6

At the gates of the empire: Organization of the Byzantine borderland in the context of early medieval Bulgaria

Kirił Marinow

The establishment of the Bulgarian Khanate in the Byzantine territories on the Lower Danube in the last quarter of the 7th century complicated the geopolitical situation of the empire.¹ A new political force emerged relatively close to the main seat of imperial power – the capital city of Constantinople and its immediate hinterland – and posed a threat not only to the territories that the Bosporus emperor actually ruled at the time but also to those that he still intended to regain, mainly in Thrace and Macedonia. The Bulgarians had the potential to transform, as indeed happened, into rivals of the Byzantine Empire and would prevent or at least hinder the Byzantine reconquest of former lands, which had been lost or depopulated as a result of the barbarian invasions of the 5th–7th centuries.²

Thus, the empire was not indifferent to the loss of control over the Danubian Plain and the shift of its northern border from the Lower Danube riverbed to the southern slopes of the Haimos Mountains (consisting of the present-day ranges of Predbalkan, Stara Planina and Sredna Gora), called the Balkan Mountains in the Ottoman era.³ With the loss of these mountains (including the passes that led through them, allowing access to the south of this range), which had previously defended access to Thrace, Byzantium had to reorganize its defences in this area. The Thracian territories were the natural background for Constantinople and played an important role in defending the Byzantine capital. Thus, the importance of the next natural obstacle on the road leading from the north of the Balkans to Constantinople, namely, the Strandzha mountain range (understood together here with the smaller ranges – Sakar and Hasekiyata) increased considerably. Particularly important was the fact that travel around this massif, which reached the sea coast in the east, was hampered by the Rhodope Mountain, which reached it from the west.⁴ Thus, on their way to the Byzantine capital, the Bulgarians had to go through the Strandzha. The only passage in this continuous mountain chain was the valley of the river Hebros (present day Maritsa), which separated the Strandzha from the Rhodope Mountains. It was along this river, between both massifs, that the famous via militaris stretched, connecting the city of Singidunum (Belgrade) on the Danube River with Constantinople on the Bosporus.⁵ The access to the Byzantine capital on the section of this road running between the two mountain ranges mentioned earlier was guarded by the fortress of Adrianople.

After the mountain passes of Haimos were seized by the Bulgarians, the role of the other urban centres that lay along the aforementioned military route, which connected the valley of the great river with the areas by the Propontis, in defending Byzantium against invasion from the north also rose. These cities, namely, Naissos, Serdica, Philippoupolis and the aforementioned Adrianople,⁶ acted as the main barriers in the path of the Bulgarians towards the south (Aegean Thrace) and southwest (Macedonia). Serdica and Philippoupolis in particular gained in importance because they were located on both sides of a critical section of the route in question, namely, the Succi Pass, also known as the Imperial Kleisura or the Gate of Trajan in the Ottoman period, which allowed control over the access and movement of people and goods between Central Europe, specifically Pannonia and Balkan Thrace and, more generally, Asia Minor. The mountain passage in question was (and still is) located within the Ikhtimanska Sredna Gora massif and, thus, in the southernmost part of ancient and medieval Haimos.⁷ Serdica flanked the access to it from the northwest, while Philippoupolis flanked it from the southeast. Both were the last significant Byzantine stops and outposts before the mountain passage could be entered. On the other hand, they guarded, especially Philippoupolis, access to the fertile and sensitive Thracian territories. If the Bulgarians were to take over these centres, especially Serdica, which was the most important Byzantine fortification that enabled control over the strategic area of the so-called Sofia Basin, access to the aforementioned mountain passage discussed and Naissos, which is located further to the north, would have been in peril. There was also a potential danger of the pass itself being controlled or travelers arriving directly from the north being ambushed, as Sredna Gora connects to the Balkan Mountains through four mountain saddles and the Sub-Balkan Basins lying between them.⁸ Therefore, there was a danger that, under cover of this latter massif, the Bulgarians would penetrate the vicinity of this sensitive section of the via militaris.

Byzantium also attached greater importance to the minor fortresses and cities scattered throughout Thrace. This was because they could impede the enemy’s advance towards the imperial capital, especially on the north-south line. It never gave up on establishing its authority at least on the southern slopes of the Haimos, so that the Bulgarian war efforts could be resisted at its foothills in their initial phase, and further progress by the enemy could be impeded. These fortresses probably also served as refuges for the local population when necessary.⁹ Dominion over the foothills of the mountains and the southern slopes of the Balkan enabled the Byzantines to conveniently concentrate their troops just above the enemy border and to carry out manoeuvres aimed at bypassing the fortifications of the Balkan Mountains to enter Bulgaria through the pass least expected by their enemies.¹⁰ The fortresses that operated at the foot of the mountains not only marked the extent of the real imperial power in the area but also allowed the Byzantines to control the influx of people from the north and guaranteed a convenient and relatively safe resting place for the imperial army marching to conquer its northern neighbours.

According to the accounts of Patriarch Nikephoros and Theophanes, in the first period after Bulgaria’s subjugation of Scythia Minor and Moesia Inferior, the Balkan Mountains formed a political border with Bulgaria’s southern neighbour.¹¹ The arrival of the Bulgarians to the Lower Danube resulted in the establishment of the first theme unit in the European domain of the empire between 680 and 687, namely, the theme of Thrace.¹² In his work on themes, Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (913–959) confirmed that the organization of this administrative-military unit was related, among other things, to the Bulgarians crossing the Danube River and settling in the lands north of the Balkan Mountains.¹³

The exact boundaries of the unit are not known. It is most often assumed that it was originally intended to include only the former province of Europa with its hub in Arkadioupolis¹⁴ (probably until the late 8th century, its original seat was Adrianople, or possibly Heraclea, the residence of the metropolitan of Europe), that is, the territories around the Byzantine capital,¹⁵ or the areas to the west of the so-called Anastasian Wall, extending to the north of the Develtos¹⁶ to the northwest of Adrianople.¹⁷ It is possible, however, that the Byzantines, at least initially, assumed that the northern borders of the theme would reach the southern slopes of the Balkan Mountains and, thus, include areas not occupied by the Bulgarians. This seems to be suggested in the text by the learned emperor himself, as Constantine argued that in the past the lands occupied by the Bulgarian state had been part of the Byzantine Diocese of Thrace. The latter included the territories around the Danube and the Haimos Mountains.¹⁸ Because these territories were removed from Byzantium at the end of the 7th century, it would seem logical that the remaining lands, which were not occupied by the Bulgarians, stayed within the empire. The emperor at the time, Constantine IV Pogonatus (668–685), therefore had to reduce Thrace to the rank of a theme¹⁹ and limit its territory, because its former northern territories came under Bulgarian rule.²⁰

It is noteworthy that, after describing all of the provinces that were once part of Thrace, Constantine VII stated that the theme of Thrace reaches here, that is, the area then occupied by the Bulgarians. His words may support the interpretation that the northern limits of the theme of Thrace reached the southern slopes of the Haimos.²¹ However, this could only be the case in theory, because in reality, apart from the coastal belt, the areas between the Balkan Mountains and Strandzha and even further south were beyond the reach of Byzantine power. Nor can it be ruled out that the suggestion of the learned emperor was intended solely to emphasize the imperial rights to the whole territory of northern Thrace, without reflecting the actual state administration in that area. Realistically speaking, until the mid-8th century, the theme of Thrace encompassed only the area of the Aegean and northeastern Thrace, especially the coastal belts of the Aegean and Black Seas.²² In the case of the latter, it was perhaps as far as the southern coastal slopes of the Haimos. There, especially on the Black Sea coast of Thrace, a number of urban centres survived the barbarian invasions, ensuring a real presence of the Byzantine authorities in these territories, which was maintained mainly through the sea, that is, with the use of the imperial fleet. These were primarily the following port cities, from north to south: Mesembria, Anchialos, Sozopolis and Agathoupolis.²³ Particularly prominent among these fortifications were two extremely important hubs, namely, Mesembria and Anchialos, which lay south of the Balkan Mountains. These were the coastal poleis that lay closest to the mountain range. At the same time, they were the main stopovers for cabotage shipping along the Black Sea coast in the section where the Balkan Mountains reached the Black Sea. In addition, they lay on the coastal land route leading from the Danube to Constantinople. A similar role was played by the Gulf of Varna with the Bulgarian settlement on its shores (which grew on the ruins of the ancient Odessos), which were located north of the mountain chain just discussed. The first two in particular played an exceptionally important role in the anti-Bulgarian strategy of Byzantium. Their special role consisted in being the only places from which Byzantine troops delivered by sea to the vicinity of the Haimos Mountains could freely enter inland. Indeed, the ports further south, such as Sozopolis, Ranuli, Urdoviza and Agathoupolis, were far more isolated from the interior of Thrace. This was due to the Strandzha mountain range²⁴ surrounding them to the west, rivers flowing into the sea from these mountains, and the large wetlands around the contemporary city of Burgas.²⁵ Mesembria and Anchialos also played an important economic role, as their ports gathered grain from northern Thrace, which was then transported by ship to Constantinople. They were thus the important trading ports. They also served as convenient harbours where one could replenish supplies or take shelter from a storm. The economic role of the hub mentioned first is evidenced by the recovered “seals of the imperial office for trade with Memsebria”, which date to the late 7th and early 8th centuries.²⁶ In addition, this hub served as an official exchange point between the empire and the Bulgarian Khanate for a long time (until the third quarter of the 8th century).²⁷ Near Anchialos, in turn (as indicated by the very name of the city), is where the valuable and profitable salterns had been in operation since ancient times. People also came to these two hubs to take therapeutic baths in the surrounding hot springs. The ethnic diversity of the people living in these ports made them vibrant centres of trade and cultural exchange.²⁸

As in the case of the theme of Thrace, one of the aims of the theme of Macedonia, established between 788–789 and 801–802, was to organize an effective barrier against aggression from the Bulgarians. Adrianople was the seat of this administrative-military unit, and the theme covered the territory of eastern Macedonia and western Thrace; from the times of Leo V it probably also included the northern parts of the latter, that is, the area surrounded on three sides by mountain ranges – the Stara Planina along with Sredna Gora to the north and northwest, the Rhodopes to the west and southwest and the Strandzha to the southeast.²⁹ The establishment of the administrative-military unit sanctioned the final recovery of the territories of northern Thrace, especially its northwestern part, by the authorities in Constantinople. On the other hand, in the area of geohistorical Macedonia (its southeastern part), sometime between the middle and the end of the 9th century, the theme of Strymon was established (mentioned under the year 899, whereas in the middle of this century a strategy was known under the same name, and a kleisura was known in the 8th century), with its seat in Serres and covering the area between the Strymon and Nestos Rivers (present-day Struma and Mesta) on the west-east line, the Rhodope Mountains in the north and the Aegean coast in the south. Warren Treadgold believes that the establishment of this unit was the result of a forced reorganization of the imperial administration in the area, following the end of the Byzantine-Bulgarian War of 894–896.³⁰ Also further west, the existing military-administrative units, namely, the themes of Hellas (based in Corinth and later Thebes) and Thessaloniki, the former mentioned as a strategy under the year 695 and the latter established in the first quarter of the 9th century,³¹ played an important role in defending and preserving the integrity of the Byzantine territories in the context of the Bulgarian threat. The soldiers who were stationed there, together with the other imperial troops from the area of the so-called West (Greek Δύσις) or the Balkan territories, also formed the core of the Byzantine expeditionary forces during invasions of their northern neighbours.

