Istoria militară a Daciei post-romane 376 - 614:
Gespeichert in:
| 1. Verfasser: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Buch |
| Sprache: | Undetermined |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Târgovişte
Ed. Cetatea de Scaun
2010
|
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Inhaltsverzeichnis Abstract |
| Beschreibung: | Zsfassung in engl. Sprache u.d.T.: The military history of post-roman Dacia 376 - 614 |
| Beschreibung: | 200 S. Ill., Kt. |
Internformat
MARC
| LEADER | 00000nam a2200000 c 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | BV037157434 | ||
| 003 | DE-604 | ||
| 005 | 20110712 | ||
| 007 | t | ||
| 008 | 110124s2010 ab|| |||| 00||| und d | ||
| 035 | |a (OCoLC)706985399 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)BVBBV037157434 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-604 |b ger |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a und | ||
| 049 | |a DE-12 | ||
| 084 | |a 7,41 |2 ssgn | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Madgearu, Alexandru |d 1964- |e Verfasser |0 (DE-588)131809555 |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Istoria militară a Daciei post-romane 376 - 614 |
| 264 | 1 | |a Târgovişte |b Ed. Cetatea de Scaun |c 2010 | |
| 300 | |a 200 S. |b Ill., Kt. | ||
| 336 | |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Zsfassung in engl. Sprache u.d.T.: The military history of post-roman Dacia 376 - 614 | ||
| 648 | 7 | |a Geschichte 376-614 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf | |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Militär |0 (DE-588)4039305-7 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 651 | 7 | |a Dakien |0 (DE-588)4070197-9 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf | |
| 689 | 0 | 0 | |a Dakien |0 (DE-588)4070197-9 |D g |
| 689 | 0 | 1 | |a Militär |0 (DE-588)4039305-7 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | 2 | |a Geschichte 376-614 |A z |
| 689 | 0 | |5 DE-604 | |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=021072086&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Inhaltsverzeichnis |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=021072086&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Abstract |
| 940 | 1 | |n oe | |
| 999 | |a oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-021072086 | ||
| 942 | 1 | 1 | |c 355.009 |e 22/bsb |f 09021 |g 496 |
| 942 | 1 | 1 | |c 355.009 |e 22/bsb |f 09021 |g 498 |
Datensatz im Suchindex
| _version_ | 1804143758639366144 |
|---|---|
| adam_text | Cuprins
Introducere
/ 5
Capitolul
I
Dominaţia hunică
/ 7
Capitolul
II
Regatul gepidic des transilvania
/61
Capitolul III
Dacia post-romană în epoca lui iustinian
/ 81
Capitolul
IV
Instalarea dominaţiei avare
/
ш
Capitolul
V
Destrămarea frontierei dunărene
a imperiului romano-bizantin
/117
Summary
The Military History of Post-Roman
Dacia,
376-614 / 145
Abrevieri
/163
Bibliografie
/168
Index
/185
Hărţi
/201
Istoria
militară a Daciei
post-romane
376-614
THE MILITARY HISTORY OF POST-ROMAN
DACIA,
376-614
Introduction
The volume continues the history of the conflicts in the area between
Dniestr,
Tisa
and Danube between the Hunnic invasion of
376
and the end of the Late Roman
Danubian
frontier. Contrary to the previous period, the main barbarian power centers
were located outside this area, in
Pannonia
and north of the Black Sea, and by this
reason the sources are meager for this territory. Only the Slavic invasions provided
more interest for the chroniclers, but the region still remained a periphery in
comparison with other conflict areas in the main sources. The scanty information is
also due to the fragmentary state of other historical writings from the s 1.? 1 centuries,
which would possible contain useful data in their lost parts. This situation impedes a
comprehensive knowledge of the events. On the other hand, the archaeological
evidence significant for the military and political history consist only in the Late
Roman fortifications north of the Danube, and in the finds that could in some way
attest the existence of power centers and of the military elites.
Chapter I. The Hunnic domination
The Huns (a mixture of Turkic and Mongolian tribes) created the first empire
of the steppes of the Christian era. Composed from tribes and clans of different ethnic
origins, these empires were called after the name of the ruling clan. The autonomy of
the clans led often to internal fights that imposed other rulers. The nomad empires
appeared and survived through confrontation with the neighbor sedentary states,
whence obtained booty or tribute. The nomads needed sedentary people for food and
other resources. When the herding alimentation was insufficient, raids were to be
expected. The conflicts between nomads and sedentary had a long history in Eurasia. In
the 4th century, the Late Roman Empire began to be confronted with this threat, but the
Danubian
limes was, unlike the Chinese Great Wall, a permeable frontier. The attacks
of the nomads were fulfilled on short distances, but also on long expeditions with
reserve horses and supplies and with a superior military organization.
The basis of the power of the nomads was the horse. Because a warrior needed
Alexandra Madgearu
10
horses for long campaigns, this kind of war was not possible-in regions without
enough pasture. By this reason, all the nomads who arrived in Europe (namely, in
Pannonia)
became at last (semi-) sedentary, and their art of war changed (pedestrian
warriors appeared besides the mounted military). The disappearance of the differences
between the nomad and the sedentary warfare allowed the defeat of the former in
pitched battles. Living in a hostile environment and accustomed with the riding since
childhood, all the Asian nomads developed a warfare based on fast attacks of the light
cavalry. Their speed and good drill were decisive in the victories against the sedentary
states armies, until the appearance of the fire weapons. The main weapon was the
asymmetric crossbow superior to the Roman bow by the penetration force of the
arrows. Because the mounted archers were able to fight also to backside, they used the
fake retreat followed by counterattacks. For closed fight the Huns had short swords and
sabers. The nomad warfare determined changes in the Late Roman art of war and
strategy, because it demonstrated the inefficiency of the line of fortifications along the
frontier. The solutions were the defence by diplomacy and the development of similar
forces of archers with crossbows equal to the enemies. The Huns also had some war
machines that destroyed several fortresses.
In the European sources, the first mention of the Huns is in Ptolemy s
Geography, west of Tanais (Don), but it was demonstrated that he confused it with the
Syr-Daria region. According to recent researches, the Huns were indeed the offspring
of those Hsiung-nu from Mongolia against whom China erected the Great Wall. They
settled around Syr-Daria (K ang-chu) in
91
AD, according to the Chinese sources.
Around
350,
they started invasions in
Sogdiana,
Bactria, and Persia. The stages of their
migration were established with the help of the Hunnic cauldrons (used for food or for
shamanic rituals), discovered especially in the central basin of Volga, the southern
Oltenia
and Walachia, and the west-Danubian part of
Pannonia
After
358,
a part of the
Huns moved from
Sogdiana
to Europe. Ruled by Balamur, they arrived in the area
mastered by the Alans along Tanais. These nomads were conquered and integrated in
the Hunnic confederation. Next they entered the Greuthungi region between
Dniepr
and
Dniestr.
