
· 60 See Chrysos, “Byzantine Diplomacy, ad 300–800,” 25–39; Muthesius 1992, 237–48; Nechaeva, Embassies – Negotiations – Gifts, 171–72; Vida, “They Asked to Be Settled in Pannonia,” 254–55; Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 32; Pohl, The Avars, 220, 235–36, 239–40, 252–54. See also Ibid., 226 for the technical terms concudering the Empire’s subsidies.
· 61 Priscus, Fragments, 20, 1, 304–6 and 23, 1, 314; Maenchen-Helfen, Die Welt der Hunnen, 139.
· 62 Maenchen-Helfen, Die Welt der Hunnen, 137–41; Katalin Biró-Sey, “Beziehungen der Hunnen zu Byzanz im Spiegel der Funde von Münzen des 5. Jahrhunderts in Ungarn,” SCIAM 35, no. 2 (1988): 413–31; Patoura, “O Δούναβης μεσίτης ή ῥευστὸν ἀντίφραγμα και τεῖχος;” 154.
· 63 Codex Justinianus, IV, 41.2, 178–79; Patoura, “O Δούναβης μεσίτης ή ῥευστὸν ἀντίφραγμα και τεῖχος;” 27, n. 68.
· 64 Peter Somogyi, “Neue Uberlegungen uber den Zustrom byzantinischer Munzen ins Awarenland (numismatischer Kommentar zu Csanad Balints Betrachtungen zum Beginn der Mittelawarenzeit),” Antaeus 29–30 (2008): 347–93; Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 124; Pohl, The Avars, 224, 232, 251, 253, 336.
· 65 Priscus, Fragments, 11.1, 244·11.2, 250, 268 and 11.14, 288, 292; Maenchen-Helfen, Die Welt der Hunnen, 147–49; Klaus Tausend, “Die logades der Hunnen,” in Ad fontes!: Festschrift für Gerhard Dobesch zum 65. Geburtstag am 15. September 2004, dargebracht von Kollegen, Schülern und Freunden, eds Herbert Heftner and Kurt Tomaschitz (Wien: Eigenverlag der Herausgeber, 2004), 819–28; Pohl, The Avars, 220, 240–41.
· 66 Maas, “Fugitives and Ethnography in Priscus of Panium,” BMGS 19 (1995): 154–57; Patoura, “O Δούναβης μεσίτης ή ῥευστὸν ἀντίφραγμα και τεῖχος;” 152; Pohl, The Avars, 241.
· 67 Simocatta, History, VI, 11. 6, 242; Synkellos, Homily (Traduction et commentaire de l’homelie ecrite probablement par Theodore le Syncelle sur le siege de Constantinople en 626), ed. Ferenc Makk (Acta universitatis de Attila Jozsef nominatae, Opuscula Byzantina 3/Acta antiqua et archaeologica 19) (Szeged: University of Szeged, 1975), 10, 78; Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 12; Pohl, The Avars; 240–42, where also known Avar dignitaries (possibly logades).
· 68 Menander, History, fr. 15. 1, 148; Simocatta, History, I, 6. 3, 51; Chronicon Paschale, 724; Daniel Chernienko, “The Rulers of European Nomads and Early Mediaeval Byzantine Historiography,” AO 58 (2005): 176; Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 12; Pohl, The Avars, 240, 242.
· 69 Priscus, Fragments, 11, 2, 274; Maenchen-Helfen, Die Welt der Hunnen, 141; Patoura, “Influences culturelles du Bas-Empire sur les peuples du Bas-Danube aux IVe-Ve siècles,” 154; Wirth, Attila. Das Hunnenreich und Europa, 82–83; Pohl, Die Völkerwanderung. Eroberung und Integration, 113–14.
· 70 Priscus, Fragments, 11, 2, 246–48; Maenchen-Helfen, Die Welt der Hunnen, 143; Patoura, “O Δούναβης μεσίτης ή ῥευστὸν ἀντίφραγμα και τεῖχος;” 154.