Of course, the creation of the themes was primarily intended to better organize the state administration in a given area and to build a more effective defence system for the Byzantine territories. Thus, the Bulgarian issue was not the only reason for the creation of the described administrative order, but it undoubtedly played an important role in the cases of Thrace and Macedonia. This was due to the fact that, in the northeastern Balkans, it was the Bulgarian Khanate that posed a real threat to the newly regained Byzantine territories. One might also be tempted to say that Byzantium was in a hurry to rebuild its power in the indicated territories, with the intention of forestalling the Bulgarians from possibly conquering them. The theme system was conducive to the implementation of this plan. It also offered strong administrative support for the Byzantine fortifications erected in these territories.

Another extremely important element in strengthening the Byzantine positions in the area under discussion was the settlement policy implemented by many emperors, which consisted in colonizing Thrace and Macedonia with people brought from other areas of the empire, especially from the territories of Asia Minor. In the context of relations with the Bulgarians at the time of Asparukh (681–695/701), Emperor Justinian II (685–695, 705–711) pioneered such actions, as he strengthened the Byzantine presence in the coastal areas of northern Thrace by bringing settlers from Asia Minor to Mesembria, among whom was the family of the future Emperor Leo III (717–741).³² Leaving aside other aspects of this procedure by the Byzantine ruler, it is worth noting that this city was the last outpost of imperial power on this part of the Thracian coast just before crossing the border with Bulgaria, which at that time ran along the southern slopes of the Balkan Mountains.

Carrying out the plan to strengthen the position of the empire in the Balkans, Constantine V (741–775) in 755 or 756 undertook the construction and fortification of Thracian fortresses and towns (Nikephoros – τὰ ἐπὶ Θρᾴκης πολίσματα and Theophanes – τὰ κτισϑέντα κάστρα), which was considered by posterity to be one of his greatest achievements.³³ The fact that at that time there had already been peaceful relations between Byzantium and Bulgaria for 30 years, established by the 30-year (apparently) peace of 716,³⁴ indicates that this manoeuvre by the emperor was intended, among other things, to prepare an adequate infrastructural base for his planned offensive against the Bulgarians.³⁵ Thrace also had to be ready for possible retaliation from the enemy. A no less important, or even paramount, objective of these actions was the deployment of fortifications at strategically important points in the area, which guaranteed the supervision and protection of the imperial administration over the initiated process of filling the settlement void in large areas of northern Thrace.³⁶ In fact, in and around the fortifications in question, the emperor deployed Syrians and Armenians brought from Theodosioupolis and Melitene.³⁷ Because they had been separated from their native lands, these settlers were particularly closely tied to Constantinople, which ensured their loyalty. The settlement of the Byzantine population in Thrace could also have been a move aimed at the Slavic enclaves that might have existed there, especially because the Byzantine authorities were also carrying out a campaign of displacement of the latter from the Balkans to the eastern edge of the empire.³⁸ Thus, displacement activities were carried out in both directions, depending on the needs of the state and the military threats that arose. These fortifications were to serve as safe bases for the people displaced from the east and, thus, as centres from which Byzantine colonization and reconquest would spread.

We do not know which Thracian fortresses and cities were fortified and settled at that time. The fact that this alarmed the Bulgarians to such an extent that they demanded compensation from the emperor for these actions (above all for the construction of fortifications), and that after his refusal they set out as far as the so-called Long Walls, proves³⁹ that these were centres that threatened Bulgaria or were perceived by the Bulgarian court as a potential threat to it or a violation of the existing status quo, probably consolidated by the aforementioned peace agreement. Therefore, they either were near the border between the two countries or lay on the edge of the area considered a buffer zone between the khanate and Byzantium. The problem of the location of these fortifications is difficult to solve and boils down to determining where the Byzantine-Bulgarian border ran at that time. If we consider that it ran along the main ridge of the Haimos or their southern foothills, the fortress of Markellai,⁴⁰ first mentioned by Patriarch Nikephoros precisely in connection with the events of 756 (or 760), may also have been among these fortifications.⁴¹ Veselin Beshevliev hypothesized that these settlers were deployed according to how the Byzantine-Bulgarian border ran during the reign of Khan Tervel, which according to him coincided more or less with the modern Bulgarian-Turkish border.⁴² Krasimira Gagova, on the other hand, pointed to the area around Philippoupolis and Anchialos as a place of settlement for the displaced people from Asia Minor.⁴³ I would add that they were most likely also deployed in open rural settlements, precisely for the purpose of actually developing these areas for the benefit of Byzantium, especially because northern Thrace was one of the few relatively vast and fertile Balkan areas suitable for agriculture. The Byzantine reconquest of these territories is known to have just begun, so it cannot be ruled out that at least parts of the territory between the Strandzha and the Balkan Mountains constituted a buffer for both states – a kind of no-man’s land.⁴⁴

In view of this, and assuming hypothetically that the consolidation of Markellai was undertaken as early as the 750s, I hypothesize that Byzantine rule in the area was pointwise, that is, concentrated in a few of the most important urban centres, such as Philippoupolis, Anchialos and Mesembria, as well as in their immediate vicinity. I assume that the northernmost point of Markellai indirectly indicates that the southern slopes of the Balkan Mountains marked the border of the Bulgarian Khanate.

The efforts of Constantine V to strengthen Byzantium’s position in Thrace were not episodic. On his return to Constantinople from another expedition against the Bulgarians in the spring of 774, “the emperor returned to the City after leaving garrisons from all the themata in the forts he had built” (ὁ βασιλεὺς εἰσῆλθεν ἐν τῇ πόλει ταξάτους ἀφεὶς ἐκ πάντων τῶν ϑεμάτων καὶ εἰς τὰ κὰστρα ἅπερ ἔκτισεν).⁴⁵ Undoubtedly, these were the same frontier fortifications that the emperor ordered to be erected or rebuilt in 755–756, although it cannot be ruled out that it is about some new fortifications that were built closer to the date mentioned that garrisons were sent to them, and we have no hard evidence of any subsequent investments of this type. This text should not be understood in terms of the absence of settlements and troops stationed inside the fortresses mentioned during the almost 20 years between the date of their (at least some of them) erection and the time of the mentioned expedition. Indeed, sources from the period report the use of these (e.g., Markellai and Anchialos) during campaigns against the Bulgarians during this nearly 20-year period, and they do not appear to have been empty fortifications (refuge or intervention bases) in which invading troops were only temporarily stationed on their way to Bulgaria.⁴⁶ To build such fortifications, especially at borders, without placing permanent garrisons in them would completely miss the point, exposing them to easy takeover by the enemy, who would use them for their own purposes, for example, as bridgeheads for operations in northern Thrace. It seems, therefore, that the previously quoted reference denotes the replenishment of garrisons that had suffered losses in earlier clashes with the Bulgarians (when it comes to older fortresses, those erected in mid-750s), and the sending of troops to newer fortifications, where there were not any. It cannot be ruled out that the construction work undertaken at the behest of Constantine V dragged on for a long time and was only completed in the early 770s, and that only then were the sufficiently armed units sent there to serve as permanent garrisons. However, even in the latter case, fortification investments undertaken in the mid-750s had to be guarded by adequate military units sufficient for this purpose, if only to implement and supervise the construction process. The displacement policy of his father was also continued by Emperor Leo IV (775–780), who displaced the Monophysites from Syria to Thrace in 778.⁴⁷

The visitation and restoration of Thracian fortresses destroyed in the recent wars with Bulgaria were undertaken in May 784 by Empress Irene together with her son Constantine VI (780–797). This tour of Thrace took place after the successful campaign of the logothete Staurakios against the Slavic tribes. The sources explicitly state that, by order of the ruler, the accompanying army rebuilt Beroe⁴⁸ (οἰκοδομηϑῆναι) and Anchialos (κτίσασα) and inspected Philippoupolis.⁴⁹ The former fortress was even to be renamed Irenoupolis. Towns were surrounded with new defensive walls and old fortifications were repaired. The important Anchialos port was also rebuilt. It was not only a triumphal procession that manifested the mightiness of the imperial power in the recovered territories⁵⁰ but also an encouragement for the former Greek settlers to return anew to these centres.⁵¹ In the context of the last statement, the text by Theophanes needs to be examined more closely, as it provides excellent testimony to the ideological aspect of the relationship between the centre and the periphery in the Byzantine Empire itself. Thus, there is no doubt that the actions of the empress constituted a propaganda display, testifying to the re-establishment of peace in these territories by the Byzantine power (Pax Byzantina). I think that in order to emphasize this dimension of Irene’s actions, Theophanes used both a certain wordplay and meaningful repetitions. Therefore, he wrote about the Empress Irene (Εἰρήνη), who decided to rename Beroe as Irenoupolis (Εἰρηνούπολις). She then reached Philippoupolis in complete safety (μετὰ πάσης ἀπαϑείας – in other words, without any hindrance) and returned to the capital in peace (ἐν εἰρήνῃ). The repeated use of the word peace (εἰρήνη), as well as noting that she moved through the area of northern Thrace without any hindrance, was undoubtedly intended to intensify the impression of the security established in Thrace by the power at Constantinople. In constructing this image, Theophanes was aided by the name of the empress herself, which was ideally suited to the wordplay mentioned previously. So the area of northeastern Thrace was indeed safe, or at least such an impression was created.⁵² Thus, from the perspective of the centre, the border periphery was to be secure and stable, thus ensuring the peaceful functioning of the state. Stability was to be guaranteed by the authority of the imperial power, elevated by the military recapture of these territories and supported by concrete actions – the reconstruction of the old fortifications and the erection of new ones, as well as the settlement of these areas and their vicinity by loyal subjects of the Basileus, whose task was also to defend these territories, especially in the sensitive area of northern Thrace.

The rebuilding and repopulation of the cities indicated by Theophanes were of particular importance, as these three fortifications played an extremely important role in the strategic defence of the areas of northern Thrace. I have already mentioned that Beroe and Anchialos were on the northern edge of the Thracian territory. The former fortress lay on the eastern slopes of Sarnena Gora (i.e., the eastern branch of the Sredna Gora), while the latter was located by the sea. Both were located either at the foot of the central Haimos (Beroe) or near the southern slopes of its eastern part (Anchialos). Thus, these fortifications controlled the periphery of the lowland Thracian areas. This was particularly true of the foothills route leading from Serdica to the Black Sea, running along the southern foot of the said mountains. The route where, between Serdica and Beroe in the west and Mesembria and Anchialos in the east and also off the southern slopes of the Haimos (here the Stara Planina range), the Markellai fortress was located. On the other hand, the fortifications in question lay on the routes of several important roads that crossed the mountain range from north to south – Anchialos and Mesembria on the coastal road (via pontica) that led to ancient Odessos and the so-called Varna (understood here as Lake Varna and the Provadiya River flowing into, together with its tributary, that is, the Devnya River, possibly including the areas around them).⁵³ Beroe was located at the exit of the Zmeyovska Pass, which is the most convenient road that crossed the Sredna Gora range, and further to the north – the central part of the Balkan Mountains – probably the Trevnenska or Shipka Pass. The latter resort also lay on the route leading from Philippoupolis, along the southern slopes of the Sredna Gora, to the aforementioned road at the foot of the Balkan Mountains and from there to their passes. Philippoupolis, on the other hand, as I mentioned earlier, was the first important fortified city on the military road, which was reached after crossing the Imperial Kleisura (and thus after leaving the Haimos). From there it was also possible to go north towards the Bulgarian territories using an ancient road crossing the two massifs (the Balkan Mountains through the Troyan Pass, also called Troyan-Karnare) and reaching the ancient city of Oescus on the Danube in the north.⁵⁴ Thus, these fortresses were located along the main routes in northern Thrace – they controlled and guarded them, ensuring a fast and convenient movement of Byzantine troops along them. They could also have been the starting bases for the crossing of the Haimos and the invasion of the territories of the Bulgarian Khanate.⁵⁵ On the other hand, they guarded the access to the Thracian areas that were systematically recovered by the empire – in a word, they were supposed to prevent or hinder the Bulgarians from attacking these lands and complicating the Byzantine authorities’ strategically important intentions, such as the establishment of a real and permanent presence of imperial administration in these territories and, thus, their actual incorporation into Byzantium. To the south, all of the discussed land routes⁵⁶ converged in Adrianople, which acted as a strategic transportation hub for the entire area. Setting off from it towards the north, along the valley of the river Tundzha, one could reach the Markellai fortress. The route between these two fortresses marked the central axis of the entire area in question. It was not coincidental that the entire territory in question – northern Thrace – was soon transformed into the theme of Macedonia,⁵⁷ which undoubtedly demonstrated the stabilization of imperial power in the area.

