Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Interaction Between Nomadic and Sede
The Interaction Between Nomadic and Sede
The Interaction Between Nomadic and Sede
ISBN 978-973-703-933-0
editors
Florin Curta, Bogdan-Petru Maleon
Victor Spinei and the research on the Eurasian steppe lands ............................. 9
Victor Spinei’s opus: a complete list of works .................................................. 13
Early nomads
The world outside the steppe lands during the Middle Ages
and the early modern period
Francesco Dall’Aglio
, :
, X-XII . ( , 1976).
3
That Pet r’s name was Theodore is noted in a later text, the so-called Synodikon
of tsar Boril: “Theodore, called Peter” ( . , .
, - , [ , 2010], 150, with English
translation at 352). The Synodikon, allegedly written during the reign of Boril (1207-1218) is
an extremely problematic source (see , 9-85, for an introduction),
preserved only in two manuscripts, both extensively re-elaborated at the end of the fourteenth
century. It is, however, one of the few medieval sources originating from Bulgaria: thus,
while often unreliable as a historical source, its knowledge of the names of the Bulgarians
tsars should not be disputed. See also ,“ 800
- ,” Palaeobulgarica 35 (2011), 2: 68-84.
4
The literature on the establishment of the Second Bulgarian Empire is immense,
and cannot be cited here in its entirety. Among the more general works, see ,
, , pp. 421-40; ,
(1186-1460). ( , 1994), pp. 11-42;
, , II ( , 1972),
pp. 410-83; III (1994), pp. 1-108; Phaedon Malingoudis, “Die Nachrichten des Niketas
Choniates über die Entstehung des zweiten bulgarisches Staates,” 10 (1980): 51-
147 (see also its review, with many corrections and additions: . ,
“
”, 41 (1980): 92-112); John v. A. Fine, Jr., The Late
Medieval Balkans. A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century to the Ottoman
Conquest, (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1994), pp. 10-7, 25-9; Stephenson,
Byzantium’s Balkan Frontier, pp. 288-315 (an excellent summary, although the author
ignores Bulgarian secondary sources); Charles Brand, Byzantium Confronts the West, 1180-
1204 (Cambridge, 1968), 88-96 (very well researched, but with some chronological issues);
Curta, Southeastern Europe, pp. 357-65.
5
See Jacek Bonarek, “Le Bas Danube dans la seconde moitié du XI-ème siècle:
nouveaux états ou noveaux peuples?” Byzantina et Slavica Cracoviensia 5 (2007): 193-200;
Vasilka T pkova-Zaimova, “La population du Bas-Danube et le pouvoir byzantine (XIe-XIIe
s.),” in Actes du XVe congrès international d'études byzantines, Athènes, septembre 1976,
edited by P. Zepos (Athens, 1980), 331-39; Vasilka T pkova-Zaimova, “Les mouvements
des populations en Mésie et en Thrace entre le début du XIe et le début du XIIIe s.,” BF 7
The interaction between nomadic and sedentary peoples 301
manifested itself with great intensity during the 20th century, when
Bulgarian and Romanian scholars, on the pretext of research, engaged in a
long, bitter and eventually pointless political and nationalistic polemic. The
Second Bulgarian Empire was presented either as an exclusively Bulgarian
creation, spurred by the resurgence of a national idea and the remembrance
of past independence, a harbinger of the “National Revival” of the 19th
century; or, on the contrary, as a state that had nothing to do with Bulgaria
since its population was composed of Vlachs, i.e., Romanians.6
This dichotomous approach is the consequence of the fact that, to
denote the rebels, the Byzantine sources used the word and not
; similarly, there is no mention of Bulgaria, only of . Latin
and French sources usually associate both names but often follow the
Byzantine usage;7 in his correspondence with Innocent III, tsar Kaloyan
(1197-1207) will style himself rex Blachorum et Bulgarorum, and will be
addressed in the same way by the pope.8 This almost exclusive mention of
the Vlach element in the Byzantine sources has, understandably, given way
to speculations about a non-Bulgarian, fully Vlach organization of the
revolt, and thus of a fully Vlach descent of its leaders. The presence of the
Vlachs in Bulgaria, especially in its north-eastern regions, is well attested
and it is certain that they were present in large numbers.9 But nowhere in the
sources is there even a hint to a parallel decrease of the Bulgarian
population, nor to a “substitution” of Bulgarians with the Vlachs. At the
(1979): 193-201. The latter two papers have been reprinted in Vasilka T pkova-Zaimova,
Byzance, la Bulgarie, les Balkans (Plovdiv, 2010), pp. 68-76 and 77-85, respectively.