The chiefs of this Gothic branch, Alatheus and Saphrax decided to retreat
to
Dniestr
in the winter of
375/376,
and Athanarich, the king of Tervingi, tried to resist
along the earthen wall of Leova-Copanca. He failed and took refuge in Caucaland
(south-eastern Transylvania), while other Tervingi led by
Fritigern
and Alaviv were
received in the empire, being followed by the group of Alatheus and Saphrax. The
Goths rebelled and won the victory of Adrianople
(9
August
378).
The following
Gothic raids after the battle of Adrianople caused the destruction of many fortresses
along the
Danubian
limes. The participation of the Huns at this battle in alliance with
the Goths shows that they were still a minor force. Otherwise, the Huns would be not a
kind of auxiliary of the Goths. They had then no real central authority. The raids
fulfilled in the first decades after
376
had no coordination of a supreme commander.
The kingdom of Tervingi was conquered by the Huns, but not entirely, because
a Tervingian queen ruled somewhere in Gothia between
383
and
392.
Other Goths took
refuge together with Athanarich in south-eastern and central Transylvania, as it is
146
The Military History of Post-Roman
Dacia,
376-614
proved by the cemeteries and settlements of the
Santana
de Mureş-Cerneahov
culture.
The treasure of
Valea Strâmbă
was hidden during their advance through the Bicaz
gourge in
376.
The arrival of the Goths and Alans in Transylvania explains the
presence of the short sword of
Veţel
and of the belt plate from
Mintiul Gherlei
(wrongly located at Sic).
Other populations were too included in the Hunnic confederacy. The Carpi and
Skin participated at an invasion in
381
together with the Huns. In other instances, the
North-Danubian barbarians launched independent raids. In
386,
the Ostrogoths (the
former Greuthungi) who continued to represent a considerable military force even
under Hunnic yoke, tried under the command of their king Odotheus to settle in the
province of Scythia, like Alatheus and Saphrax. This coalition acted without a Hunnic
rule, which demonstrates that the Huns were not yet the true masters in the region. The
Roman navy and army repelled the invaders in the northern Dobrudja. Another attack
followed in
391,
defeated by Stilicho in a battle in Thrace. The so-called Bastarnae and
Getae mentioned by Claudianus are archaic names for the local populations in
Moldavia. The Huns were not involved in these invasions, but they were probably
those barbarians who plundered Halmyris in the winter of
389-390,
if the monastery of
Halmyrissos mentioned in the Life of Saint Hypatios could be located there. It seems
that the Huns seldom took part at the raids on the limes between
381-391,
which were
mainly secondary effects of their arrival. The next Ostrogothic invasion over the
Danube is dated in
394,
when the Huns were plundering the Oriental part of the empire
(the Balkan provinces were already exhausted by two decades of devastations, and they
preferred to take booty from elsewhere).
This series of Hunnic, Ostrogothic, Carpic and Alan attacks shows a turmoil
stirred in the regions north of the Danube by the rise of the unifying force that was the
ruling Hunnic clan. The impulse was transmitted to all these barbarians, but the Huns
remained for some time in the backside, far from the Danube (according to the
archaeological evidence, they continued to live in the steppes of the lower
Dniepr
valley until the first half of the 5th century). The Hunnic domination moved closer to
the lower Danube around
400,
when is recorded their king Uldin, who killed the rebel
Gainas
somewhere north of the Danube and closed an alliance with emperor Arcadius.
It is possible that this alliance was connected with the Christianization of the Huns
attempted by St. John Chrysostomos in
399
or
400.
Uldin fought
Gainas
fearing he
could be a rival, a potential ruler of the Ostrogoths ruled by the Huns. He was a
hegemon
according to Zosimos, which could mean the supremacy over the entire
Hunnic confederation, but this fear shows that his power was not consolidated.
Being perhaps unsatisfied by the imperial gifts, Uldin launched an invasion in
the Thracian
diócesis
in the winter of
404/405.
In
406,
he helped the Western Roman
emperor Honorius against the Gothic chief Radagaisus. The Huns became an important
military force, used by the western or eastern Roman warlords as mercenaries. In
408,
Uldin started another invasion south of the Danube, but the Roman army defeated the
Huns and their allies, the Skin, in
409.
It is possible that the defeat also meant the end
of Uldin s power. In
404
or
408
were destroyed or affected the bridgeheads from
Desa
147
Alexandra Madgearu
(?), Hinova,
Ostrovul Banului,
Drobeta/Turnu-Severin and
Orşova.
At
Sucidava/Celei,
the destruction in
408 was
denied, but the coin hoards could prove this. South of the
Danube were destroyed or plundered the fortresses Smorna, Taliata,
Hajdučka
Vodenica,
Transmarisca, Troesmis, Dinogetia and Aegyssus. This indicates a clear
strategy of conquest in the limes region, started from several areas beyond the river.
Coin hoards found around the
Vit
valley are showing the main direction of invasion
(through the ford of Sucidava-Oescus). During Uldin, the Huns became a threat, but
one still easy to be repelled by the Roman army. This was the period when a real
Hunnic domination extended in Moldavia, Walachia and
Oltenia.
The Hunnic relics
consist in few cauldrons discovered in southern
Oltenia,
in some places from Walachia,
and in a single site in Moldavia Other cauldrons were found in the fortresses of
Sucidava, Hinova and Ratiaria, in the levels burned during the invasion of
408,
which
means that they belonged to some Huns recruited in the Roman army. The cauldrons
are too dispersed to indicate a certain power center. The ruling clan was still nomad,
but in the next decades the Hunnic elite will turn to sedentary positions.
A distinction could be made between the years
381-394,
when the Huns were
still far from the Danube, and the period started in
404,
which meant the second stage
of the Hunnic domination in the lower
Danubian
area. The result was the concentration
of defence in fewer bridgeheads. Hinova,
Dierna,
and probably
Desa
and Drobeta were
abandoned. This kind of defence proved to be not efficient in the fights against the
Hunnic horse warriors, because the bridgeheads were designed for expeditions against
the bases of the sedentary enemies. Now, with an enemy without settlements, they
were no more useful.
It could be remarked that Uldin was an enemy of the Eastern Empire and an ally
of the Western Roman Empire. His involvement in the conflict between the empires is
testified by the gold bars from Crasna and Feldioara, dated between
402
and
408,
offered to Uldin, as has proved Florin
Curta,
as a symbol of the alliance with the
Western Empire. It is possible that Uldin s men took refuge in that region, if he was
thrown from power after
409.