· 71 See, e.g., Priscus, Fragments, 10, 240–42; Patoura, “Influences culturelles du Bas-Empire sur les peuples du Bas-Danube aux IVe-Ve siècles,” 153.
· 72 Priscus, Fragments, 11, 2, 264 and 268–72. Ibid., 385–86, n. 59; Maas, “Fugitives and Ethnography in Priscus of Panium,” 149–54; Wirth, Attila. Das Hunnenreich und Europa, 83–84; Pohl, Die Völkerwanderung. Eroberung und Integration, 112–13; Patoura, “Influences culturelles du Bas-Empire sur les peuples du Bas-Danube aux IVe-Ve siècles,” 152; Pohl, The Avars, 239.
· 73 Priscus, Fragments, 13.1, 284; Maenchen-Helfen, Die Welt der Hunnen, 137; Patoura, “Influences culturelles du Bas-Empire sur les peuples du Bas-Danube aux IVe-Ve siècles,” 153; Pohl, The Avars, 231.
· 74 See, e.g., Priscus, Fragments, 10, 240–42; Maas, “Fugitives and Ethnography in Priscus of Panium,” 147–48.
· 75 Simocatta, History, VIII, 6. 1, 293; Theophanes, Chronography, 284; Golden, “War and Warfare in the Pre-Činggisid Western Steppes of Eurasia,” 94; Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 64; Pohl, The Avars, 196.
· 76 Priscus, Fragments, 11.2, 278; Maenchen-Helfen, Die Welt der Hunnen, 79; Patoura, “Influences culturelles du Bas-Empire sur les peuples du Bas-Danube aux IVe-Ve siècles,” 153.
· 77 Priscus, Fragments, 14, 15.2 and 4, 290, 296, 298; Patoura, “Influences culturelles du Bas-Empire sur les peuples du Bas-Danube aux IVe-Ve siècles,” 152.
· 78 Maenchen-Helfen, Die Welt der Hunnen, 191–94; Hervé Huntzinger, “Becoming Christian, Becoming Roman: Conversion to Christianity and Ethnic Identification Process in Late Antiquity,” in Studia Patristica 77.3: Papers presented at the Seventeenth International Conference on Patristic Studies held in Oxford 2015: Becoming Christian in the Late Antique West (3rd–6th Centuries) (Louvain, Paris and Bristol: Peeters, 2017), 109–10 (probably Goths).
· 79 Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 12, 131; Pohl, The Avars, 203, 229, where also the question of the “adoption” of the Avar khagans by the Byzantine emperors.
· 80 Vida, “They Asked to Be Settled in Pannonia,” 529–40; Tivadar Vida, “Heidnische und christliche Elemente der awarenzeitlichen Glaubenswelt, Amulette in der Awarenzeit,” Zalai Muzeum 11 (2002): 179–209; Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 127–34.
· 81 Simocatta, History, VI, 11. 4–6, 242; Menander, History, fr. 25. 2, 224; Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 51–52; Pohl, The Avars, 219.
· 82 Simocatta, History, Ι, 6. 3 and 5, 51–52 (Whitby, Simocatta, 28); Nechaeva, Embassies – Negotiations – Gifts, 129; Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 51–52; Ρohl, The Avars, 219–20, 241.
· 83 Maenchen-Helfen, Die Welt der Hunnen, 77; Wolfram, Das Reich und die Germanen, 190–91.
· 84 Menander, History, fr. 25, 2, 226; Theophylact Simocatta I.3.8–11, 45–46; Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 43. Pohl, The Avars, 89–90. 224–28, 231.
· 85 “The Emperor put the matter up for discussion, and when the holy senate had praised his plan and its shrewdness, he immediately sent the presents: cords worked with gold, couches, silk garments and a great many other objects which would mollify the arrogant spirits of the Avars”; Menander, History, fr. 5. 2, 48–51 (Blockley); Ibid., fr. 8, 92 (Ibid., 261, n. 91); John of Ephesus, Ecclesiastical History, 24, 246: Quorum legatos cum recepisset, eos auro et argento, et vestibus, et zonis, et ephippiis aureis ditavit, et ceteris rebus quas eis dedit et per eos principibus eorum misit, ita ut mirarentur et alios rursus mitterent; Nechaeva, Embassies – Negotiations – Gifts, 180–82; Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 20, 34–35; Pohl, The Avars, 231.