6
For an unbiased exposition of the problem see especially erban Marin, “A
humanist vision regarding the Fourth Crusade and the state of the Assenides. The chronicle
of Paul Ramusio (Paulus Rhamnusius)”, Annuario. Istituto Romeno di Cultura e Ricerca
Umanistica 2 (2000): 57-60; Malingoudis, “Die Nachrichten,” pp. 89-100, 123-29. See also
, , 11-9; Fine, Late Medieval Balkans, pp. 12-3; István Vásáry, Cumans
and Tatars. Oriental Military in thePre-Ottoman Balkans, 1185-1365 (Cambridges, 2005),
pp. 18-9.
7
To quote just one of many examples, “Johannis […] rois de Blaquie et de
Bougrie”: Geoffroi de Villehardouin, La conquête de Constantinople, ed. Edmond Faral, I
(Paris, 1961), pp. 206-07. However, in the same paragraph the chronicler states that Kalojan
was “uns Blas.”
8
See for instance Die Register Innocenz’ III, 6. Pontifikatsjahr, 1203/1204: Texte
und Indices, edited by Othmar Hageneder, John C. Moore, and Andrea Sommerlechner
(Vienna, 1995), pp. 233-35.
9
Mathias Gyóni, “Le nom de dans l’Alexiade d’Anne Comnène,” BZ 44
(1951): 241-52; Mathias Gyóni, “La transhumance des Vlaques Balcaniques au Moyen Age,”
BS 12 (1951): 29-42; Eugen St nescu, “La population vlaque de l’Empire Byzantin au XIe-
XIIIe siècle,” BF 7 (1979): 23-53; Petre . N sturel, “Les Valaques balkaniques aux Xe-XIIIe
siècles. Mouvements de population et colonisation dans la Romanie grecque et latine,” BF 7
(1979): 89-112; , , , pp. 170-74; Curta,
Southeastern Europe, pp. 280-82, 316-17, and 354-65.
302 Francesco dall’Aglio
same time, it seems improbable that only the Vlachs organized the revolt
and participated in it, while Bulgarians remained on the sides. In his first
mention of the revolt, Choniates states that it began among “the barbarians
of mount Haemus, once called Mysians and now known as Vlachs.”10 From
the Mysians of old, the chronicler moved directly to the contemporary
Vlachs: Bulgarians are not mentioned at all, not only in the present but not
even in the past, as if they had never existed.
The most logical explanation for this usage is that Choniates called
the rebels not to underline an absence of Bulgarians in their ranks or
in that region, but because the cradle of the uprising was the theme of
, once part of the Roman province of Moesia inferior ( , in
Greek), whose borders stretched from the range (nowadays Stara
Planina) to the Danube, and not the theme , located much farther
to west.11 His words, then, do not refer to a particular ethnic group, but the
whole population that inhabited the region, of which the Vlachs were a
prominent part. This interpretation could also explain the seemingly
antiquarian use of the term as a synonym for , but not for
. Choniates knew very well both ancient history and
contemporary events, and was preoccupied, with good reasons, with a
resurgence of Bulgaria: he states that the goals of the rebels were “the
freedom of the Bulgarian and Vlach people”12 and “to reunite the kingdom
of the Mysians and of the Bulgarians, as it was in the past”13 – that is, to
extend the revolt from ( ) to the lands that were part of the
Bulgarian theme, restoring the territory of early medieval Bulgaria. His
identification of with the western regions of the old (and future)
Bulgarian kingdom, and of / with the Lower Danube region, is
evident from the analysis of a few passages in which the term Bulgaria (or
Bulgarian) is attested only for places outside . The fortress of
Prosakon, in Macedonia, was not adequately fortified because the
10
Choniates, Historia, ed. Dieten, 368 (‘ ,
, ’); all English translation of
the passages cited are mine. These are obviously not the Mysians of Asia Minor.