Successive Byzantine emperors continued the policy of bringing groups of inhabitants from Asia Minor to Thracian territories. Some scholars also assume that in 790 a displacement of 12,000 Armenian colonists to Thrace took place.⁵⁸ In contrast, the measures taken in 784 were further implemented by Constantine VI during the campaign against the Bulgarians in 792, when he rebuilt the frontier fortress of Markellai (ἔκτισε τὸ κάστρον Μαρκέλλων),⁵⁹ which had probably been destroyed or damaged in the course of the earlier Byzantine-Bulgarian wars under Constantine V.

It is not impossible that the renovation works in this fortress and other fortresses in northeastern Thrace were still going on in 796. This may be indicated indirectly by the fact that Khan Kardam (777–796/803) demanded a tribute (πάκτα) from the emperor. As noted by Veselin Beshevliev, the Greek word πάκτα is used by Theophanes in this passage without the definite article, which may prove that it was not a customary payment to which the Bulgarians were entitled by virtue of some earlier agreement.⁶⁰ Admittedly, there is no information on the emperor’s restoration activities in Theophanes’ account, but the circumstances of the Bulgarian ruler’s demands were remarkably similar to those of 755–756, when the Bulgarians demanded monetary compensation for the construction of fortresses by Constantine V.⁶¹ However, another interpretation of Kardam’s demands is possible. By demanding the payment of a tribute, the khan only wanted to take advantage of the increasingly complicated situation of the emperor himself, who had a strong opposition forming against him, headed by Irene, his mother.⁶² In other words, knowing Constantine VI’s predicament, he threatened to invade Byzantium if the latter did not pay him the sum he demanded. At the same time, he hoped that the emperor, who was in a difficult situation, would easily yield in order to secure peace with his northern neighbour.⁶³

The settling of Byzantine subjects in the Balkans was also continued by Nikephoros I (802–811), who in 807 had refugees and outlanders seized from areas of Asia Minor and brought to Thrace, and in the period 809–810 he displaced a group of people to so-called Scalvinia in the geographical area of Macedonia.⁶⁴ A further step in strengthening the Byzantine position in the eastern Balkans was the incorporation of the fortress in Serdica into the empire, sometime in the late 8th century. In this way, at the turn of the 9th century, Byzantium was able to establish a system of fortifications to guard access to the newly regained lands of the empire and to prevent Bulgarian expansion to the south.⁶⁵ Among the emerging fortifications of this defensive system listed to follow, only a few were of direct importance in military operations in the Haimos area and thus on the southern border of the Bulgarian state at that time. Others were scattered in critical locations in the central part of the northeastern Balkans. The most important emerging centres of the defensive system mentioned previously were the fortresses of Serdica, Philippoupolis, Konstanteia, Adrianople, Develtos,⁶⁶ Beroe, Markellai, Mesembria and Anchialos. As I also have already indicated, they were linked by convenient communication routes that enabled the efficient transport of larger armies to the border with Bulgaria. They also had proper garrisons. Due to the fact that these fortresses were located in a somewhat uninhabited territory, with probably few Slavic enclaves, the displaced persons from Asia Minor were concentrated in their vicinity, which significantly strengthened Byzantine political and cultural influence in the area. These fortifications not only acted as a kind of counterbalance to the Bulgarian (wood and earth) fortification facilities deployed in the Haimos range⁶⁷ but were also used as Byzantine base camps against them. The location of the hubs discussed indicates that the system of defensive strongholds was located along the main communication routes of the northeastern Balkans.

According to sources, Emperor Leo V the Armenian also renovated the cities in Thrace and Macedonia that were over the border with the Bulgarians so as to prevent them from carrying out their raids.⁶⁸ He undertook these activities both before and after concluding peace with his northern neighbours in 816.⁶⁹ The restoration works of the fortresses were performed as part of the restoration of the Byzantine theme organization in these areas.⁷⁰

We also have information about deploying Byzantine garrison troops (ταξατιῶνα) in the strongholds of Thrace and Macedonia under Empress Theodora. These data are cited in connection with Bulgarian invasions of these theme territories (perhaps in 850–851). These garrison forces made retaliatory incursions into Bulgarian strongholds and territories most likely located behind the Strandzha, in northwestern Thrace.⁷¹ Traditionally, a large part of these garrison forces consisted of displaced people from Asia Minor.⁷² Touching upon the issues of trade in the discussed border areas, it should be pointed out that the discovery of Boris-Mikhail’s seals in Develtos and the surrounding fortifications confirm that it was there that a customs post and an administrative centre that handled the Byzantine-Bulgarian border in Thrace in the second half of the 9th century were located.⁷³ It seems that it is not possible to decide unequivocally whether Develtos belonged to the Bulgarian state at that time.⁷⁴ It probably remained within the Byzantine borders, playing a role analogous to that of Mesembria during the 8th century, that is, a point of trade with the Bulgarians.⁷⁵ Some scholars even allow for the possibility that the hub was a Byzantine-Bulgarian condominium and that representatives of the administrations of both countries resided there permanently, controlling the flow of trade on the border.⁷⁶ Boris’s seals that were discovered there may have been the remains of documents issued by the Bulgarian ruler to those who traded with Byzantium. I would point out that, as early as 812, Khan Krum demanded such permits for merchants who crossed the borders of the two countries.⁷⁷ On the other hand, they may have been the remains of the khan’s correspondence with the imperial administration in the area. In the summer of 913, Develtos continued to serve as a fortress and border crossing.⁷⁸

On the other hand, one of the Byzantine inscriptions found in Mesembria informs about the reconstruction of this centre, which had been destroyed earlier by the Bulgarians, by Emperor Basil I (867–886) in the period between 879 and 886. This information has been verified by archaeological studies.⁷⁹ Thrace, which was ruined during a long conflict with Tsar Simeon I (893–927), was rebuilt by the empire during the peaceful coexistence of the two states under Peter I (927–969), his son.⁸⁰ Also during the battles against the Rus’ people in 970, Emperor John I Tzimiskes (969–976) deployed armed troops brought from the east in the Byzantine territories that bordered Bulgaria. Their task was to protect the imperial territories from the invasions of Sviatoslav’s troops and to spy on the actions of their enemies.⁸¹ In 971, he brought another group of eastern settlers to Thrace (near Philippoupolis). They were also supposed to defend Thrace against the incursions of nomads who crossed the Haimos.⁸² Basil II (976–1025) did the same in 988 or 989 – he settled large numbers of Armenians in the area of the theme of Macedonia.⁸³ On this occasion, it is rightly noted that the above actions were practised by the Byzantine government in the frontier areas of the state, which were the most at risk.⁸⁴ Another wave of displaced people, Serbs this time, was brought to the areas near Serdica and to other settlements by Emperor Manuel I Komnenos (1143–1180) in 1149.⁸⁵

This system of fortifications retained its functionality in later periods, as the analogies from the 11th and 12th centuries prove that it endured. They indicate that, although at that time the number of fortified centres increased compared to the early medieval period, their tasks remained the same. Anna Komnena mentions roughly the same fortresses in connection with the defence of Thrace against the invasions of Asian nomads. The cities listed in her work that are familiar to us include Serdica, Philippoupolis, Adrianople, Beroe, Anchialos and Markellai. Of the new strongholds, however, she mentions Naissos, Petrich, Diampolis, Lardea and Goloe.⁸⁶ In conclusion, it must be said that Byzantine efforts to secure their own territories against the Bulgarian threat ran along two basic tracks. Fortification systems were erected to neutralize the Bulgarian fortifications of the Balkan Mountains or the hostile expansion to the south. Moreover, efforts were made to increase the number of Byzantine garrisons at the frontier fortifications.⁸⁷ All of this was carried out as part of a gradually developing theme system, which reflected the progress of recovering former Roman lands in the Balkans, and whose task was to effectively oversee the implementation of defensive and offensive objectives against the Bulgarian Khanate on the Danube.

Notes

· 1 On the emergence of the Bulgarian Khanate on the Lower Danube, see, among others, the following review works: Wincenty Swoboda, “Powstanie państwa bułgarskiego na tle słowiańskich procesów państwowotwórczych na Bałkanach,” in 1300-lecie państwa bułgarskiego 681–1981. Materiały z sesji naukowej, ed. Tadeusz Zdancewicz (Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu, 1983), 67–76; Tadeusz Wasilewski, “Kontrowersje wokół powstania i najstarszych dziejów państwa bułgarskiego,” in Trzynaście wieków Bułgarii. Materiały polsko-bułgarskiej sesji naukowej, Warszawa 28–30 X 1981, ed. Janusz Siatkowski (Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich. Wydawnictwo, 1983), 181–89; Gennediy Grigoriyevich Litavrin, “K probleme stanovlenija bolgarskogo gosudarstva,” in Vizantiya i slavyane (sbornik statey) (Sankt-Peterburg: Aleteya, 1999), 192–217.

· 2 On these conquests, see, for example, Mark Whitby, The Emperor Maurice and His Historian: Theophylact Simocatta on Persian and Balkan Warfare (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988), 140–83; Walter Pohl, Die Awaren: ein Steppenvolk im Mitteleuropa, 567–822 n. Chr. (Munich: C. H. Beck, 1988), 76–162; Edward Arthur Thompson, The Huns (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 33 and 81–104; Brian Croke, Count Marcellinus and His Chronicle (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 67–69; Fiona Haarer, Anastasius I: Politics and Empire in the Late Roman world (Cambridge: Francis Cairns, 2006), 104–6; John Hugo Wolfgang Gideon Liebeschuetz, “The Lower Danube Region Under Pressure: From Valens to Heraclius,” in The Transition to Late Antiquity: On the Danube and Beyond, ed. Andrew Poulter (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 101–34; Christopher Kelly, The End of Empire: Attila the Hun and the Fall of Rome (New York and London: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009), 119–47; Alexander Sarantis, Justinian’s Balkan Wars: Campaigning, Diplomacy and Development in Illyricum, Thrace and the Northern World, AD 527–565 (Cambridge: Francis Cairns, 2016), 21–33, 83–84, 101–9, 251–52, 278–300, 336–49.

· 3 On the historical significance of these mountains during the period in question, see Kirił Marinow, “The Haemus Mountains and the Geopolitics of the First Bulgarian Empire: An Overview,” Zbornik radova Vizantološkog instituta 51 (2014): 17–32.

· 4 Vasil Ketskarov, “Ukrepitelnata organizacya na Balgariya i na Vizantiya ot VII do IX vek,” Rodina 2, no. 3 (1940): 38–52, here 39 and 42–44.

· 5 On this route, see Konstantin Josef Jireček, Die Heerstrasse von Belgrad nach Constantin-opel und die Balkanpässe. Eine Historisch-Geographische Studie (Prag: Hamer, 1877); Petar Mutafchiev, “Stariyat drum prez Trayanovi vrata,” Spisanie na Balgarskata Akademiya na naukite. Klon Istoriko-filologichen i Filosofsko-obshestven 55, no. 27 (1937): 19–148.