· 86 Menander, History, fr. 12. 5, 134–36 (Ibid., 267, n. 158); Nechaeva, Embassies – Negotiations – Gifts, 171, 182–83; Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 30. On the Avar claims to gold, silver and precious stones, see also Suda lexicon III, Λ 522, 270; Pohl, Die Awaren, 180; Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 110; Pohl, The Avars, 221, 231.
· 87 John of Ephesus, Ecclesiastical History, VI 24, 246; Nechaeva, Embassies – Negotiations – Gifts, 180, 182; Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 170; Pohl, The Avars, 231.
· 88 Csanád Balint, Die Archaologie der Steppe. Steppenvolker zwischen Wolga und Donau vom 6. bis zum 9. Jahrhundert (Wien and Koln: Bohlau, 1989), 152–53, 156; Vladimír Varsik, “Byzantinische Gürtelschnallen im mittleren und unteren Donauraum im 6.-7. Jahrhundert,” Slovenská Archeológia 40, no. 1 (1992): 77–90, 99–103 (tab. 1–5); Eva Garam, Funde byzantinischer Herkunft in der Awarenzeit vom Ende des 6. bis zum Ende des 7. Jahrhunderts (MMA 5). Budapest: Hungarian National Museum and Institute of Archaeology HAS 2001, 15–51, 65–72, 88–157; Daim 2001, 155–65; Daim, “Avars and Avar Archaeology,” 469–71; Orsolya Heinrich-Tamaska, “Avar-Age Metalworking Technologies in the Carpathian Basin (sixth to eighth century),” in The Other Europe in the Middle Ages. Avars, Bulgars, Khazars and Cumans (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2007), 237–61; Orsolya Heinrich-Tamaska, “Byzantine Goldsmithing in Avaria? Exchange and Transfer at the Edge of the Empire During the Seventh Century ad,” in Grenz/übergänge: Spätrömisch, frühchristlich, frühbyzantinisch als Kategorien der historisch-archäologis-chen Forschung an der mittleren Donau, eds. Orsolya Heinrich-Tamaska and Daniel Syrbe (Remshalden: Verlag Bernhard Albert Greiner, 2016), 280–85, 289–90; Tivadar Vida, “Local or Foreign Romans? The Problem of the Late Antique Population of the 6th–7th Centuries ad in Pannonia,” in Foreigners in Early Medieval Europe: Thirteen International Studies on Early Medieval Mobility, ed. Dieter Quast (Mainz: Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum, 2009), 244, 249–51; Birgit Bühler, “Is It Byzantine Metalwork or Not? Evidence for Byzantine Craftsmanship Outside the Byzantine Empire (6th to 9th Centuries ad),” in Byzanz – das Römerreich im Mittelalter, eds. Falko Daim and Jörg Drauschke (Mainz: Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum, 2010), 213–34; Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 105–7, 110, 170. For the material culture of the Avar khaganate, see also Pohl, The Avars, 100–116, 233–35, 248, 335–52.
· 89 John of Ephesus, Ecclesiastical History, 24, 247–48; Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 110; Pohl, The Avars, 248.
· 90 Priscus, Fragments, 2, 224–26; Maenchen-Helfen, Die Welt der Hunnen, 66–67; Wolfram, Das Reich und die Germanen, 190; Wirth, Attila. Das Hunnenreich und Europa, 50–54; Walter Pohl, Die Völkerwanderung. Eroberung und Integration (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2005), 110; Gračanin, “Avari, južna Panonija i pad Sirmija,” 59; Patoura, “Influences culturelles du Bas-Empire sur les peuples du Bas-Danube aux IVe-Ve siècles,” 150. The flow of annual tribute to the Huns, 350 pounds of gold, started in the era of Roua. See Wolfram, Das Reich und die Germanen, 189.