11
This hypothesis has obviously been favoured by Bulgarian historiography: see
especially , , pp. 12-4; , “
III . , ,”
“ . ”. .- . . 38 (1942), 3: 86. According to its stronger
detractor, Nicolae B nescu, Un problème d’histoire médiévale. Création et caractère du
second empire bulgare (Bucharest, 1943), pp. 77-8, this hypothesis is “childish”: but the
author does not explain convincingly his point of view. On the theme of , see
, , , pp. 343-50.
12
Choniates, Historia, ed. Dieten, 371 (“
”).
13
Choniates, Historia, ed. Dieten, 374 (“
, ”).
The interaction between nomadic and sedentary peoples 303
14
Choniates, Historia, ed. Dieten, 502 (“ ”).
15
Choniates, Historia, ed. Dieten, 465.
16
Choniates, Historia, ed. Dieten, 373.
17
Choniates, Historia, ed. Dieten, 468.
18
See for instance “Historia de expeditione Friderici imperatoris”, in Quellen zur
Geschichte des Kreuzzuges Kaiser Friedrich I, edited by Anton Chroust, MGH SRG 5
(Berlin, 1928), p. 28; English translation, The Crusade of Frederick Barbarossa. The History
of the Expedition of the Emperor Frederick and Related Texts, translated by Graham Loud
(Farnham, 2010). See also Odo of Deuil’s remark that “where Bulgaria begins there is a
fortress that the Bulgarians call Belgrad” (Odonis de Deogilo Liber de via sancti sepulchri,
edited by Georg Waitz, MGH SS 26 [Hannover, 1882], p. 62). For more examples, see
, ( , 2004),
pp. 98-100.
19
“Historia Peregrinorum,” in Quellen, p. 135.
20
When using the term invention I do not mean either forgery or fabrication. See
Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities (London, 1983).
304 Francesco dall’Aglio
21
For a primer on Cuman history and civilization, especially in its connections to
Southeastern Europe, see Victor Spinei, The Romanians and the Turkic Nomads North of the
Danube Delta from the Tenth to the Mid-Thirteenth Century (Leiden, 2009);
, . ( , 2009); ,
: ( , 2006); István Vásáry, Cumans and
Tatars, pp. 4-68; Peter B. Golden, “The Cumans,” in The Cambridge History of early Inner
Asia, edited by Denis Sinor (Cambridge, 1990), pp. 277-84; Peter B. Golden, “The Quip aks
of medieval Eurasia: an example of stateless adaptation in the steppes,” in Rulers From the
Steppe: State Formation on the Eurasian Periphery, edited by Gary Seaman and Daniel
Marks (Los Angeles, 1991), pp. 132-57; Petre Diaconu, Les Coumans au Bas-Danube aux
XIe et XIIe siècles (Bucharest, 1978); András Pálóczi-Horváth, Pechenegs, Cumans, Iasians:
Steppe Peoples in Medieval Hungary (Budapest, 1989); Curta, Southeastern Europe, pp. 311-
17. For a bibliography on the military alliance between the Cumans and the second Bulgarian
kingdom see below, note 34.
22
Curta, Southeastern Europe, 306.