· 6 These are today’s Niš (Serbia), Sofia and Plovdiv (Bulgaria) and Edirne (Turkey).

· 7 On this pass, see Mutafchiev, “Stariyat drum prez Trayanovi vrata”; Dimitrina Mitova-Dzhonova, “Confinium Succi i Mutatio Soneium prez antichnostta i rannovizantiyskata epoha,” Anlali 1, no. 2–3 (1994): 77–99.

· 8 Zdzisław Czeppe, Jan Flis, and Rodion Mochnacki, Geografia fizyczna świata (Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1969), 239 and 240; Georgi D. Danov, Sredna Gora. Pătevoditel (Sofia: Meditsina i fizkultura, 1971), 124, 316–17; Vasil Nikolov and Marina Yordanova, Planinite v Balgariya (Sofia: Akademichno izdatelstvo “Prof. Marin Drinov”, 2002), 45, 46, 47; Svetlin Kiradzhiev, Entsiklopedichen geografski rechnik na Balgariya (Sofia: Iztok-Zapad, 2013), 163, 227, 246–47, 264–65, 279, 348, 515, 529.

· 9 Panos Sophoulis, Byzantium and Bulgaria 775–831 (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2012), 99, 186.

· 10 Petar Mutafchiev, “Balkanat v nashata istoriya,” in Kniga za balgarite, ed. Vasil Gyuzelev (Sofia: Balgarskata akademiya na naukite, 1987), 65–89, here 70–71.

· 11 Nicephori Patriarchae Constantinopolitani breviarium historicum, 36, ed. Cyril Mango (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 1990), 90, 19–23; Theophanis chronographia, AM 6171, ed. Carl de Boor, vol. I (Lipsiae: B. G. Teubner, 1883), 359, 5–12.

· 12 Tadeusz Wasilewski, Bizancjum i Słowianie w IX wieku. Studia z dziejów stosunków politycznych i kulturalnych (Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1972), 26; Les listes de préséance byzantines des IX^e et X^e siècles, ed. Nicolas Oikonomidès (Paris: Éditions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique), 1972, 349 and 355; Zofia Kurnatowska, Słowiańszczyzna Południowa (Wrocław, Warszawa, Kraków and Gdańsk: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1977), 45; Wincenty Swoboda, “Tema,” in Słownik Starożytności Słowiańskich. Encyklopedyczny zarys kultury Słowian od czasów najdawniejszych do schyłku wieku XII, eds. Gerard Labuda and Zdzisław Stieber, vol. VI, T-W (Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1977), 46–48, here 46 (just after 680); Wincenty Swoboda, “Tracja,” in Słownik Starożytności Słowiańskich. Encyklopedyczny zarys kultury Słowian od czasów najdawniejszych do schyłku wieku XII, eds. Gerard Labuda and Zdzisław Stieber, vol. VI, T-W (Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1977), 119–23, here 122 (before 687); Petar Koledarov, Politicheska geografiya na srednovekovnata balgarska darzhava, vol. I, Ot 681 do 1018 g. (Sofia: Balgarskata akademiya na naukite, 1979), 8; Petar Koledarov, “Obrazuvane na tema ‘Makedoniya’ v Trakiya,” Izvestiya na Instituta za istoriya 21 (1979): 219–43, here 220 (this dates the establishment of the theme at 680); John Van Antwerp Fine, Jr., The Early Medieval Balkans. A Critical Survey from the Sixth Century to the Late Twelfth Century (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1983), 70; Vladimir Popović, “Kuvrat, Kuber i Asparuh,” Starinar 37 (1986): 103–26, here 122; Dimitar Angelov, Vizantiya. Vazhod i zalez na edna imperiya (Sofia: Universitetsko Izdatelstvo “Sv. Kliment Ohridski”, 1991), 123–24; Peter Soustal, Tabula Imperii Byzantini, vol. VI, Thrakien (Thrakē, Rodopē und Haimimontos) (Wien: Verlag de Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1991), 49 and 76; Ivan Yordanov, Pechatite ot strategiyata v Preslav (971–1088) (Sofia: Universitetsko Izdatelstvo “Sv. Kliment Ohridski”, 1993), 125 (the assumed date bracket is 679–680); Warren Treadgold, A History of the Byzantine State and Society (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1997), 329–30 (ca. 681); Vasil Gyuzelev, “Ezicheska Balgariya,” in Istoriya na srednovekovna Balgariya VII–XIV vek, eds. Ivan Bozhilov and Vasil Gjuzelev (Sofia: Izdatelska kashta “Anubis”, 1999), 55–166, here 93 (it narrows the date of the establishment of the theme to 680 to September 685, i.e., the reign of Constantine IV); Christos A. Kyriazopoulos, Η Θράκη κατά τους 10º–12º αιώνες. Συμβολή στη μελέτη της πολιτικής, διοικητικής και εκκλησιστικής της εξελίξης (Thessalonike: Aristoteilo Panepistemio Thessalonikes, 2000), 84 and 86; Corpus of Byzantine Seals from Bulgaria, ed. Ivan Yordanov, vol. I, Byzantine Seals with Geographical Names (Sofia: Agato Publishers, 2003), 92–98 (nos. 35–35.8.12–13); Hristo Matanov, Balkanski horizonti. Istoriya, obshtestva, lichnosti, vol. I (Sofia: Paradigma, 2004), 30; Johannes Koder, Το Βυζάντιο ως χώρος. Εισαγωγή στην Ιστορική Γεωγραφία της Ανατολικής Μεσογείου στη Βυζαντινή Εποχή, trans. Dionysios Ch. Stathakopoulos (Thessalonike: Banias, 2005), 124–25; Maria Leontsine, Κωνσταντίνος Δ΄ (668–685). Ο τελευταίος πρωτοβυζαντινός αυτοκράτορας (Athena: Ethniko Idrima Ereunon, 2006), 145–50. Somewhat different in Agostino Pertusi, “La formation des thèmes byzantines,” in Berichte zum XI. Internationalen Bizantinisten-Kongreß, eds. Franz Dölger and Hans-Georg Beck (München: C. H. Beck, 1958), 1–40, here 38–9 (Thrace was separated into a theme unit independent of Opsikion between 679 and 711); Johannes Irmscher, “Die Begründung des Themas Thrake,” Studia Balcanica 10 (1975): 101–3.

· 13 Constantino Porfirogenito, De thematibus, 44, ed. Agostino Pertusi (Città di Vaticano: Biblioteca apostolica vaticana, 1952), 84, 5–7; 85, 25–30 (commentary on 156–60).

· 14 Nowadays Lüleburgaz in Turkey.

· 15 Swoboda, “Tracja,” 122; Koledarov, Politicheska geografiya, 8; Soustal, Tabula Imperii Byzantini, 49.

· 16 Today’s Debelt in Bulgaria.

· 17 Nicolas Oikonomidès, “À propos de la première occupation byzantine de la Bulgarie (971 – ca. 986),” in Ευψυχία. Mélanges offerts à Hélène Ahrweiler, ed. Michel Balard, vol. II (Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 1998), 581–89, here 583.

· 18 Koder, Το Βυζάντιο ως χώρος, 111; cf. Corpus of Byzantine Seals, 93 (no. 35.1A–B).

· 19 By convention, of course, because the theme system constituted a completely new administrative division of the Byzantine territories, which had little in common with the division from the time of the reforms by Emperors Diocletian (284–305) and Constantine I (306–337).

· 20 See remarks in Sophoulis, Byzantium and Bulgaria 775–831, 96–98. The same extent of this theme in the north, without giving any argumentation and referring only to the literature on the subject, is adopted by Yordanov, Pechatite ot strategiyata v Preslav (971–1088), 125; Corpus of Byzantine Seals, 92 (no. 35).

· 21 Constantino Porfirogenito, De thematibus, 44, ed. Agostino Pertusi (Città di Vaticano: Biblioteca apostolica vaticana, 1952), 84, 19–86, 61. Cf. the reflections in Genoveva Cankova-Petkova, “O teritorii bolgarskogo gosudarstva v VII–IX vv,” Vizantiyskiy Vremennik 17 (1960): 124–43, here 133; Fine, Jr., The Early Medieval Balkans, 70–71; Kyriazopoulos, Η Θράκη κατά τους 10º–12º αιώνες, 85–86.

· 22 Cf. Koledarov, Politicheska geografiya, 8 and 24; Treadgold, A History of the Byzantine State and Society, 375; Uwe Fiedler, “Bulgars in the Lower Danube Region. A Survey of the Archaeological Evidence and of the State of Current Research,” in The Other Europe in the Middle Ages. Avars, Bulgars, Khazars, and Cumans, eds. Florin Curta with the assistance of Roman Kovalev (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2008), 152–236, here 153.

· 23 Today’s Bulgarian hubs: Nessebar, Pomorie, Sozopol and Ahtopol.

· 24 Especially along the section of the coast between the point where the Ropotamo River flows into the sea and the modern Bulgarian-Turkish border. On these hubs, see Wincenty Swoboda, “Sozopol,” in Słownik Starożytności Słowiańskich. Encyklopedyczny zarys kultury Słowian od czasów najdawniejszych do schyłku wieku XII, eds. Gerard Labuda and Zdzisław Stieber, vol. V, S-Ś (Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1975), 345–46; Bozhidar Dimitrov, “Agatopol,” in Balgarski srednovekovni gradove i kreposti, vol. I, Gradove i kreposti po Dunav i Cherno More, eds. Aleksandar Kuzev and Vasil Gyuzelev (Varna: Izdatelstvo “Georgi Bakalov”, 1981), 412–26; Bozhidar Dimitrov, “Malki pristanishtni kreposti,” in Balgarski srednovekovni gradove i kreposti, vol. I, Gradove i kreposti po Dunav i Cherno More, eds. Aleksandar Kuzev and Vasil Gyuzelev (Varna: Izdatelstvo “Georgi Bakalov”, 1981), 433–36; Bozhidar Dimitrov, “Sozopol,” in Balgarski srednovekovni gradove i kreposti, vol. I, Gradove i kreposti po Dunav i Cherno More, eds. Aleksandar Kuzev and Vasil Gyuzelev (Varna: Izdatelstvo “Georgi Bakalov”, 1981), 388–407; Bozhidar Dimitrov, “Urdoviza,” in Balgarski srednovekovni gradove i kreposti, vol. I, Gradove i kreposti po Dunav i Cherno More, eds. Aleksandar Kuzev and Vasil Gyuzelev (Varna: Izdatelstvo “Georgi Bakalov”, 1981), 408–11; Soustal, Tabula Imperii Byzantini, 168–69, 423, 454–56; Krasimira Gagova, Trakiya prez balgarskoto Srednovekovie. Istoricheska geografiya (Sofia: Universitetsko Izdatelstvo “‘Sv. Kliment Ohridski”, 2002), 154–56, 284–85, 298–302, 317–18; Trifon Trifonov, Sedemstotin naimenovaniya ot balgarskoto Chernomorie (Varna: Varna print AD, 2003), 13 (no. 48), 86–87 (no. 47), 94 (no. 5), 127 (tab. XXI), 128 (tab. XXII), 129 (tab. XXIV); Tsoniya Drazheva, “Nay-yuzhnata balgarska chernomorska krepost Ahtopol,” in Kavarna. Sredishte na balgarskiya Severoiztok. Sbornik dokladi ot nauchna konferenciya Kavarna – 2007 g., eds. Boni Petrunova, Hristo Kuzov, and Darina Mircheva (Kavarna: Izdatelstvo “Faber”, 2007), s. 211–21; Bozhidar Dimitrov, Sozopol (Sofia: Akshaena, 2012), 199–220.