Several gold coins issued by Honorius discovered in
Walachia and
Oltenia
could be explained by the same alliance.
A sedentary elite of Germanic and Alan origin existed in the Hunnic
confederation, subordinated but participating at power and booty. It is archaeologically
reflected by the graves with luxurious inventory dated in the Dl and D2 periods from
the areas under Hunnic domination. The grave from
Coşovenii
de
Jos was considered a
proof for an Ostrogothic power center in southern
Oltenia,
but it seems more probable
that the area was under direct Hunnic control, because several cauldrons were found
nearby. The warrior could be Germanic, but a Hunnic subject. Other warrior graves
were found at Dulceanca and
Vădastra.
The gold bracelet from
Baiaci
is in
fac*
Neolithic, not Hunnic. Another aristocratic grave is indicated by the silver brooch
from
Lazu.
A possible Hunnic power center in the
Buzău
region could be supposed on
the basis of the funeral finds from
Gherăseni, Poşta Câlnău
and
Bälteni.
The taking
under control of the former power center of Athanaric expressed in the best way the
Hunnic supremacy.
148
The Military History of Post-Roman
Dacia,
3 76-614
The very rich grave from
Conceşti
dated in the Dl period was ascribed to Uldin
or to another Hunnic leader, but the set of silver vessels are pointing to a barbarian
accustomed with the luxury of the Roman civilization, which in that time was more
probable an Ostrogoth than a Hun. Likewise, the parade helmet is an object worn by
high commanders, and it could be supposed than the man buried at
Conceşti
fought in
the Roman army as a foederate. We suppose that an Ostrogothic power center survived
in northern Moldavia, perhaps the same that was ruled by Odotheus. Other finds related
with this center could be those from
Buhăeni, Măriţeia
and
Rotopăneşti,
as well as the
short sword from
Iaşi-Nicolina.
The relations of this area in northern Moldavia with the
empire are proved by the discovery of several gold coins issued in the last two decades
of the 4th century, arrived there through the alliance which we suppose it was
established between this Ostrogothic king and Arcadius or Theodosius II, in the period
when the power of Uldin could be contested. These relations stirred the spreading of
Christianity among the Ostrogoths, as it is shown by the discoveries from
Botoşani-
Dealul Cărămidăriei, Mihălăşeni
and Nichiteni.
The next Hunnic king was Charaton (Qara Ton =,,the black horse ), The
interpretation of the single source shows that he ruled as a king above other Hunnic
kings somewhere north of the Black Sea. It is not true that a certain
Donatos was
too
king, together with Charaton. He was perhaps a Roman renegade. The diplomatic
mission sent to Charaton in
413
intended perhaps the prevention of other invasions and
it is connected with the strengthening of the defence along the Danube decided in
412.
After short time, the Hunnic power center moved in
Pannonia,
during the kings Ruga
and Oktar, in
425-427.
The
puszta
was an ideal place for the Huns. Before this
movement, in
422,
Ruga launched an invasion in the Thracian
diócesis.
Even
Constantinople was in danger, and the Huns retreat only after a yearly tribute of
350
gold pounds was agreed to be payed. This attack that crossed the Danube perhaps by
Noviodunum affected the northern part of Scythia Minor.
Like Uldin, Ruga entered in alliance with the Western Empire in
42,
receiving
for this the province of Valeria, where other Huns, Ostrogoths and Alans were present
since
378.
In
433,
Ruga received two more provinces
(Pannonia
Prima
and a part of
Pannonia
Secunda).
The Western Roman Empire preserved only
Savia
and a part of
Pannonia
Secunda,
including Sirmium. The Huns became thus foederati. They had also
conquered from the Sarmatians the area between Danube and
Tisa.
The movement in
Pannonia
stirred centrifugal actions in the peripheral areas dominated by the Huns, and
some of the subjects of Ruga took refuge in the empire. Based on the treaty of
422,
the
king requested their return. The dispute was closed when the power was taken by the
brothers
Attila
and
Biedą
by the peace of Margus. The new agreement doubled the
tribute to
700
pounds, approved the return of the Hunnic renegades and allowed free
trade over the Danube. The year of the treaty is usually considered
435,
but C.
Zuckerman has demonstrated that the right date is the winter
439/440.
After the treaty
were returned and executed two pretenders. They were extradited in the small fort of
Karsus from Thrace, usually identified with Carsium
(Hârşova).
Actually, the word
φρουρίον
was given by Priscus only to small forts, and the source speaks clearly about
149
Alexandru
Madgearu
the province, not
diócesis
of Thrace. On the other hand, ¡t seems that Carsium was
deserted. Therefore, the place was an unidentified fort from Thrace, most probable on
the road to Margus.
The Huns broke the peace in the spring of
441,
when the Roman army was
fighting against Vandals and Persia.
Attila
wished a greater tribute and booty. Cities
like Sirmium, Singidunum, Naissus, Margus and Viminacium were destroyed. The
invasions followed in
442
as a continuous war, and the attacks reached Philippopolis
and Arcadiopolis. At the Thracian Chersones,
magister militum
Aspar
was defeated in
the first open field battle against the Huns. The strategic plan of
Attila
was the
destruction of the main points of the defensive system and the advance toward
Constantinople. A great loss was Sirmium. Archaeological researches confirm
destructions at Singidunum, Sapaja,
Ravna, Čezava,
Karatas,
Ratiaria, Novae,
latrus,
Halmyris, Sacidava and
Histria.
No peace agreement was closed after this war (it was
demonstrated that ambassador Anatolius was sent in a single mission, in
448,
not also
in
443).
In
441-442,
the Huns proved the capability for large operations on different
directions and repeatedly. This means that they entered in a phase of superior military
organization, when
Attila
became the single ruler and when began the evolution to a
form of state. In
445,
with the help of the Gepid king Ardarich,
Attila
killed his brother
Bleda.
The most grave invasion took place in
447
and ravaged many regions of the
entire eastern part of the Balkan Peninsula, except Scythia. An important battle was
fought on somewhere on the
Vit
valley
{magister
militum Arnegisclus was defeated
and killed). Only at Asemus the inhabitants were able to resist. The archaeological
researches attest destructions at
Kostol
and Sucidava, the bridgehead that defended the
ford used for the invasion (the battle on the
Vit
valley suggests this direction). This was
the last invasion in the south-eastern provinces of the Late Roman Empire. Like in the
past, the Huns wanted the increase of the tribute. An embassy led by
Flavius
Anatolius
was sent in
448.
The Huns received
6000
pounds, and the future tribute was established
at
2100
pounds. They also received a strip of land between Singidunum and Novae.