23
Stephenson, Byzantium’s Balkan Frontier, p. 103; Curta, Southeastern Europe,
pp. 301-2.
24
Stephenson, Byzantium’s Balkan Frontier, 106-07; Curta, Southeastern Europe,
pp. 312-14.
306 Francesco dall’Aglio
traded across the steppe lands. Gradually, their presence south of the
Danube became another tile in the mosaic of ethnic groups in the region.
The goods produced in were well diversified and were
not only traded locally, but were also exported to the profitable markets of
Constantinople. The relative stability allowed, over time, the emergence of a
society in which traditional ethnic bonds gradually dissolved, creating a new
identity. This “new” population of farmers and breeders, with strong ties to
the plains on the northern bank of the Danube and to the faraway steppes,
and maybe with a noble class of landowners who had not entirely forgotten
the old Bulgarian splendour, had apparently no reasons to plot an uprising
and could enjoy the safety and the trade opportunities granted by the
Empire. But this situation did not last long: in the last decades of the twelfth
century the Byzantine decline seemed inevitable, and brought along a
decrease of trade, an increase of taxes and political instability. The
Paristrians were forced to look for a solution and the most extreme one,
secession, was chosen. Questioning the ethnicity of its proponents is
pointless. The social and economic integration of Vlachs and Bulgarians
was so great that none of them could have acted alone against the Empire.
The idea of seceding from the Empire and creating a new polity had
tremendous consequences for all the inhabitants of ; it would be
inconceivable for only one ethnic group to be involved in the effort, without
the consent and the active support of the others, a further proof of the
necessity of discarding the “all Bulgarian” or “all Vlach” approach to the
matter.
The Cumans did not participate in the first stage of the insurrection,
at least not those living north of the Danube. The revolt seems to have
originated in an urban environment, a context in which Cuman presence was
probably very scarce. Peter and Asen did manage to rally up the population
using powerful identity symbols, both religious and political, to which the
Cumans were alien. To incite their countryman, who at first appeared
reluctant, the brothers built a church dedicated to St. Demetrius, brought
there some seers “possessed by demons,” as Choniates calls them, both
Vlach and Bulgarian,25 and had them prophesy that God was well disposed
towards the intentions of freedom “of the Bulgarian and of the Vlach
people,”26 that the same St. Demetrius had fled Thessaloniki and the
Byzantines to help them, and that it was time to take arms against the
Byzantines and kill them mercilessly, without taking prisoners. The church
25
“ ”: Choniates, Historia, ed. Dieten, 371. B nescu, Un
problème, pp. 59-60, translates with “sex”, maintaining that only Vlachs (of both
sexes) were involved in this prophesying: but since just a few lines below Choniates
explicitly mentions both Bulgarians and Vlachs, his interpretation cannot be accepted.
26
See above, note 12.
The interaction between nomadic and sedentary peoples 307
built by Peter and Asen is traditionally identified with the St. Demetrius
Chapel in T rnovo.27 Choniates does not mention the place in which the
chapel was built but, given the importance that T rnovo will assume almost
immediately, this identification is plausible.