· 25 Henryk Maruszczak, Bułgaria (Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1971), 128 and 348; Bozhidar Dimitrov, “Parvoto balgarsko carstvo i Yuzhnoto Chernomorie (Zagora),” in Srednovekovna Balgariya i Chernomorieto (Sbornik dokladi ot nauchnata konferenciya Varna – 1980), ed. Aleksandar Kuzev (Varna: Izdatelstvo “Georgi Bakalov”, 1982), 57–66, here 60.

· 26 Hélène Antoniades-Bibicou, Recherches sur les douanes à Byzance: l’“octava”, le “kommerkion”, et les “commerciaires” (Paris: Librairie Armand Colin, 1963), 231 (nos. 61, 63, 69); Geroge Zacos and Alexander Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals, vol. I, pars 1, nos. 1–1095. Imperial seals: Vth to XVth centuries; Non-imperial seals: VIth to IXth centuries (Basel: Verlag J. J. Augustin, 1972), 182 (tab. no. 30), 277 (tab. no. 200), 293 (tab. no. 217).

· 27 Tihomir Tihov, “Nyakoi aspekti ot vanshnata targoviya na Balgariya s Vizantiya v perioda VII-X vek,” in Patuvaniyata v srednovekovna Balgariya. Materiali ot parvata natsionalna konferenciya “Patuvane kam Balgariya. Patuvaniyata v srednovekovna Balgariya i savremenniyat turizam”, Shumen, 8–11.05.2008 g., ed. Ivan Yordanov (Veliko Tarnovo: Izdatelstvo “Abagar”, 2009), 328–38, here 333.

· 28 On the economic and cultural importance of these cities in late antiquity and the Middle Ages, cf. Ivan Galabov, “Das antike und mittelalterliche Nesebăr,” in Antike und Mittelalter in Bulgarien, eds. Veselin Beševliev and Johannes Irmscher (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag GmbH, 1960), 306–28; Wincenty Swoboda and Wojsław Molè, “Mesembria,” in Słownik Starożytności Słowiańskich. Encyklopedyczny zarys kultury Słowian od czasów najdawniejszych do schyłku wieku XII, eds. Władysław Kowalenko, Gerard Labuda, and Zdzisław Stieber, vol. III, L-O (Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im Ossolińskich, 1967), 197–99; Nessèbre, ed. Teofil Ivanov, vol. I (Sofia: L’Académie bulgare des sciences, 1969); Strashimir N. Lishev, Balgarskiyat srednovekoven grad. Obshtestveno-ikonomicheski oblik (Sofia: “Nauka i izkustvo”, 1970), 84–85, 89, 98, 101, 111–13, 116, 125, 133, 135–37, 139–40, 146, 167, 174, 177, 195, 204; Wincenty Swoboda, “Pomorie,” in Słownik Starożytności Słowiańskich. Encyklopedyczny zarys kultury Słowian od czasów najdawniejszych do schyłku wieku XII, eds. Gerard Labuda and Zdzisław Stieber, vol. IV, P-R (Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1970), 221–22; Ivan Venedikov, Zhanna Chimbuleva, and Mihail Lazarov, Nessebar. Nessebar zwischen Byzanz und Bulgarien (Sofia: Sofia Press, 1971), 60–89; Małgorzata Biernacka-Lubańska, “Anchialos,” Filomata 264 (1973) styczeń, 230–37; Vasil Gjuzelev, “Die mittelalterliche Stadt Mesembria (Nesebăr) im 6.-15. Jh.,” Bulgarian Historical Review 6 no. 1 (1978): 50–59, here 52, 54–55, 57–59; Vladimir I. Georgiev, “Thrakische Etymologien,” Linguistique Balkanique 21, no. 1 (1978): 5–21, here 6 and 9–11; Nessèbre, ed. Velizar Velkov, vol. II (Sofia: L’Académie bulgare des sciences, 1980); Vasil Gyuzelev, “Anchialo,” in Balgarski srednovekovni gradove i kreposti, vol. I, Gradove i kreposti po Dunav i Cherno More, eds. Aleksandar Kuzev and Vasil Gyuzelev (Varna: Izdatelstvo “Georgi Bakalov”, 1981), 356–82, here 358, 368, 375–81, 382; Vasil Gyuzelev, “Nesebar,” in Balgarski srednovekovni gradove i kreposti, vol. I, Gradove i kreposti po Dunav i Cherno More, eds. Aleksandar Kuzev and Vasil Gyuzelev (Varna: Izdatelstvo “Georgi Bakalov”, 1981), 325–55, here 330, 333, 340–43, 353–55; Velisar Velkov, Nessèbre (Sofia: Sofia Press, 1989); Zhanna Chimbuleva, “Mesemvriya – Nesebar,” in Mesambriya – Mesemvriya – Nesebar, eds. Velizar Velkov, Lyuba Ognenova-Marinova, and Zhanna Chimbuleva (Sofia: Svyat, 1991), 72–91; Soustal, Tabula Imperii Byzantini, 150, 175–77, 355–59; Vasil Gjuzelev, “Anchialos zwis-chen der Spätantike und dem frühen Mittelalter,” in Die Schwarzmeerküste in der Spatantike und frühen Mittelalter, eds. Renate Pillinger, Andreas Pülz, and Hermann Vetters (Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1992), 23–33; Vasil Gjuzelev, “Kray grada, narechen Anchialo (Belezhki varhu istoriyata mu prez IV-X v.),” Izvestiya na Narodniya muzey – Varna 28, no. 43 (1992): 144–57, here 146 and 147–48; Velizar Velkov, “Mesembria zwischen dem 4. und 8. Jahrhundert,” in Die Schwarzmeerküste in der Spatantike und frühen Mittelalter, eds. Renate Pillinger, Andreas Pülz, and Hermann Vetters (Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1992), 19–22; Ivan Yordanov, “Anchialo – spored dannite na sfragistikata,” Arheologiya 35, no. 3 (1993): 36–49; Vasil Gyuzelev, “Ocherk varhu istoriyata na srednovekovniya grad Anhialo – dn. Pomorie (IV-XV v.),” Rodina, nos. 3–4 (1997): 43–79, here 61–64; Vasil Gyuzelev, “Srednovekovniyat Anhialo (VI-XV vek),” in Istoriya na Pomorie, vol. I, Anhialo ot Drevnostta do Osvobozhdenieto, eds. Mihail Lazarov, Vasil Gjuzelev Elena Grozdanova, and Velko Tonev (Pomorie: Fondatsiya “25 veka Pomorie”, 2000), 43–76; Vasil Gyuzelev, “Le città della costa bulgara del Mar Nero nei secoli dal XIII alla metà del XV (Caratteristica generale),” in Mittelalterliches Bulgarien. Quellen, Geschichte, Hauptstädte und Kultur (Istanbul: Isis Verlag, 2001), 317–34; Vasil Gyuzelev, “Mesembria durant le XIV^e siècle: histoire, population et monuments,” in Mittelalterliches Bulgarien. Quellen, Geschichte, Hauptstädte und Kultur (Istanbul: Isis Verlag, 2001), 335–44, here 340–44; Evtelpa Theoklieva-Stoytcheva, Medieval Coins from Mesemvria (Sofia: Agato Publishers, 2001); Gagova, Trakiya prez balgarskoto Srednovekovie, 113–14, 116–18, 121–22, 124, 163–68, 251–56; Trifonov, Sedemstotin naimenovaniya ot balgarskoto Chernomorie, 66–67 (no. 3), 73–4 (no. 36), 123–24 (tab. XV–XVI); Nessèbre, ed. Ivan Karayotov, vol. III (Burgas: Muzey “Starinen Nesebar”, 2005); Stoyan Raychevski, Kraybrezhna Stara planina. Toponimi i hidronimi (Sofia: Balgarski bestselar, Natsionalen muzey na balgarskata kniga i poligrafiya, 2007), 88–102 and 116–29; Ivan Yordanov, “Anhialo spored dannite na sfragistikata (VI-XII v.),” Bulgaria Mediaevalis 1 (2010): 325–79. General remarks on the significance of ports see – Witold Hensel, Słowiańszczyzna wczesnośredniowieczna. Zarys kultury materialnej (Warszawa: Państowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1987), 446, ft. 112; 469. On the port of Mesembria, cf. Dimitar Dimitrov, “Nesebarskoto pristanishte prez Srednovekovieto,” in Bulgaria Pontica Medii Aevi VI-VII. Mesembria Pontica. Mezhdunaroden Seminar Nesebar, 28–31 May 2006 God., ed. Ivan Karayotov (Burgas: Muzey “Starinen Nesebar”, 2008), 313–34.

· 29 Constantino Porfirogenito, De thematibus, 162–66 (A. Pertusi); Wasilewski, Bizancjum, 27; Les listes de préséance, loc. cit.; Swoboda, “Tema,” 46; Fine Jjr., The Early Medieval Balkans, 79–80; Soustal, Tabula Imperii Byzantini, 49; Kyriazopoulos, Η Θράκη κατά τους 10º–12º αιώνες, 86; Corpus of Byzantine Seals, 112–17 (nos. 46–46.6.10–11.14–15); Matanov, Balkanski horizonti, 31; Koledarov, Politicheska geografiya, 31. Matanov, Obrazu-vane, 222–23, narrowed down the establishment of the theme to the period 799–802. Similarly, Soustal, Tabula Imperii Byzantini, 82. Sophoulis, Byzantium and Bulgaria 775–831, 98, 166, meanwhile, restricts its origin to the period 788–790. Gagova, Trakiya prez balgarskoto Srednovekovie, 37, also places this event in the 780s. Tadeusz Wasilewski assumed that originally this theme covered the valley of the Struma river and that it was transferred to the area of northern Thrace only at the time of Emperor Leo V the Armenian (813–820): Wasilewski, Bizancjum, 27, 58, 74–76. A similar location (east of the Struma valley) was also suggested by Koder, Το Βυζάντιο ως χώρος, 125; Sophoulis, Byzantium and Bulgaria 775–831, 98 (between Hebros and Strymon). Of course, fighting against the Bulgarians was not the only reason for creating the aforementioned administrative units: cf. Vasil Gyuzelev, Knyaz Boris I. Balgariya prez vtorata polovina na IX vek (Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo, 1969), 27.

· 30 Constantino Porfirogenito, De thematibus, 166–67 (A. Pertusi); Les listes de préséance, 101 and 25; Fine, Jr., The Early Medieval Balkans, 83; Treadgold, A History of the Byzantine State and Society, 464; Corpus of Byzantine Seals, 159 (nos. 73–73.1).

· 31 Cf. Les listes de préséance, 352; Corpus of Byzantine Seals, 83, 89, 91 (nos. 27, 34–34.1.6–7).

· 32 Theophanis chronographia, AM 6209, pp. 391, 5–10; Hristo Dimitrov, “Slavyani i prabalgari po Zapadnoto Chernomorsko kraybrezhie do kraya na IX vek,” Godishnik na Sofiyskiya Universitet. Nauchen Centar za Slavyano-vizantiyski prouchvaniya Ivan Duychev, 84–85, no. 4 (1990–1991): 79–100, here 85.

· 33 Nicephori Patriarchae Constantinopolitani breviarium historicum, 73, pp. 144, 1–5; Theophanis chronographia, AM 6247, pp. 429, 19–26; Nicephori archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani antirrhereticus tertius: Adversus Constantinum Copronymum, 73, in Patrologiae Grecae cursus completus, vol. C, cols. 375–534, here 512 B-C; Georgii Monachii chronicon, ed. Carl de Boor, vol. II (Lipsiae: B. G. Teubner, 1904), 762, 25–763, 20. Wasilewski, Bizancjum, 31 and 48, dates the beginning of the erection of the fortresses to 752.