· 91 Priscus, Fragments, 6, 1, 230; Maenchen-Helfen, Die Welt der Hunnen, 81, 142; Patoura, “O Δούναβης μεσίτης ή ῥευστὸν ἀντίφραγμα και τεῖχος;” 25; Nechaeva, Embassies – Negotiations – Gifts, 155.
· 92 See above., n. 32.
· 93 Priscus, Fragments, 11, 1, 242; Maenchen-Helfen, Die Welt der Hunnen, 142; Wolfram, Das Reich und die Germanen, 191; Pohl, Die Völkerwanderung, 110–11; Patoura, “O Δούναβης μεσίτης ή ῥευστὸν ἀντίφραγμα και τεῖχος;” 150.
· 94 Priscus, Fragments, 11, 2, 262. Wirth, Attila. Das Hunnenreich und Europa, 83; Patoura, “O Δούναβης μεσίτης ή ῥευστὸν ἀντίφραγμα και τεῖχος;” 25. The import of wine from Byzantium is considered to have been possible. See Maenchen-Helfen, Die Welt der Hunnen, 144.
· 95 Simocatta, History, VII, 13. 1–6, 267–68; Theophanes, Chronography, 278; Madgearu, “The Province of Scythia and the Avaro-Slavic Invasions,” 50; Madgearu, “The Downfall of the Lower Danubian Late Roman Frontier,” 322; Ziemann, Vom Wandervolk zur Grosmacht, 119–20; Patoura, “O Δούναβης μεσίτης ή ῥευστὸν ἀντίφραγμα και τεῖχος;” 28; Nechaeva, Embassies – Negotiations – Gifts, 183; Liebeschuetz, “The Lower Danube Region Under Pressure,” 453; Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 57; Pohl, The Avars, 188, 231.
· 96 Priscus, Fragments, 11, 2, 258; Maenchen-Helfen, Die Welt der Hunnen, 141, 143, 152–53.
· 97 Priscus, Fragments, 14, 3 292 and 15, 4, 298.
· 98 Menander, History, fr. 5. 4, 52; Golden, “War and Warfare in the Pre-Činggisid Western Steppes of Eurasia,” 115; Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 24, 35, 110; Pohl, The Avars, 55, 474, n. 239.
· 99 Nechaeva, Embassies – Negotiations – Gifts, 182; see also Nikephoros Patriarch of Constantinople, Short History, ed. and transl. C. Mango (CFHB 13, DOT 10). Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1990, 10, 50: “[H]e also brought along splendid vestments for him (the Chagan) and his companions”. Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 110; Pohl, The Avars, 231.
· 100 Menander, History, fr. 25, 1, 216–18. Ibid., fr. 25, 2, 226 (in 579). “The envoy continued that the Khagan was satisfied with the gifts sent each year to him by the Emperor; for gold, silver and silken clothes were valuable commodities”; Simocatta, History, I, 3.7, 45 (in 582); Patoura, “Influences culturelles du Bas-Empire sur les peuples du Bas-Danube aux IVe-Ve siècles,” 153; Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 110; Pohl, The Avars, 233, 250.
· 101 Somogyi, “Neue Uberlegungen uber den Zustrom,” 103, 132; Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 124. On the Avar trade see also, Pohl, The Avars, 250–51, 253.
· 102 Päivi Kuosmanen, The Nature of Nomadic Power. Contacts Between the Huns and the Romans During the Fourth and Fifth Centuries (Turku: University of Turku, 2013), 40, 76, 85–144, 215, 218; David A. Graff, The Eurasian Way of War. Military Practice in Seventh-Sentury China and Byzantium (London and New York: Routledge, 2016), 159; Fyfe, Hunnic Warfare in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries CE : Archery and the Collapse of the Western Roman Empire (Master’s of Arts Thesis) (Peterborough: Trent University, 2017), 142; Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 160. See also Maenchen-Helfen, Die Welt der Hunnen, 50–52, 56, 75, 185–87, for the Huns mercenaries in the western Roman Empire.