The first actions of Peter and Asen show an evident intention to
represent themselves as heirs of the old Bulgarian political tradition, and to
represent the new state as the natural continuation of the first Bulgarian
kingdom destroyed in the early 11th century. The first, and more important,
of these allusions is the name chosen by Theodore upon his coronation,
Peter, no doubt in reference to tsar Peter I (927-969), son of the great
Symeon, who, in the collective memory of the population, possessed already
the status of a mythical figure. Under his reign, Bulgaria had enjoyed a long
period of peace and prosperity, although marred at the very end by the Rus’
invasion prompted by the Byzantine emperor Nikephoros II Phokas. Peter’s
reputation was further enhanced by his canonization, following his
retirement and death in a monastery. In the 11th and 12th century his virtues,
along with those of his predecessors, had been extolled in a series of
apocryphal books that had transfigured the first Bulgarian kingdom in an
age of unparalleled splendour.28 Choosing the name of the last glorious ruler
of Bulgaria was a clear sign of the political ambitions of the Asenids, and an
attempt at rallying as much support as possible from the population. After
being crowned with a golden crown, Peter donned scarlet boots. This, far
from being just an attempt at imitating Byzantine political customs, as
Choniates, in a paragraph somewhat dismissive of Pet r’s actions and
dignity, leads his audience to believe, was another purposeful reference to
the old Bulgarian kingdom and to its restoration. In 971 John I Tzimiskes
had captured tsar Boris II, Peter’s son and successor, brought him to
Constantinople and divested him of the royal symbols of Bulgaria- a golden
crown, a linen tiara, and a pair of scarlet boots.29 Again, Peter/Theodore’s
actions are proof of a definite political design, and the same can be said for
27
See for instance , , II, pp. 440-41; Malingoudis,
“Nachrichten”, p. 75.
28
On the attempt of the Asenids to portray themselves as the successors of the first
Bulgarian kingdom, see ,
, VII-XIV ( , 2011), pp. 217-26; Christo Kolarov and Yordan Andreev,
“Certaines questions ayant trait aux manifestations de continuité d’idées en Bulgarie
médiévale au des XII-XIV siècles,” Études Historiques 9 (1979): 77-97. On the cult of Peter
I, see , . . . -
( , 2004), pp. 17-42.
29
See John Skylitzes, Synopsis Historion, edited by Hans Thurn (Berlin, 1973), p.
310; English translation in John Skylitzes. A Synopsis of Byzantine History, 811-1057,
translated by John Wortley (Cambridge, 2010).
308 Francesco dall’Aglio
the target of the first ambitious military campaign, Preslav, the ancient
Bulgarian capital.
But the walls of Preslav proved too difficult to besiege. The rebels’
army plundered, instead, the regions south of the Stara Planina taking away
cattle and prisoners. The fact that Peter was styling himself an independent
king, and that his army was capable of launching raids in the Thracian
plains, persuaded Isaac II to take action, moving against him in the spring of
1186. The Byzantine army managed to crush the resistance with no
particular difficulties, and Peter and Asen fled across the Danube, seeking
Cuman help. Isaac, satisfied with his victory, returned home and did not
bother to reinforce the garrisons on the river, a mistake that would prove
fatal.
Peter and Asen had, clearly, very good connections with the
Cumans. On that ground, it has been argued that the brothers were of
Cuman descent.30 But, although Choniates is, as we have seen, quite vague
in his ethnonyms, he is always very careful in distinguishing between
and , or rather , as he prefers to call them. It is of
course possible that Peter and Asen had Cuman blood in their veins; this
would be hardly surprising, especially if we take into consideration the
peculiar ethnic composition of , where so many different ethnic
groups had been living together for a long time. But, however vague his
definition of Vlachs may be, Choniates always maintains that the Asenids
were of Vlach, not Cuman descent. And speaking of Kaloyan, their younger
brother who would rule from 1197 to 1207, and marry a Cuman princess,
another Byzantine chronicler, Georgios Akropolites, states that he had “tied
himself to the Scythian people and shared kinship with them, and having
become acquainted with a behaviour more savage by nature, took delight in
killing the Romans.”31 This strongly suggests that those habits belonged to a
different people and had been transmitted to him by his allies. Of course,
30
, “ ”, 4/4
(1928): 1-42; , , II, p. 427; ,“
, 1185 .,”
45 (1933): 8-48. Both Zlatarski and Mutaf iev believe that the Asenids’ original
Cuman blood had, by 1185, become Bulgarian: this theory had actually been conceived to
withstand the attacks of Romanian historiography, invalidating the Vlach argument. See also
,
( , 1981), 50, and Malingoudis, “Nachrichten”, pp. 85-7. On the various conjectures
about the ethnicity of the Asenids, see , , pp. 18-9. According to the
most extreme theory, the Asenids’ origins were exclusively Cuman. Omeljan Pritsak “The
Polovcians and Rus,” AEMA 2 (1982): 373 maintained that the Cumans led the uprising, but
also that all the subsequent Bulgarian dynasties until the Ottoman conquest were of Cuman
origin.