· 34 About this, see Genoveva Cankova-Petkova, “Balgaro-vizantiyskiyat miren dogovor ot 716 g.,” in Izsledvaniya v chest na akad. Dimitar Dechev po sluchay na 80-godishninata mu, eds. Veselin Beshevliev and Vladimir Georgiev (Sofia: Balgarska akademiya na naukite, 1958), 743–46; Vladimir Kutikov, “Balgaro-vizantiyskiyat dogovor ot 716 g. (Pravno-istorichesko izsledvane),” Godishnik na Sofiyskiya Universitet. Juridicheski fakultet 65 no. 1 (1974): 69–119; Nicolas Oikonomidès, “Tribute or Trade? The Byzantine-Bulgarian Treaty of 716,” in Studia Slavico-Byzantina et Mediaevalia Europensia. In memoriam Ivan Dujčev, vol. I, eds. Petăr Dinekov, Axinia Džurova, Georgi Bakalov, Krasimir Stančev, and Georgi Minčev (Sofia: “Dr. Peter Beron”, 1988), 29–31; Filippos Filippou, “Η βυζαντινο-βουλγαρική συνθήκη ειρήνης του 716,” Byzantiaka 13 (1993): 173–84; Euangelos K. Kyriakes, Βυζάντιο και Βούλγαροι (7ος–10ος αι.). Συμβολή στην εξωτερική πολιτική του Βυζαντίου (Athena: Basilopoulos Stefanos, 1993), 183–90; Gennediy Grigoriyevich Litavrin, “K diskussii o dogovore 716 g. mezhdu Vizantiey i Bolgariey,” in Vizantiya i slavyane (sbornik statey) (Sankt-Peterburg: Aleteya, 1999), 232–34; Ivan Bilyarski, Fiskalna sistema na srednovekovna Balgariya (Plovdiv: Fondatsiya “Balgarsko istorichesko nasledstvo”, 2010), 131–39.

· 35 Veselin Beševliev, Die Protobulgarische Periode der bulgarischen Geschichte (Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1981), 206–7; Hristo Dimitrov, “Konstantin V (741–775),” in Vizantiyskite vasilevsi, ed. Ivan Bozhilov (Sofia: Izdatelstvo “Abagar”, 1997), 188–93, here 189. The people who were displaced were also supposed to be a barrier against the Bulgarian invasions: Dimitar Angelov, Obrazuvane na balgarskata narodnost (Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo, 1981), 209.

· 36 See Ralph-Johannes Lilie, “Thrakien und Thrakesion,” Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 26 (1977): 7–47; Koledarov, Politicheska geografiya, 8, 22, 24; Angelov, Obrazuvane, 160; Rasho Rashev, “Poselishtniyat zhivot v Severna Trakiya prez rannoto Srednovekovie,” in Severoiztochna Trakiya i Vizantiya prez IV–XIV vek, ed. Dimitar Ovcharov (Sofia and Sliven: Balgarska akademiya na naukite, 1993), 101–17, here 103 and 107–12; Dimcho V. Momchilov, “Severoiztochna Trakiya VII–X vek,” Epohi 3, no. 2 (1995): 61–70, here 61 and 67; Dimcho V. Momchilov, “Opit za demografska harakteristika na Severoiztocchna Trakiya VII–X vek,” in Prof. d.i.n. Stancho Vaklinov i srednovekovnata balgarska kultura, eds. Kazimir Popkonstantinov, Boris Borisov, and Rosina Kostova (Veliko Tarnovo: Universitetsko Izdatelstvo “Sv. sv. Kiril i Metodiy”, 2005), 305–9; Dimcho V. Momchilov, Kultura i politika na Parvoto balgarsko tsarstvo v Severoiztochna Trakiya (po arheologicheski danni) (Varna: Zograf, 2007), 204–5, 217–19, 220; Boris Borisov, “Do tuk stiga Balgariya (Belezhki po hronologiyata i razvitieto na selishtnata mrezha v Juzhna Balgariya po vremeto na Parvoto balgarsko tsarstvo),” in Ottuka zapochva Baalgariya. Materiali ot vtorata nacionalna konferenciya po istoriya, arheologiya i kulturen turizam “Patuvane kam Balgariya” – Shumen, 14–16.05.2010 godina, ed. Ivan Yordanov (Shumen: Universitetsko Izdatelstvo “Episkop Konstantin Preslavski”, 2011), 231–51; Kamen Stanev, Trakiya prez rannoto Srednovekovie (Veliko Tarnovo: Izdatelstvo “Faber”, 2012), 5–6, 53, 56–57, 174; Galina Stefanova Grozdanova, Naselenieto na Juzhna Balgariya VI–IX v. (po arheologicheski danni) (Sofia: Natsionalen arheologicheski instytut s muzey – BAN, 2018), 42–50, 72–82, 133–64, especially the conclusions on page 164. For another point of view, see Swoboda, “Tracja,” 121–22.

· 37 Nicephori Patriarchae Constantinopolitani breviarium historicum, 73, 144, 1–5; Theophanis chronographia, AM 6247, pp. 429, 19–22; Nicephori archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani antirrhereticus tertius: Adversus Constantinum Copronymum, 72, coll. 509 A. Cf. also Theophanis chronographia, AM 6237, pp. 422, 11–18. On the stages and chronology of bringing these, as well as other settlers, from Asia Minor, cf. among others Peter Charanis, “The Transfer of Population as a Policy in the Byzantine Empire,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 3, no. 2 (1961): 140–54, here 144, 146, 151–52; Wasilewski, Bizancjum, 45; Angelov, Obrazuvane, 208 and 209; Tadeusz Wasilewski, Historia Bułgarii (Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich. Wydawnictwo, 1988), 44; Soustal, Tabula Imperii Byzantini, 79; Hans Ditten, “Umsiedlungen von Slawen aus Bulgarien nach Kleinasien einer – und von Armeniern Syrern nach Thrakien andererseits zur Zeit des byzantinischen Kaisers Konstantin V. (Mitte des 8. Jhs),” in Bulgaria Pontica Medii Aevi, ed. Vasil Gyuzelev, vol. III (Sofia: Universitetsko Izdatelstvo “Sv. Kliment Ohridski”, 1992), 25–42; Hans Ditten, Ethnische Verschiebungen zwischen der Balkanhalbinsel und Kleinasien vom Ende des 6. bis zur Zweiten Hälfte des 9. Jahrhunderts (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1993), 68 and 177–91 (to the largest extent, also about other people displaced to the territory of Thrace); Ilse Rochow, Kaiser Konstantin V. (741–775). Materialien zu seinem Leben und Nachleben. Mit einem prosopographischen Anhung von Claudia Ludwig, Ilse Rochow und Ralph-Johannes Lilie (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang GmbH, 1994), 75–76 and 91–92; Dimitrov, “Konstantin,” 189; Treadgold, A History of the Byzantine State and Society, 359–60 and 362; Kyriazopoulos, Η Θράκη κατά τους 10º–12º αιώνες, 68–69, 148–50; Stanev, Trakiya prez rannoto Srednovekovie, 33, 86–97, 105–6, 176.

· 38 Nicephori Patriarchae Constantinopolitani breviarium historicum, 38, 92, 1–94, 28; 75, 148, 1–5; Theophanis chronographia, AM 6180, pp. 364, 11–15; AM 6254, pp. 432, 27–29; Michael Graebner, “The Slavs in Byzantine Population Transfers of the Seventh and Eighth Centuries,” Études Balkaniques 11, no. 1 (1975): 40–52.

· 39 Nicephori Patriarchae Constantinopolitani breviarium historicum, 73, 144, 5–11; Theophanis chronographia, AM 6247, pp. 429, 25–28; Nicephori archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani antirrhereticus tertius: Adversus Constantinum Copronymum, 72, coll. 509 A. Veselin Beševliev, “Die Feldzüge des Kaisers Konstantin V. gegen die Bulgaren,” in Bulgarisch-Byzantinische Aufsaetze (Aldershot: Variorum, 1978), 5–17 (no. 31), here 6; Beševliev, Die Protobulgarische Periode, 207, ft. 14; A. Veselin Beševliev, “Edna nezabelyazana klauza na balgaro-vizantiyski miren dogovor,” Godishnik na Sofiyskiya Universitet. Nauchen tsentar za slavyano-vizantiyski prouchvaniya “Ivan Duychev” 82, no. 2 (1988): 7–10, here 8–9, admits that, in the peace treaty between both states, there was a clause that prohibited the construction of fortifications in the border area [similarly, Steven Runciman, A History of the First Bulgarian Empire (London: G. Bell & Sons Ltd., 1930), 35–36; Fine, Jr., The Early Medieval Balkans, 76]. He does not exclude that it could have been in another treaty that extended the duration of the peace of 716: Veselin Beshevliev, “Tri prinosa kam balgarskata srednovekovna istoriya,” in Izsledvaniya v chest na Marin S. Drinov, eds. Aleksandar K. Burmov, Dimitar Angelov, and Ivan Duychev (Sofia: Balgarska akademiya na naukite, 1960), 283–300, here 287–88. Other scholars admit that the Bulgarians demanded the usual annual tribute, which was guaranteed by previous agreements: Petar Mutafchiev, Lekcii po istoriya na Vizantiya, ed. Georgi Bakalov, vol. II (Sofia: Izdatelstvo “Anubis”, 1995), 35–36; Wasilewski, Bizancjum, 45; Borislav Primov and Genoveva Cankova-Petkova, “Balgariya prez VIII v.,” in Istoriya na Balgariya v chetirinadeset toma, ed. Dimitar Angelov, vol. II, Parva balgarska darzhava (Sofia: Balgarskata akademiya na naukite, 1981), 110–30, here 120; Florin Curta, Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages 500–1250 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 84–85. The compromise solution was suggested by Petar Mutafchiev, Istoriya na balgarskiya narod/681–1323/, ed. Vasil Gyuzelev (Sofia: Balgarskata akademiya na naukite, 1986), 121. Primov and Cankova-Petkova, “Balgariya prez VIII v.,” according to whom the Bulgarians demanded the customary tribute, increased by an allowance for the erection of fortresses. Fine, Jr., The Early Medieval Balkans, 76. Gyuzelev, “Ezicheska Balgariya,” 114, stated that the khan demanded compensation for the erection of the fortresses, while Gagova, Trakiya prez balgarskoto Srednovekovie, 34, acknowledged that the khan demanded a new peace treaty.

· 40 In the present day about 7 km west of the town of Karnobat in the western part of the Hisar Hill, which is the southern branch of the eastern Balkan Mountains.

· 41 Nicephori Patriarchae Constantinopolitani breviarium historicum, 73, 144, 16–18.

· 42 Beševliev, “Edna nezabelyazana klauza,” 9–10. Of course, after the khan received Zagora.

· 43 Gagova, Trakiya prez balgarskoto Srednovekovie, 34. Cf. Ani Dancheva-Vasileva, “Armenskoto prisastvie v Plovdiv prez srednovekovieto (VIII–XIII v.),” Istoricheski pregled 55, no. 5–6 (1999): 119–35, here 120.

· 44 Koledarov, Politicheska geografiya, 6 and 22; Momchilov, “Severoiztochna Trakiya,” 62 and 66. However, the empire made legitimate claims to this territory from the point of view of the former Byzantine affiliation of northern Thrace.