This was the climax of the Hunnic power: the hegemony in the middle and lower
Danubian
regions. The Roman army was not able to make any offensive in the enemy
territory, fighting only in defensive on the frontier or in the deep territory, even near
the capital.
North of the limes,
Attila
was the unique chief of a confederation that mastered a
large space, whose extent could be somehow determined by the mapping of gold coins
arrived through tribute or booty. Such coins were found in
Oltenia,
in Walachia and
Moldavia, areas certainly under Hunnic domination. In Transylvania, the absence of
specific Hunnic objects suggests that this region was dominated with the help of the
local elite of Gothic origin remained there after
376,
archaeologically attested by finds
like those from Vel{. The graves with rich inventory and the treasures dated in the D2
and D2/D3 periods could be ascribed only to the Ostrogothic and Alan elite
(Fântânele,
Buneşti, Bratei).
The same elite was the owner of the gold coins discovered in
Transylvania,
Banat
and
Crişana
in a much more number than in
Oltenia,
Walachia and
150
The Military History of Post-Roman
Dacia,
376-614
Moldavia. The Huns did not enter Transylvania. Like Walachia and Moldavia, it was
dominated through the Ostrogoths, whose sedentary life enabled them to control a
space not suitable for nomads, even during the climax of the Hunnic power, between
430
and
454.
The Huns were mostly concerned with the booty from the empire, and the
almost deserted towns of former Roman
Dacia
were of no interest in this*respect. This
poverty was the chance of survival of the Daco-Roman population, but the Hunnic
invasions had as consequence the diminishing of their relations with the empire.
Transylvania was quite secure, but more and more isolated.
In
448,
Attila
requested the return of the refugees by the embassy of Edecon.
The official Chrysaphios tried to convince him to kill
Attila, but
this intrigue failed
when Edecon returned together the ambassador
Maximinus in
the summer of
449.
Attila
was eager to peaceful relations because he was preparing a war against the
Western Empire. He returned the territory annexed in
447.
The description of the
embassy recorded by Priscus gives many useful data for the level reached by the
Hunnic political and military organization.
Attila
resided in a kind of palace made of
wood, protected by a fortification, while his advisor Onegesius owned a bath built with
stone from
Pannonia.
The court of
Attila
could be located somewhere near the mouth
of
Mureş,
where a concentration of Hunnic discoveries exists. The rivers crossed by
Priscus,
Δρήκων, Τίγας
and
Τιφήσας
are
Bega, Tisa
and
Timiş
(they were not
recorded in the order of the journey). The different opinion of R. Browning (the
location of the court in Walachia) is wrong because the name of the rivers and the
description of the region fits with the western
Banat.
If it was in Walachia, it was not
necessary to take stone from
Pannonia
for that bath.
The end of the Hunnic domination followed soon after the big defeat of
20
June
451
in Gaul in front of the army led by general Aetius. The sudden death of
Attila
in
autumn
453
stirred the rebellion of the Germanic groups, and the victory belonged to
the Gepidic king Ardarich in the battle of Nedao in
454.
The collapse of this state
shows it was an artificial construction, and that the authority of the ruling clan was
easy to contest after a major defeat.
For the post-Roman
Dacia
and for the former Gothia, the Hunnic domination
meant a new type of relations between masters and subjects, consisting in taking
tribute. Priscus recorded that one of Bleda wives and one of the Hunnic officials were
masters of some villages. The Huns were interested to preserve sedentary people for
food and pedestrian fighters. By this reason, the domination over a field area indicates
the presence of a sedentary population (in
Banat,
the Daco-Romans, the Sarmatians and
the Gepids). Under the Hunnic rule, the Germanic military elite was an intermediary in
this state based on predatory economy. When the Huns lost the power, they took their
place, but without establishing a new empire. The Germanic kingdoms created in
Pannonia
and Transylvania were similar to those from Italy, Gaul or Spain, where the
elite composed of sedentary warriors was eager to integrate in the Roman civilization.
The Gepids acquired the hegemony, occupying the former center of the Hunnic realm.
Another Germanic power center that survived during the Hunnic domination in north¬
eastern Walachia continued its existence after the middle of the 5th century, when the
151
Alexandru
Madgearu
Pietroasele
hoard was hidden. After the collapse of the Hunnic power, this Ostrogothic
kingdom resumed the relations with the Eastern Roman Empire. In northern Moldavia,
the treasure from
Botoşani
could be an imperial gift for an Ostrogothic king.
After the battle of Nedao, the warriors led by the Alan Candach and by the Huns
Ernak, Emnetzur and Ultzindur were settled in Scythia, Moesia
Secunda
and
Dacia
Ripensis. Other groups splitted from the Hunnic confederation attacked the
Danubian
provinces (like Hormidac, in the winter of
466-467).
Dengizich (one of the Attila s
sons) launched a raid in
469,
but was defeated. The last Hunnic invasion over the
Danube was recorded in
474,
but after short time in the
Danubian
region arrived
another Turkic people, the
Bulgars.
They came from Central Asia around
480,
and
included in their confederation the remaining Huns from the north-pontic steppes. The
Bulgars
acted as mercenaries in several Byzantine wars against Theoderic, but they
also attacked the Thracian
diócesis
in
493, 499
and
502.
The
Bulgars
also known as
Kutrigurs became the new ruling clan of the nomad warriors that continued to live in
the steppe and field areas between Danube and the northern parts of the Black Sea,
where their power center was located.
Chapter II. The Gepidic kingdom in Transylvania
Emperor Marcianus closed alliances with the Gepids and Ostrogoths short time
after
454
in order to secure the
Danubian
frontier, but this did not stop the rivalry
between these Germanic peoples. After some years of Gepidic hegemony in
Pannonia,
the Ostrogoth king Thiudemir obtained the victory at
Bolia
in
469
against the coalition
led by the Suebian king Hunimund. Only the departure of the Ostrogoths in Moesia
Prima
and
Dacia
Ripensis in
473
enabled the restoration of the Gepidic power in the
Tisa
basin. They occupied Sirmium, the city becoming the residence of a Gepidic
kingdom, a different one from that still existing in the
Tisa
region. The conflicts
between Gepids and Ostrogoths continued (in the battle of Ulca,
488/489,
the Gepid
king Thraustila was killed). Sirmium was conquered by the army of the Italian
Ostrogoth kingdom in
504,
in cooperation with the Gepidic rival chief
Mundo.
This
Mundo,
later appointed
magister
militum per Ilfyricum, fought against the Gepidic
raids occurred in
517
and
530
(the archaic name Getae was applied to them, not the
Slavs). In
510
emperor
Anastasios
I and Theoderic the Great agreed that the Ostrogoths
will preserve most part of
Pannonia
Secunda,
including Sirmium, but when Justinian
started the war against the Ostrogoths, in
535,
this city was conquered by the Late
Roman army. The Gepids will take it again in
536,
and their kingdom will survive until
567.