31
Georgii Acropolitae Opera, edited by August Heisenberg and Peter Wirth
(Stuttgart, 1978), p. 24.
The interaction between nomadic and sedentary peoples 309
being a barbarian himself, acquiring such inhuman customs must have come
easily.
According to an oration delivered by Choniates at the imperial
court, Peter promised the Cumans an easy campaign: the emperor, he told
them, would return to Constantinople and leave in just a few
garrisons that could be easily overrun. The Cumans accepted the proposal,
enticed by the prospect of rich plunder.32 Choniates was more interested in
highlighting Isaac’s bad decisions than relating the actual truth, and it is
obvious that the speech was made up long after the events, following the
classical Greek historiographical tradition. His own narration is inconsistent:
while in the oration the alliance is negotiated by Peter, in his chronicle the
leading role is played by Asen.33 But the emphasis that he put on the
importance of this alliance is justified. The Cuman assistance would prove
invaluable, not only during the establishment of the Second Bulgarian
Empire but also in the following decades, and the Cuman contingents of
light cavalry would play a decisive role in almost every military campaign.34
We have no elements that can help us understand the terms of the
agreement. However, given the circumstances, we must necessarily
conclude that more than a formal alliance between two states, which
Bulgaria and the Cumans were not, it was probably a personal alliance
between the Asenides and some Cuman chieftains. The Bulgarians gained a
formidable army to fight at their side, while the Cumans had access to the
wealth of Thrace and Macedonia, maintaining the right to leave in the
summer, to tend their flocks, or whenever their lands were menaced.
The presence of the Cuman warriors strengthened considerably the
Bulgarian army, which was able to re-establish its presence in
and launch a series of successful raids outside that region. The raids were
aimed at expanding the boundaries of the territory controlled by the Asenids
and, perhaps more urgently, at getting plunder for the Cumans and at
persuading the Vlacho-Bulgarian population and nobility: the more
32
Niketas Choniates, Nicetae Choniatae Orationes et Epistulae, edited by Jan-Luis
van Dieten (Berlin/New York, 1972), pp. 7-8.
33
Choniates, Historia, ed. Dieten, p. 374.
34
On the military alliance between Bulgarians and Cumans, see especially
, “ (XI-XIV .),” 61
(2005), 5-6: 3-25; , “
1186-1207 ,”
58 (1939): 203-11; ,“
. (1186-1241 .),”
. . . 27 (1989), 3: 9-59;
Francesco Dall’Aglio, “The military alliance between the Cumans and Bulgaria from the
establishment of the second Bulgarian kingdom to the Mongol invasion,” AEMA 16 (2008-
2009): 29-54.
310 Francesco dall’Aglio
successful the raids, the more followers to be gained. In the early years of
the insurrection, the only strategic aim seems to have been reaching and
securing the “natural” frontiers of : the Danube, safe from
Cumans incursions; the Black Sea, although important strongholds like
Varna remained in Byzantine hands; and the mountain passes across the
Stara Planina. Any other goal would have been impossible to pursue: but
during the early 1190s the Byzantine Empire was in such a state of disarray
that an expansion beyond those boundaries, especially into Macedonia and
the region of Niš and Brani evo, was successfully achieved. The Cumans
participated in those campaigns, always giving an important contribution
and, arguably, receiving a fair share of the spoils. They were not just an
important military asset: they were also, with all probability, the main
support available to the royal family in its struggle to safeguard its power
against local aristocrats.35 Although relying heavily on a “nationalist”
rhetoric, the Second Bulgarian Empire was menaced by centrifugal
tendencies, if not from the beginning at least from the mid-1190s, when the
success of the revolt had been secured and new political groups began to
voice their discontent. In 1196 Asen was killed by a nobleman, Ivanko, who
afterwards fled to Byzantium. The same fate befell Peter on the following
year, and the third brother, Kaloyan, in 1207, while he was besieging
Thessaloniki.