· 45 Theophanis chronographia, AM 6265, pp. 447, 8–9; The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor. Byzantine and Near Eastern History AD 284–813, translated with Introduction and Commentary by Cyril Mango and Robert Scott with the assistance of Geoffrey Greatrex (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), 617. Cf. Rasho Rashev, “Balgaro-vizantiyskiyat mir pri Varna ot 773 g.,” Istoriya 7, no. 2–3 (1999): 81–85, here 83. We also have testimonies that prove that even at the end of his reign the emperor continued to carry out building work in Thrace. They were indirectly connected with the expeditions against the Bulgarians. This is with regard to the repair of a bridge on the road connecting Arcadiopolis with Visa, in connection with the preparations for the expedition to Litosoria in late 774: Cyril Mango and Ihor Ševčenko, “Three Inscriptions of the Reigns of Anastasius I and Constantine V,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 65, no. 2 (1972): 379–93, here 384–93 (the text with a commentary); Soustal, Tabula Imperii Byzantini, 421.

· 46 Cf. Nicephori Patriarchae Constantinopolitani breviarium historicum, 73, 144, 16–18 (Markellai, 756 or 760); Ibid., 76, 148, 11–12 (Anchialos, 763); Ibid., 82, 156, 4–9 (Mesembria and Anchialos, 766); Theophanis chronographia, AM 6254, 433, 4–5 (Anchialos, 763); cf. Dimcho Momchilov, “Rolyata na Anhialo i Markeli pri voennite konflikti mezhdu Balgariya i Vizantiya prez perioda na Parvoto balgarsko tsarstvo,” in Velikotarnovskiyat universitet “Sv. sv. Kiril i Metodiy” i balgarskata arheologiya, ed. Boris Borisov, vol. I (Veliko Tarnovo: Universitetsko Izdatelstvo “Sv. sv. Kiril i Metodiy”, 2010), 437–48, here 437–38, 439, 40.

· 47 Theophanis chronographia, AM 6270, pp. 451, 12–452, 2. Cf. Ioannis Scylitzae synopsis historiarum, 20, ed. Johannes Thurn (Berolini et Novi Eboraci: W. de Gruyter, 1973), 276, 23–277, 27; Charanis, “The Transfer of Population as a Policy in the Byzantine Empire,” 144; Angelov, Obrazuvane, 209; Beševliev, Die Protobulgarische Periode, 229; Primov and Cankova-Petkova, “Balgariya prez VIII v.,” 129; Soustal, Tabula Imperii Byzantini, 81; Ditten, Ethnische Verschiebungen, 192; Ralph-Johannes Lilie, Byzanz unter Eirene und Konstantin VI. (780–802). Mit einem Kapitel über Leon IV. (775–780) von Ilse Rochow (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang GmbH, 1996), 17, 21, 177 (here also Arabic sources); Treadgold, A History of the Byzantine State and Society, 369; Dancheva-Vasileva, “Armenskoto prisastvie”; Gyuzelev, “Ezicheska Balgariya,” 120; Kyriazopoulos, Η Θράκη κατά τους 10º-12º αιώνες, 149 (podaje rok 777); Gagova, Trakiya prez balgarskoto Srednovekovie, 37; Sophoulis, Byzantium and Bulgaria 775–831, 146, 160. According to one of the Armenian historians it was supposed to be as high as 150,000.

· 48 Today Stara Zagora in Bulgaria.

· 49 Since Theophanes did not explicitly mention the fortification of Philippopolis, it must be assumed that this was indeed not done: James Douglas Howard-Johnston, “Urban Continuity in the Balkans in the Early Middle Ages,” in Ancient Bulgaria. Papers Presented to the International Symposium on the Ancient History and Archaeology of Bulgaria, University of Nottingham, ed. Andrew G. Poulter, vol. II (Nottingham: University of Nottingham, 1983), 242–54, here 248; Lilie, Byzanz, 174; Gagova, Trakiya prez balgarskoto Srednovekovie, 268–69 are of a different opinion, as they accept the interpretation that repairs to the fortifications also took place at this centre. Whereas Angelov, Obrazuvane, 199–200, also added Mesembria to the cities whose defensive walls were restored at that time, although the sources do not mention this centre at all.

· 50 Possibly also partly in relation to Bulgaria.

· 51 This was especially true for depopulated Beroe. On the actions of Irene in 784, see Theophanis chronographia, AM 6276, pp. 457, 6–11; Wasilewski, Bizancjum, 47; Primov and Cankova-Petkova, “Balgariya prez VIII v.”; Angelov, Vizantiya, 149–50; Jonathan Shepard, “Slavs and Bulgars,” in The New Cambridge Medieval History, ed. Rosamond McKitterick, vol. II, c. 700–c. 900 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 228–48, here 234; Lilie, Byzanz, 170, 173–4; Treadgold, A History of the Byzantine State and Society, 418–19; Gagova, Trakiya prez balgarskoto Srednovekovie, 37; Judith Herrin, Women in Purple: Rulers of Medieval Byzantium (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2001), 81–82; Sophoulis, Byzantium and Bulgaria 775–831, 162–63.

· 52 Cf. remarks by Lilie, Byzanz, 171–79. Georgios Monachos, on the other hand, explicitly stated that the imperial tour of Thrace occurred when there was a lasting peace: Georgii Monachii chronicon, 763, 14–18. Cf. Kyriakes, Βυζάντιο και Βούλγαροι (7ος–10ος αι.), 93–94.

· 53 “ἐπὶ τὴν λεγομένην Βάρναν πλησίον Ὀδύσσου” is a source expression: Nicephori Patriarchae Constantinopolitani breviarium historicum, 36, 90, 19–20; Theophanis chronographia, AM 6171, pp. 359, 8–9. The identification with the indicated water bodies is based on the text by Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus: Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio, 9, ed. Gyula Moravcsik, trans. Romilly James Heald Jenkins (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 1967), 62, 100. Comment i.a. in Valentin Pletn’ov and Preslav Peev, “Za srednovekovniya Varnenski pristan Roso/Rosito/Rosiko,” in Velikotarnovskiyat universitet “Sv. sv. Kiril i Metodiy” i balgarskata arheologiya, ed. Boris Borisov, vol. I (Veliko Tarnovo: Universitetsko Izdatelstvo “Sv. sv. Kiril i Metodiy”, 2010), 505–24, here 509–10.

· 54 Near present-day Gigen in Bulgaria.

· 55 Gyuzelev, “Ezicheska Balgariya,” 121–22, recognizes that one of the objectives of the 784 operations was to prepare bases for an offensive in Bulgaria.

· 56 On the road system in Bulgaria, see Vasilka Tapkova-Zaimova, “Kam vaprosa za voennite patishta prez Parvoto balgarsko tsarstvo,” Istoricheski pregled 14, no. 1 (1958): 58–73; Soustal, Tabula Imperii Byzantini, 132–46; Klaus Belke, “Roads and Travel in Macedonia and Thrace in the Middle and Late Byzantine Period,” in Travel in the Byzantine World. Papers from the Thirty-fourth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Birmingham, April 2000, ed. Ruth Macrides (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001), 73–90; Anna Avramea, “Land and Sea Communications, Fourth-–Fifteenth Centuries,” in The Economic History of Byzantium. From the Seventh through the Fifteenth Century, ed. Angeliki E. Laiou, vol. I (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 2002), 64–74; Gagova, Trakiya prez balgarskoto Srednovekovie, 99–110; Mitko Madzharov, Rimskiyat pat Eskus – Filipopol. Patni stancii i selishta (Plovdiv: Plovdiv-2004, 2004); Koder, Το Βυζάντιο ως χώρος, 91–99; Pavel Georgiev, “Glavniyat pat Vizantiya – Balgariya do kraya na VIII vek,” in Patuvaniyata v srednovekovna Balgariya i savremenniyat turizam, Shumen, 8–11.05.2008 g., ed. Ivan Yordanov (Veliko Tarnovo: Izdatelstvo “Abagar”, 2009), 84–103; Mitko Madzharov, Roman Roads in Bulgaria. Contribution to the Development of Roman Road System in the Provinces of Moesia and Thrace (Veliko Tarnovo: Faber, 2009); Vasilka Tăpkova-Zaimova, “Frontières médiévales et réseau routier au sud du Danube,” Bulgaria Mediaevalis 1 (2010): 1–15.

· 57 Shepard, “Slavs and Bulgars,” 234; Herrin, Women in Purple, 81.

· 58 Angelov, Obrazuvane, 209.

· 59 Theophanis chronographia, AM 6284, pp. 467, 27–28. Comment to ἔκτισε in The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor, p. 643, n. 4. Cf. Beševliev, Die Protobulgarische Periode, 231; Dimcho Momchilov, Patna i selishtna sistema mezhdu Iztochna Stara Planina i “Erkesiyata” IV–XIV v. (Varbishki, Rishki i Aytoski prohod) (Varna: Zograf, 1999), 78. An indirect testimony to the ruining of the fortress may be the absence of its bishop at the VII Ecumenical Council of 787 – Wasilewski, Bizancjum, 31. However, some authors believe that Constantine VI did not rebuild the fortress, but expanded it – Gyuzelev, “Ezicheska Balgariya,” 122; Momchilov, Kultura i politika, 39.

· 60 Beševliev, Die Protobulgarische Periode, 232. This passage was interpreted differently by i.a. Mutafchiev, Istoriya, 130; George Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State, trans. Joan Hussey (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1968), 182, fn. 4; Wasilewski, Bizancjum, 8; Primov and Cankova-Petkova, “Balgariya prez VIII v.,” 130; Wasilewski, Historia, 41; Kyriakes, Βυζάντιο και Βούλγαροι (7ος–10ος αι.), 101; Ivan Venedikov, Prabalgarite i hristianstvoto (Stara Zagora: Izdatelstvo “Ideya”, 1998), 98. According to Gagova, Trakiya prez balgarskoto Srednovekovie, 37, it was precisely the tribute guaranteed by the peace treaty of 792. Lilie, Byzanz, 184, also pointed out that Beshevliev did not take into account the possibility of the omission of the article by the copyist. This view, however, is pure conjecture.

· 61 Theophanis chronographia, AM 6247, pp. 429, 19–28. When describing those events, the chronicler also used the preceding Greek noun without the article.

· 62 Beševliev, Die Protobulgarische Periode, 233–34; Kyriakes, Βυζάντιο και Βούλγαροι (7ος–10ος αι.), 95–97; Lilie, Byzanz, 87–99. Cf. Petar Angelov, Balgarskata srednovekovna diplomatsiya (Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo, 1988), 87.

· 63 Cf. Sophoulis, Byzantium and Bulgaria 775–831, 169–70.

· 64 Theophanis chronographia, AM 6299, 482, 30–433, 2; AM 6302, 486, 10–19; Charanis, “The Transfer of Population as a Policy in the Byzantine Empire,” 144–45; Wincenty Swoboda, “Nicefor I,” in Słownik Starożytności Słowiańskich. Encyklopedyczny zarys kultury Słowian od czasów najdawniejszych do schyłku wieku XII, eds. Gerard Labuda and Zdzisław Stieber, vol. III, P-R (Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1970), 371–72, here 371; Primov Borislav, “Ukrepvane i teritorialno razshirenie na balgarskata darzhava prez parvata polovina na IX v.,” in Istoriya na Balgariya v chetirinadeset toma, vol. II, Parva balgarska darzhava (Sofia: Balgarskata akademiya na naukite, 1981), 130–61, here 134; Fine, Jr., The Early Medieval Balkans, 81–82 and 95 (date of the second of the displacements mentioned in 810–811); Wasilewski, Historia, 48; Angelov, Vizantiya, 150–51; The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor, 663, fn. 1–2; Sophoulis, Byzantium and Bulgaria 775–831, 184–86. According to Fine, Jr., The Early Medieval Balkans, 81–82 and 95; Gyuzelev, “Ezicheska Balgariya,” 128, the colonization of 810 also included (according to the American researcher, it could have included) the Thracian Sklavinias, and its purpose was to strengthen the Byzantine-Bulgarian borderland.