· 103 See Maenchen-Helfen, Hunnen, 271, 276, 278–79, 284–85; Martindale 1992, A, 32–33, 133, 170, 365, 440, 618 and B, 1152–53, 1206–07; Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 180.
· 104 István Bóna, “Das erste Auftreten der Bulgaren im Karpatenbecken. Probleme, Angaben und Möglichkeiten,” Studia Turco-Hungarica 5 (1981): 82, 85–86, 103; Ziemann, Vom Wandervolk zur Grosmacht, 58–59; Edward N. Luttwak, The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire (Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press, 2009), 236; Golden, “War and Warfare in the Pre-Činggisid Western Steppes of Eurasia,” 70; Golden, “The Stateless Nomads of Early Medieval Central Eurasia,” 352; Panos Sophoulis, Byzantium and Bulgaria, 775–831 (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2012), 95; Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 160.
· 105 Procopius, Wars, I, 1. 12–15, 7–9·Ι, 18. 32–34, 169–71; Strategikon, Ι. b, 74–76·ΙΙΙ. a, p. 146·XII, B. 3, 420; The Anonymous Byzantine Treatise on Strategy, ed. and transl. G. Dennis, Three Byzantine Military Treatises, (CFHB 25). Washington: Dumbarton Oaks Center, 1985, 44–47, 128–34; Jonathan Coulston, “Roman, Parthian and Sassanid Tactical Developments,” in The Defence of the Roman and Byzantine East. British Archaeo-logical Reports, eds. Philip Freeman and David Kennedy (Ankara: BAR, 1986), 67; Luttwak, The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire, 56–57, 269–73, 279, 301; Graff, The Eurasian Way of War, 158–59; Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 160–62, 166–68.
· 106 Maenchen-Helfen, Die Welt der Hunnen, 159; Kazanski, “Barbarian Military Equipment,” 513.
· 107 Andreas Bracher, “Der Reflexbogen als Beispiel gentiler Bewaffnung,” in Typen der Ethnogenese unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Bayern: Berichte des Symposions der Kom-mission für Frühmittelalterforschung, 27. bis 30. Oktober 1986, eds. Herwig Wolfram, Walter Pohl, Herwig Friesinger, and Falko Daim (Wien: Stift Zwettl, 1990), 141; Luttwak, The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire, 291; Graff, The Eurasian Way of War, 139; Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 166.
· 108 Strategikon, Ι. b, 78–82; Samu Szadeczky-Kardoss, “Der awarisch-turkische Einfluss auf die byzantinische Kriegskunst um 600,” Studia Turco-Hungarica 5 (1981): 65, 69–70; Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 166; Pohl, The Avars, 211.
· 109 For details, see Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 167–68.
· 110 Ibid., 170.
· 111 Attila Kiss, “Frühmittelalterliche byzantinische Swerter im Karpatenbecken,” AAASH 39 (1987): 194–95; Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 170.
· 112 Balint, Die Archaologie der Steppe, 155–61, 168; Daim, “Avars and Avar Archaeology,” 468; Curta, “The Earliest Avar-Age Stirrups, or the ‘Stirrup Controversy’ Revisited,” in The Other Europe, op. cit., n. 21, 297–326; Luttwak, The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire, 59, 275, 277–78; Graff, The Eurasian Way of War, 141–42; Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 168–69.
· 113 See Graff, The Eurasian Way of War, 140; Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 169.
· 114 Coulston, “Roman, Parthian and Sassanid Tactical Developments,” 60, 70–71; Luttwak, The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire, 57–61, 78, 272–74, 281–87, 290, 299–300, 303, 399–408; Kazanski, “Barbarian Military Equipment,” 512–13; Graff, The Eurasian Way of War, 56, 67–68, 158, 169; Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 170–76; Pohl, The Avars, 212–13.
· 115 For a total approach of the topic, see Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 176–81.