This series of murders, a clear sign of a long-term opposition to the
Asenids, has given rise to many speculations about the identity and
motivations of the dissidents. According to Choniates, one of the main
arguments of Ivanko and of his supporters was that, should their plan
succeed, they would rule Bulgaria more justly and rightfully, without
always resorting to sword and rage as Asen had done. This may be a
reference to an autocratic rule based on the alliance with the Cumans.36 A
different interpretation has been advanced by Vasil Zlatarski, who
postulated instead the existence of a “Cuman party,” dissatisfied with
Asen’s politics. According to his theory, both the Asenids and the Bulgarian
nobility shared the same interests and had the same goal, i.e., the
“liberation” of Bulgaria from the Byzantine yoke, and no disagreements
ever arose between them. Thus, the culprits cannot be sought within the
Bulgarian aristocracy but within the ranks of the Cuman allies.37
35
According to Stephenson, Byzantium’s Balkan frontier, p. 305, “[Asen’s] power
rested not only with his ability to secure and distribute booty […], but also to intimidate the
natives of Trnovo and its environs. His intimate association with the Cumans must have
contributed to this “reign of terror,” if that is what it was”.
36
Choniates, Historia, ed. Dieten, p. 470.
37
, , III, pp. 97-100. For a complete examination of the idea of
a “Cuman party” in Bulgarian history and historiography, see ,“
The interaction between nomadic and sedentary peoples 311
- (1185 .- XIV
.),” 7 (1990), 1: 16-26. About the death of Kaloyan and the alleged
role of the Cumans, see Francesco Dall’Aglio, “The Bulgarian siege of Thessaloniki in 1207:
between history and hagiography,” Eurasian Studies 1 (2002), 2: 278-80; L ezar Krastev,
“Les Miracles de Saint Démètre de Thessalonique et la participation d’Alains et de Coumans
au siège de Thessalonique en 1207,” EB 3-4 (1997): 125-29.
38
On Boril’s kingdom, see especially , , pp. 69-77;
- , (1204-1261) ( , 1985), pp.
80-113; ,“ ,” 5-6 (2005):
83-98.
39
, , III, pp. 304-6; Vásáry, Cumans and Tatars, pp. 58-60;
, “ ,” 20; , “ ,” p. 19; Curta,
Southeastern Europe, p. 385.
312 Francesco dall’Aglio
40
Akropolites, Opera, p. 42.
41
On the Cuman settlement in Hungary and on their Christianization see especially
Victor Spinei, “The Cuman Bishopric - genesis and evolution,” in The Other Europe in the
Middle Ages. Avars, Bulgars, Khazars and Cumans, edited by Florin Curta (Leiden, 2008),
pp. 413-56; Curta, Southeastern Europe, pp. 406-08.
42
See Dennis Sinor, “The Mongols and Western Europe,” in Inner Asia, ed. Sinor,
pp. 522-26; Vásáry, Cumans and Tatars, p. 66; Jean de Joinville, “Histoire de Saint Louis,” in
Historiens et Chroniqueurs du Moyen Âge, edited by Albert Pauphilet (Paris, 1963), pp. 311-
2. On the fate of the Cumans after the Mongol onslaught, see Dimitri Korobeinikov, “A
Broken mirror: the Kipçak world in the thirteenth Century,” in The Other Europe in the
Middle Ages. Avars, Bulgars, Khazars and Cumans, edited by Florin Curta (Leiden, 2008),
pp. 379-412.