· 65 Wasilewski, Bizancjum, 49–50; Wasilewski, Historia, 48; Shepard, “Slavs and Bulgars,” 235; Gyuzelev, “Ezicheska Balgariya,” 120–21; Sophoulis, Byzantium and Bulgaria 775–831, 186. It was not, of course, that the Bulgarians could not perform plundering raids in Macedonia, but that leaving such an important fortress behind would have made permanent control of Macedonian lands almost impossible.

· 66 On this centre, cf. Stefan Damyanov, “Arheologicheskite otkritiya v Debelt,” More 3, no. 1 (1982): 234–41; Stefan Damyanov, “Prouchvaniya v Debelt – problemi i perspektivi,” in Strandzhansko-Sakarski sbornik, vol. II, part 2, Dokladi ot Vtoriya interdistsiplinaren simpozium “Strandzha – Sakar”, Malko Tarnovo 1980 (Malko Tarnovo: Programa za nauchni izsledvaniya na Starndzhansko-Sakarskiya kray, 1984), 91–93; Mariya Balbolova-Ivanova, “Develt prez VIII–X vek,” Vekove 20, no. 1–2 (1991): 50–56; Stefan Damyanov, “Tamozhnyj tsentr IX v. v rayone Debelta. Predvaritel’noe soobshenie,” in Bulgaria Pontica Medii Aevi, vol. III (Sofia: Universitetsko Izdatelstvo “Sv. Kliment Ohridski”, 1992), 247–51; Christo Dimitrov, “Die frühmittelalterliche Stadt Debeltos zwischen Byzanz und Bulgarien vom achten bis zehnte Jahrhundert,” in Die Schwarzmeerküste in der Spatantike und frühen Mittelalter, eds. Renate Pillinger, Andreas Pülz, and Hermann Vetters (Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1992), 35–45; Dimitar Sasselov, “Die frühmittelalterlichen Mauern am Meer von Nessebăr,” in Bulgaria Pontica Medii Aevi, vol. III (Sofia: Universitetsko Izdatelstvo “Sv. Kliment Ohridski”, 1992), 227–32; Tsonya Drazheva, “Nyakoi problemi na gradoustrystvenoto razvitie na Debelt,” Izvestiya na Natsionalniya istoricheski muzey 11 (2000): 35–63; Mariya Balbolova-Ivanova, “Srednevekovyj Develt v VIII–X vv.,” in Bulgaria Pontica Medii Aevi, ed. Vasil Gyuzelev, vol. IV–V/1 (Sofia: Gutenberg, 2003), 79–84.

· 67 About these in the broader context, see Rasho Rashev, “Zemlenata ukrepitelna sistema na Parvoto balgarsko tsarstvo,” in Pliska- – Preslav, ed. Dimitar Angelov, vol. II, Prabalgarskata kultura. Materiali na balgaro-savetskata sreshta, Shumen 1976 (Sofia: Balgarska akademiya na naukite, 1981), 99–103; Rasho Rashev, Starobalgarski ukrepleniya na Dolniya Dunav/VII–XI v./(Varna: Izdatelstvo “Georgi Bakalov”, 1982); Rasho Rashev, Balgarskata ezicheska kultura VII–IX vek (Sofia: IK “Klasika i Stil” OOD, 2008), 34–39.

· 68 Iosephi Genesii regum libri quattuor, I, 23, eds. Anni Lesmüeller-Werner and Johannes Thurn (Berolini: W. de Gruyter, 1978), 21, 35–38; Chronographiae quae Theophanis Continuati nomine fertur. Libri I–IV, I, 19, eds. Michael Featherstone and Juan Signes Codoñer (Boston and Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015), 48, 5–7. Cf. Scriptoris Incerti historia de Leone Barde Armenii filio in Leonis Grammatici Chronographia, ed. Immanuel Bekker (Bonnae: Ed. Weber, 1842), 333–62, here 348, 2–11.

· 69 About this peace agreement, see Warren Treadgold, “The Bulgars’ Treaty with the Byzantines in 816,” Rivista di studi byzantini e slavi 4 (1984): 213–20; Sophoulis, Byzantium and Bulgaria 775–831, 278 (this scholar doubts the reconstruction of the centres indicated during the war; it was more likely postponed to after the conclusion of peace with the khanate).

· 70 Wasilewski, Bizancjum, 74; Gyuzelev, “Ezicheska Balgariya,” 146.

· 71 Symeonis Magistri et Logothetae Chronicon, 131, 18, ed. Stephan Wahlgren (Berolini et Novi Eboraci: Walter de Gruyter, 2006), 239, 148–240, 153. Cf. Leonis Grammatici chronographia, ed. Immanuel Bekker (Bonnae: Ed. Weber, 1842), 235, 5–10; Georgii Monachii chronicon breve, V, 11, in Patrologiae Grecae cursus completus, vol. CX, colls. 1035–1286, here 1044C–1045A; Symeonis Magistri annales, 12, ed. Immanuel Bekker (Bonnae: Ed. Weber, 1838), 657, 7–11. Commentary – Ivan Dujčev, “A propos de la Vie de St. Pierre d’Atroa,” Byzantinoslavica 27, no. 1 (1966): 92–97; Wasilewski, Bizancjum, 93 and 98–100; Beševliev, Die Protobulgarische Periode, 296–97.

· 72 Wasilewski, Bizancjum, 93 and 98–99.

· 73 Dimitrov, “Parvoto balgarsko carstvo,” 64; Wasilewski, Historia, 57; Momchilov, “Severoiztochna Trakiya,” 65; Bistra Nikolova, Ustroystvo i upravlenie na balgarskata pravoslavna carkva/IX–XIV vek/(Sofia: Izdatelstvo “Nov Chovek”, 2017), 16–17; Gagova, Trakiya prez balgarskoto Srednovekovie, 199–200. These monuments were discussed in Ivan Yordanov, Korpus na pechatite na srednovekovna Balgariya (Sofia: Agato, 2001), 31–32 and 34.

· 74 Cf. remarks by Gagova, Trakiya prez balgarskoto Srednovekovie, 200.

· 75 Oikonomidès, “Tribute,” 30–31; cf. Ivan Yordanov, “Pechatite na komerkiariyata Develt,” Poselishtni prouchvaniya 2 (1992): 17–85; Ivan Yordanov, “Pechatite na komerkiariyata Develt. Addenda et corrigenda,” in Numizmatichni i sfragistichni prinosi kam istoriyata na Zapadnoto Chernomorie. Mezhdunarodna konferenciya Varna, 12–15 septemvri 2001, ed. Igor Lazarenko, Valeri Jotov, Veselin Ivanov, and Vladimir Slavčev (Varna: Knigoizdatelstvo “Zograf”, 2004), 230–45.

· 76 Andriy N. Domanovskiy, “O zonach kondominatnogo upravleniya na granitsah Vizantii IV–IX vv,” Visnik Charkivs’kogo Nacional’nogo Universitetu im. V.N. Karazina. Istorija 701, no. 37 (2005): 127–38, here 133.

· 77 Cf. Teofanes, AM 6305, pp. 497, 16–26.

· 78 Nicolai Constantinopolitani Patriarchae epistolae, 6, eds. Romilly James Heald Jenkins and Leendert Gerrit Westerink, anglice vertit Romilly James Heald Jenkins (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 1973), 38, 23–40, 34. More on the subject in Mariya Balbolova-Ivanova, “Srednovekovnata carkva i mitnica pri s. Debelt, Burgaska oblast i rolyata im v balgaro-vizantiyskite otnosheniya prez IX–X vek,” Studia Archaeologica Universitatis Serdiciensis. Supplementum 1 (2003): 275–81.

· 79 Nicolas Oikonomidès, “Mesembria in the Ninth Century: Epigraphical Evidence,” in Byzantium from the Ninth Century to the Fourth Crusade. Studies, Texts. Monuments (Alder-shot: Variorum, 1992), 269–73, here 272–73.

· 80 Vasilka Tapkova-Zaimova, “Tsar Petar. Vatreshno-i vanshnopoliticheska deynost,” in Istoriya na Balgariya v chetirinadeset toma, vol. II, Parva balgarska darzhava (Sofia: Balgarskata akademiya na naukite, 1981), 370–74, here 372.

· 81 Leonis Diaconi Caloënsis historiae libri decem, VI, ed. Carl Benedikt Hase (Bonnae: Ed. Weber, 1828), 108, 9–17.

· 82 Ioannis Scylitzae synopsis historiarum, 3, 286, 48–66; Annae Comnenae Alexias, XIV, 8, 5–7, eds. Diether R. Reinsch and Athanasios Kambylis, vol. I (Berolini et Novi Eboraci: W. De Gruyter, 2001), 455, 65–456, 74, 83–91; Michaelis Glycae annales, IV, ed. Immanuel Bekker (Bonnae: Ed. Weber, 1836), 623, 14–21; Charanis, “The Transfer of Population as a Policy in the Byzantine Empire,” 146; Petar Petrov, “David, Moysey, Aron i Samuil nachelo na balgarskata darzhava,” in Istoriya na Balgariya v chetirinadeset toma, vol. II, Parva balgarska darzhava (Sofia: Balgarskata akademiya na naukite, 1981), 397–402, here 400; Fine, Jr., The Early Medieval Balkans, 188; Dancheva-Vasileva, “Armenskoto prisastvie.”

· 83 Peter Charanis, “The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire,” Byzantinoslavica 22 (1961): 196–240, here 199; Dimitar Stoimenov, “Vremenna vizantiyska voenna administraciya v balgarskite zemi (971–987/989),” Godishnik na Sofiyskiya Universitet. Nauchen tsentar za slavyano-vizantiyski prouchvaniya “Ivan Duychev” 82, no. 2 (1988): 39–66, here 55.

· 84 Petrov, “David, Moysey, Aron i Samuil,” 400, who, when writing about the displacement carried out by Tzimiskes in 971, wrongly believed that it was about stopping the Kometopouloi invasions, as at that time they had not yet occurred.

· 85 Ioannis Cinnami epitome rerum ab Ioannae et Alexio Comnenis gestarum, III, 6, ed. August Meineke (Bonnae: Ed. Weber, 1836), 103, 8–10; Vasil Nikolov Zlatarski, Istoriya na balgarskata darzhava prez srednite vekove, vol. II, Balgariya pod vizantiysko vladichestvo (1018–1187) (Sofia: Akademichno Izdatelstvo “Prof. Marin Drinov”, 1994 – reprint of 1934 edition), 388–89.

· 86 Vide m.in. Annae Comnenae Alexias, VII, 2, 1, p. 204, 38–47; VII, 2, 9–3, 1, p. 208, 62–70; VII, 3, 12, p. 214, 50–55; VII, 4, 4, p. 216, 1–5; VII, 6, 1, p. 218, 50–51; VII, 6, 2, p. 218, 57–59; X, 2, 6, 286, 41–287, 66; X, 3, 1, p. 287, 84–91; X, 4, 10, p. 294, 21–24; X, 4, 11, p. 295, 48–51; XIV, 8, 1, p. 454, 16–24; XIV, 8, 5, 455, 65–456, 74; XIV, 8, 6–7, p. 456, 83–90. Petrich is present-day Petrich, Diampol – Yambol, Lardeja and Goloe – Thracian strongholds at the foot and on the southern slopes of the Balkan Mountains, all in the territory of modern Bulgaria – Soustal, Tabula Imperii Byzantini, 239, 271, 333, 397–98.

· 87 Dimitar Savov Ovcharov, Vizantiyski i balgarski kreposti V–X vek (Sofia: Balgarska akademiya na naukite, 1982), 15; Momchilov, “Severoiztochna Trakiya,” 61.