The Gepidic kingdom from the
Tisa
valley included
Crişana,
according to
Iordanes. The archaeological discoveries confirm this. The main Gepidic finds are
those from
Cărei, Dindeşti, Valea
lui
Mihai,
Oradea, Ghenci, Micălaca.
The warrior
grave from
Valea
lui
Mihai is very significant for the military elite of the late
penoà
of
the Hunnic domination. The treasure from
Tăuteni
could also be ascribed to the
Gepids.
152
The Military History of Post-Roman
Dacia,
376-614
The most important testimony of the Gepidic kingdom from
Crişana
is
represented by the treasures from
Şimleul Silvaniei
(the parts of a single hoard).
Treasure I included
15
medallions made from
solidi
issued between
290
and
383
and
different gold objects. The most important piece of the second treasure is the golden
brooch with onyx, similar to that of the imperial costume. It was a gift to a barbarian
king. The analysis of the other brooches shows that the treasure was dated between the
third quarter of the 4th century and the middle of the 5th century. It could be supposed
that it was hidden in the second third or the third quarter of the 5th century, and that the
owner was a Gepidic king. The long series of gold coins indicates a dynastic continuity
since
290
when the Gepids were living in the area of the Wielbark culture. The most
recent brooches are dated during the alliance closed between Ardarich and Marcianus.
The onyx brooch was the gift made with this occasion. Therefore, we ascribe both
treasures to Ardarich, who continued to rule after the battle of Nedao in the
Tisa
region
and to east up to the natural limit of
Porţile Meseşului.
The royal symbol (the onyx
fibula) could be buried only with the dead king. Its hiding could mean that the dynasty
ended (nothing is known about Ardarich after
454),
and it is possible that this end has a
relation with the battle of
Bolia.
The same battle of
Bolia
that signified a decline of the Gepidic power in the
Tisa
region determined the orientation of Gepids toward east. A new power center appeared
in the area of
Napoca,
a city already abandoned by the Daco-Romans who moved in
nearby places like Suceagu. The treasure from
Someşeni
dated in the third quarter of
the
5й1
century belonged to a Christian princess. Graves with rich inventories were
found in the same place
Someşeni
and at
Cordoş.
Other early Gepidic graves from the
Someş
region are those from
Ţaga
and Cepari. The next period of the Gepidic kingdom
in the
Someş
basin is represented by the groups of princely graves from Apahida and
Turda,
dated between the last third of the 5th century and the first quarter of the
б 1
century. The grave Apahida I belonged to a king whose name written on a ring was
read Omharus, but
C. Opreanu
has shown that the real name was Omahar, bearing the
title Vir Gloriosissimus. The second grave includes several gold objects certainly dated
during the second half of the 5th century. From a third grave comes a golden belt buckle
similar to a piece from Apahida I. All these graves could be considered royal. The
golden brooch was an object that was offered by emperors to kings like Theoderic or
Clovis, and the rings are symbols of the royal power.
The graves were ascribed to the Ostrogoths or to the Gepids by various
historians. Recently,
С
Opreanu has shown that the inventory of Apahida I points to an
alliance with Theoderic the Great (the brooch was made in an Italian workshop and the
monogram of the seal ring is an imitation after the coins issued by the Ostrogoth king).
Taking this into consideration, we propose that the chronological order of the graves is:
H
(short time after
469)
III (end of the 5th century), I (first decades of the
6
century).
We also consider that the kings were Gepids, and that
Anastasios
I gave to Omahar the
title of Vir Gloriosissimus, after the agreement with Theoderic in
510.
The emperor
built an alliance system to support stability in the region. The three graves from
Apahida and the
Someşeni
treasure are showing the existence of a royal residence,
153
Alexandru
Madgearu
located at
Napoca,
where Roman buildings still existed, in a place that ensured the
control over the salt traffic. Gepidic cemeteries were discovered at short distance at
Floreşti, Vlaha
and
Căpuşu Mare,
and another aristocratic grave existed at
Fundătura.
Another testimony of this Gepidic power center is the grave of a princess found in the
former thermae of Potaissa, dated in the last third of the 5th century. The objects said to
come from a grave in Moigrad seem to be fake.
Besides the royal graves, in Transylvania were found many Gepidic settlements
and cemeteries, in some cases in mixture with the Daco-Roman population (the
Christianization of the Gepids enabled mixed life). The presence of the Daco-Romans
during the Gepidic domination is attested in settlements that display clear elements of
continuity of the material culture (for instance at
Bratei, Dipşa, Stupini, Şirioara,
lernut,
Sânmiclăuş).
Gepidic cemeteries and isolated graves were researched at Alba
lulia, Archiud,
Căpuşu Mare, Cipău, Fântâniţa, Floreşti, Lechinţa de Mureş, Mediaş,
Moreşti, Ocniţa, Sighişoara-Dealul Viilor, Şintereag, Turda, Vlaha.
They are
concentrated north of the
Mureş
valley, especially near salt mines. In the southern part
of Transylvania survived until the end of the 5th century the Ostrogothic group
previously illustrated by the grave of
Velţ.
During the period D3, this group is
represented by the graves of Slimnic, by five graves from
Miercurea Sibiului,
and by
some other finds from
Şeica Mică
and
Şpălnaca.
Other data concerning the extension of the Gepidic kingdom in Transylvania are
provided by the gold coins issued between
454-567,
arrived there through subsidies.
Most of them are concentrated near salt mines:
Aiud, Albeştii Bistriţei,
Apalina,
Beclean,
Câlnic, Ceuaşu de Câmpie, Cetea, Haţeg, lernut-Sf. Gheorghe, Lăureni,
county
of Mureş, Săbed, Sângeorgiu de Cîmpie, Şeica Mică
(a treasure composed of
around
100
solidi
issued between Theodosius II and Justin I),
Şomcuta Mare,
Tonciu,
Turda
(jud.
Cluj)
and
Veţel.
The coin hoard from
Vădaş
did not include pieces from
Arcadius to Justinian as it was believed. The treasure from
Şeica Mică
was gathered
since the period of the Hunnic domination, and it is also important because it was
found near a prehistoric fortress used by the Gepids. Kurt Horedt sustained that the
Gepids had used two more older fortresses, at Porumbenii
Mici
and
Moreşti,
but future
researches denied this interpretation.
The Gepidic kingdom of Transylvania remained a marginal and ephemeral state,
because in this region were absent the elements of urban life that in other lands enabled
the development of the barbarian kingdoms. Its existence was inferred only from
archaeological discoveries. The alliance established with
Anastasios
was most probable
preserved until the end of the reign of Justinian.
Chapter III. The Post-Roman
Dacia
during the age of Justinian
The intensive building activity along the Danube started by
Anastasios
and well
developed by Justinian was not able to make the limes unbreakable. The closing of the
frontier initiated in
535-540
had contrary effects, because, without the imports
previously obtained by trade, the barbarian chiefs had no other mean to obtain the
154
The Military History of Post-Roman
Dacia,
376-614
prestigious goods than by booty. The
limitami
who defended these frontier forts, and
the interior fortifications defended mostly by civilians were not integrated in a coherent
system. Manpower was not enough to cover the defensive system conceived on three
lines allover the Balkan provinces, because most of the forces were directed to other
conflict areas. Besides this, manpower was reduced by epidemics and less interest for
recruiting. The defence of the
Danubian
frontier included diplomacy to supply the
meagerness of the military forces. The policy of divide
et impera
was not always
successful. It was not able to stop many invasions, for which Danube was for no means
a barrier. The single real use of the fortresses was to shelter their inhabitants.
The
Bulgars
or Kutrigurs launched several invasions from the power center
located north-west of the Black Sea. The steppe corridor that reached the limes near
Scythia Minor acquired again the geopolitical importance of the times of Gothia or of
the first Hunnic rulers, but the Kutrigurs were not able to build a steppe empire like the
Huns. The first
Bulgar
attacks in Scythia Minor and the Thracian
diócesis
during the
age of Justinian are attested in
528
and
530.
The second one was repelled by
Mundo.
Another
Bulgar
invasion occurred in
535/536,
defeated by general
Sittas
in a battle at
latrus (this suggests a crossing of the Danube by Sucidava-Oescus). The fortress of
Iatrus was already destroyed in that moment, and we suppose that the Antae were
responsible for this. The Antae were a mixture of Alans, Slavs and Goths, not a proper
ethnic community, but a warrior community like the future Kossaks. Their name of
Alan origin meant „outsider , which points to the initial peripheral position among the
Alans. They became independent after the end of the Hunnic domination, but it is
possible that they entered later under the control of the
Bulgars.
The first invasion of
the Antae was recorded around
518.
They continued, and against them were organized
after
530
several expeditions north of the Danube, commanded by Chilbudios, a
general who was of the same ethnic origin. This renewal of an offensive strategy was
not durable, because the troops were transferred to the Gothic war. Chilbudios died in
his last campaign, against the Slavs.
The traditional theories about the origin and migration of the Slavs were
challenged by Florin
Curta,
who developed in a certain way some ideas expressed by
O. Pritsak and J. Nichols, proposing that the Slavs appeared as a new ethnicity in
relation with the emergence of a military elite among the barbarians living north of the
Danubian limes.
As has also remarked P. Urbanczyk, it was not an expansion of the
Slavs, but of the „Slavicity , a cultural pattern adopted by different ethnicities. In the
Romanian historiography, the single notable reaction to Curta s theory was expressed
by E. S.
Teodor
and S. Paliga, who proposed that the basis of the new ethnicity was a
mixture of Alan and Gothic people, the former bearers of the
Sântana de Mureş-
Cerneahov culture.
Sirmium was conquered in
535,
but lost to the Gepids in
536,
when the army
was occupied in Italy. Justinian established an alliance with the
Langobards
in
536,
directed against the Gepids and the Ostrogoths, but he did not try to recover Sirmium.
The alliance proved to be inefficient, because the
Langobards
did not made war against
the Gepids who continued their raids in Moesia
Prima
and
Dacia Ripensis
until
539.
155
Alexandru
Madgearu
The emperor preferred to renew the treaty with the Gepids in
539.
In
lhe
mean time, the
lessening of the military resources on the
Danubian
frontier enabled new invasions
from north. In
539
or
540,
a new
Bulgar
invasion affected the entire Balkan Peninsula,
and two more are recorded in
544-545
(the Antae and the Kutrigurs). The Slavs
attacked in
545/546,
and next in
548-550,
when they displayed a superior military
capability. These inroads were made by many places along the frontier, and the
concentration of the forces in some points was no more useful.
An alliance was closed with the Antae in
545,
to prevent future invasions of the
Kutrigurs and Slavs. Justinian offered them the area around the former fortress Turris,
which could be located at
Barbosi.
The Antae remained for decades allies of the
empire, but there is no proof that they really settled near Turris. At the middle Danube,
the control was ensured by a new alliance with the
Langobards,
in
546,
who fought
against the Gepids between
549
and
552,
with the help of the Roman army. During this
conflict, the Gepid king Thorisin called the Kutrigurs to invade lllyricum (in
551),
and
for this reason Justinian stirred their rivals, the Utigurs, to attack the land of the
Kutrigurs. This action proved to be efficient for some years, but the Kutrigur king
Zabergan launched the most grave invasion in the winter of
558-559,
when the limes
was almost undefended. The Kutrigurs and the Slavs advanced up to places near
Constantinople, and Zabergan accepted to retreat only after a payment. The Kutrigur
invasions continued in
560
and
562,
and perhaps also in
571.
The
Bulgar
or Kutrigur invasions did not led to the establishment of a
domination similar to the Hunnic one. Moldavia, Walachia and sometimes
Oltenia
were only crossed by their raids directed to the empire. These regions became instead
the homeland of the new invaders, the Slavs, who evolved in few decades to a superior
organization. They shared the same space with the Romanized population that
preserved economic and religious relations with the empire. The crosses and the mould
used for their production found in Walachia and Moldavia attest not only the spreading
of Christianity, but also the need for religious and ethnic self-identification of the
Roman population versus the Slavs.
The contacts with the Roman population were made through some crossing
points. Bridgeheads were restored or established. The foundation deed of the
archbishopric Justiniana
Prima
recorded the recovery of two north-Danubian forts,
Litterata and
Recidiva,
identified with the quadriburgium from the Sapaja island and
with
Stari Dubovac
(as we propose for the second). These points supported the
relations with the Gepids. The older 4th century forts from the mountain part of the
Danube Clisura were not restored because they were not useful for this purpose. At
Dierna,
the civilian inhabitation during the 6th century is certain, but not also the
presence of a garrison. Drobeta, recorded by Procopius as Theodora, was peopled
during the 6th century, but the restoration of its military function is more probable
dated after
570.
Sucidava was restored with a thicker precinct, possible since the age of
Anastasios.
This fort could be used for relations with the Gepidic kingdom of
Transylvania through the
Olt
valley. Another recovered bridgehead was Daphne
(Ulmeni). There are different opinions concerning the extent of the Late Roman
156
The Military History of Post-Roman
Dacia,
376-614
domination in southern
Oltenia,
since the literary sources are unclear. The Edict
XIII
(538-539)
speaks about an area north of the Danube under military control. It is
possible that the garrison was at Sucidava. The 6th century bridgeheads were used not
only for defence, but also for contacts with the Gepid allies. After
560,
their economic
function revived with the probable purpose to support increasing payments for the
Gepids. Yet, the contacts of the north-Danubian area with the empire during the age of
Justinian remained less developed in comparison with the period
275-369.
Chapter IV. The emergence of the Avarian domination
The Avars were a mixture of Mongol and Turkic tribes. They established a state
that lasted more than the Hunnic, because was able to strengthen the domination over
the sedentary people. The weapons used by the Avarian army were the crossbow, the
spear, the sword, the saber and the axe. As innovations in comparison with the Huns,
they used lamellar armor and stirrups. The stirrups enabled a more efficient fight. They
were discovered in the earliest Avar graves. The late 6th century Roman army used too
stirrups, took from the Avars or from Persia. The Avars were also able to siege
fortresses with trebuchets of possible Chinese origin.
The Avars rise from the Huns remained in
Sogdiana
after
350.
Their first
appearance in the European sources is dated in
463
(the Sabiri from Caucasus were
attacked by them). The Avars from
Sogdiana
escaped from the domination of the
Turkic empire in
557
and, under the rule of Candich, migrated near the
Caspie
Sea.
They requested the settlement in the empire, but Justinian proposed them instead, in
559,
to become allies against several Caucasian peoples. In
559,
the Avars continued
the migration, arriving in the steppes north of the Black Sea, conquering the Utigurs
and the Antae. The Kutrigurs managed to became their allies. The final result of the
alliance closed by Justinian with the Avars was thus the inclusion of the Kutrigurs in a
new nomadic confederacy. In
562,
the Avars launched a failed invasion against the
Franks who were enemies of the Late Roman Empire. In
563,
the new khagan Baian
asked again for a settlement in the empire, namely in Scythia Minor, but it was refused.
Because the following emperor Justin II cut the payments, the Avars turned against the
empire, accepting the alliance proposed by the
Langobards
against the Gepids
(566).
In
the first part of the war, the Gepid king Cunimund was helped by the Byzantine army
from Scythia and Moesia, but he lost this support because he refused to give back
Sirmium in
567.
Justin II remained neutral, and the
Langobard
king Alboin defeated
Cunimund with the help of the Avars. After this, the
Langobards
departed to Italy, and
the Avars took the former land of the Gepids in the
Tisa
valley. The Gepids of Sirmium
surrendered to the Byzantine army.
In this way, a new nomadic power center appeared in
Pannonia.
The Avars also
took under their domination the former
Langobard
territory, the old Roman
Pannonia,
were the local Christian population was still living. In that area near Balaton existed
one of the early Avarian power centers, the other being in
Alföld.
It is possible that the
157
Alexandru
Madgearu
earthen walls east-of
Tisa
were built by the Avars with the subjected population and the
prisoners. In
Crişana,
the Avars entered later, after the middle of the
7
century.
The Avarian confederacy included populations of different ethnic origins (Slavs,
Gepids, Kutrigurs, Romans from
Pannonia
and Transylvania), being recruited in their
army. Local Avar rulers were settled in their communities. The Gepids continued to
live in Transylvania under the Avarian domination, as it is testified by the group of
cemeteries Band, Bratei (nr.
3),
Unirea-Vereşmort, Noşlac, Valea Largă, Galaţii
Bistriţei and Bistriţa,
dated until
680.
These
Gepids
fought in the Avarian army (there
are weapons in their graves). In these cemeteries were also found remains of Avarian
or Kutrigur warriors. The earliest Avarian find in Transylvania could be represented by
the cemetery of
Şpălnaca,
whit an Avarian grave that contained a gold coin from Justin
II. The presence of the nomads in these late Gepidic cemeteries points to a first stage of
the Avarian domination, when local chiefs were sent to gather tribute and to rule the
people. Like the Huns, the Avars controlled Transylvania through a Germanic
population, the Gepids. For the Gepids, the Avarian domination meant the transfer of
the power of their former kingdom to the khagan. The Gepids continued to enjoy a
good situation in the new conditions. A Gepid aristocrat was the owner of the great
coin hoard found at
Firtuşu,
hidden around
630,
during the rebellion of the Kutrigurs.
Pure Avarian cemeteries appeared in Transylvania only after
630.
They are
concentrated aroud the salt mines in the middle basin of
Mureş.
Like the Gepids, the
Avars were concerned with the control over salt resources and traffic.
Chapter V. The end of the Late Roman domination at
the Lower Danube
The retreat of the Late Roman power from the Danube occurred on the
background of the demographic and economic decline caused by pandemics and
climate changes, and in connection with the depletion of military resources, mainly
directed to other conflict areas.
The first period of the downfall of the
Danubian
limes is dated between
577
and
587,
being the consequence of the conflicts with the Avars. Sirmium became a disputed
issue just from
568,
when Baian requested the city as a former Gepid possession. The
Avars invaded Thrace in
573
and obtained thus a tribute of
80.000
solidi.
Sirmium was
still under imperial administration, but the Avarian domination was strengthened in
Pannonia.
The peace closed with the Avars in
574
determined the Turks to broke the
alliance established in
568,
and thus the empire lost a precious partner in the conflict
with Persia. The same peace gave to the Avars the opportunity to extend their
domination over the Slavs in Walachia.
The first Slavic invasions that affected the frontier are dated between
576
and
578.
They were launched without the participation of the Avars, who were instead
summoned by Tiberius
Constantinus
to fight against them. In the summer of
578,
an
Avarian army was transported through the empire to a region in eastern Walachia or
southern Moldavia, ruled by the Slavic chief Daurentios. These Slavs were thus
158
The Military History of Post-Roman
Dacia,
376-614
subjected to the Avarian domination. This campaign extended the
A varian
power,
leading consequently to the weakening of the Byzantine positions on the Danube.
Unlike the Huns, the Avars fought not only for booty, but also for a real
extension of their domination over Byzantine territories. The turning point was the
conquest of Sirmium, accomplished in late
581
or early
582
after a three years siege. It
seems that during the siege emperor Tiberius tried to obtain help from the
Transylvanian Gepids, but the diplomatic mission was not achieved (we suppose that a
confusing information recorded by John of Ephesus about
Langobards
concerns in fact
the Gepids). When the citizens of Sirmium starved, the emperor decided to surrender
the city to Baian. In the mean time, the Slavs continued the invasions, between
581
and
584,
ravaging the entire Balkan Peninsula.
The peace closed after the conquest of Sirmium lasted only two years. Baian
was replaced by his son, who launched a campaign against the cities from Moesia
Prima, Dacia Ripensis
and Moesia
Secunda.
The defence was neglected and the
surprise was decisive for the conquest. However, the victory was not frutified, because
the khagan retreated from Anchialos fearing of a Turkic attack. The subsequent
negotiations achieved in late
585
led to the increasing of the tribute at
100.000
solidi.
The peace was broken in autumn
586,
when the cities Aquis, Bononia, Ratiaria,
Durostorum, Zaldapa, Marcianopolis and Tropaeum were conquered. The Avars
intended the destruction of the defensive system of the
Danubian
limes (the military
roads along the Danube and between Anchialos and Noviodunum). Their campaign
was contemporary and probably connected with a Slavic invasion conducted by
Ardagast, that reached the Long Walls of Constantinople and Thessalonic. This means
that the Avars were using the forces of the Slavs from Walachia. The counteroffensive
led by Comentiolus in
587
in Scythia Minor was successful, but it was followed by a
defeat in the gorge of Sabulente Canalion, and by a failed ambush near Anchialos.
Another Avarian offensive was started from Appiaria to south, through Beroe
(Stara
Zagora).
During this war, emperor Maurikios summoned the Antae against the Slavs,
and it seems that he also settled a Bulgarian group as ally somewhere in the
Danubian
provinces, as results from the confusing data preserved by the 12th century chronicler
Michael
Syras,
based on the lost parts of the history of John of Ephesus.
No invasions are known between
587
and
593,
except a Slavic attack in Thrace
in
588
or
589.
During this peace time were restored some fortresses (Viminacium,
Slatinská
Reka,
Prahovo,
Drobeta, Sucidava). The second period of the downfall of the
limes is dated between
593
and
598.
The chronology of the campaigns was disputed
«cause Theophylact Simocatta has not always rightly understood the war report he
used. Following the same approach of G.
Labuda
and M. Whitby (from the end to the
■eginning), but with a different result, we concluded that the first campaign launched
У
the Avars in the 590 s should be dated in
593.
A clear proof for this is provided by
the letter of July
593
from Pope Gregory the Great to Priscus, entitled
patrícius
of the
Bast, a function received
y
him at the beginning of his counteroffensive. In that
campaign of
593,
the Avars reached the hinterland of Constantinople, and decided to
retreat only because they were deceived by the fake message that Byzantine navy will
159
Alexandru
Madgearu
attack their homeland.
In the spring of
594,
Priscus made an expedition against the Slavs from
Walachia who ravaged some cities in Scythia Minor. The army crossed the Danube by
Durostorum and marched through the land of Ardagast, taking a lot of prisoners. They
crossed the river Helivakia and another one, reaching a swampy zone where the
barbarians were hiding. A Gepid prisoner was sent to deceive the Slavic king
Musokios, who was in that moment at a distance of
30
parasangs
(or most probable
miles, as recorded Theophanes Confessor). This does not mean that also the country
ruled by Musokios was there. At the end, the campaign was a victory. Since it is was
impossible to take those prisoners from the deserted
Bărăgan,
it could be inferred that
the army marched to west, to the area of Bucharest, where several discoveries could
attest the existence of a power center. We suppose that this was the country of
Ardagast. The land of Musokios could be located in the region
Prahova-Buzău
on the
basis of the finds from
Sărata
Monteoru and
Vadu
Săpat (Budureasca).
General
Petrus
launched another campaign in
september
595
to punish another
Slavic inroad. He crossed the Danube near Asemus. The advanced group of the army
was ambushed by the Slavs of
Piragast,
but the rest of the troops succeeded to take the
victory. The army marched through a region without water and reached the river
Helivakia following the indications of a prisoner. Here, another ambush was organized
by the Slavs. The entire journey from the battle with
Piragast
to Helivakia lasted at
most
70
km, not necessary on a straight way. We do not agree that the campaign was
directed to southern
Oltenia,
because in this case the garrison from Sucidava would
have allert them about the lack of water. If the army marched to east, then Helivakia
could be identified with Neajlov or Glavacioc, that are in a swampy and wooden region
like that described in the source. The battle of
Călugăreni
(23
August
1595)
was fought
in the same area, and it could be said that any commander would use the advantages of
this particular field, as did Michael the Brave against the
Oftoman
army. Helivakia was
usually identified with
Ialomiţa,
whose name of Slavic origin was recorded in Middle
Ages as
Ialovniţa,
derived from
ilu
(„clay ). This etimology could explain the origin of
the Romanian river name, but the form recorded by the Byzantine sources, with eta
with thick spirit, was pronounce Helivakia, not Ilivakia. Therefore, we do not agree
with this identification, and we consider that Helivakia was one of the rivers Neajlov or
Glavacioc.
Priscus, who replaced
Petrus
after the defeat, launched a great campaign in the
spring of
596,
to destroy the power center of the Avars. The army crossed the Danube
by Upper Novae, a fort that could be identified with Lederata (Ram), whose name was
changed in the second half of the 6th century. The khagan started negotiations, but in
the same time the Avars attacked Singidunum. The city was freed by commander
Guduis, but the general results of the campaign were bad, because most of the forts
from the Danube Clisura were destroyed. The Avars were able to advance to
Thessalonic and Constantinople by the military roads of
Morava
and Timoc valleys.
The offensives in the enemy territory offered lessons of strategy and tactics
introduced in the work ascribed to Maurikios. This handbook also includes data about
160
The Military History of Post-Roman
Dacia,
376-614
local people of Roman origin who took refuge in the Byzantine camps, dangerous
because they were possible traitors.
After a peace period of
18
months began in the spring of
596,
a new Avarian
invasion started in the autumn of
597,
along the Danube. The bridgehead of Sucidava
was definitively destroyed, but the opposite city of Novae resisted and remained in the
defensive system until
602
or
604.
The invasion ended with the siege of
Tomis.
Some
historians tried to identify this place with a less known fort from
Dacia Mediterranea,
but this idea cannot be accepted. Only a large and important city like today
Constanţa
could be the target of the siege (the great number of inhabitants is proved by the gift of
400
carts of food offerred by the khagan during the Easter). From
Tomis,
the Avars
advanced to Nicopolis ad Istrum to clash the army of Comentiolus which was coming
through Moesia. The relation of Theophylact Simocatta is obscure, because it
misunderstood the war report. From Zikideva (identified with Tzarevetz), the
Byzantine army marched to Iatrus, and being defeated because the possible betrayal of
Comentiolus, retreated to a pass in the Balkans, where another battle took place. After
a difficult victory, the army departed to Drizipera. The strategic advantage was lost, as
well as several forts and roads. This meant that the frontirer was partially abandoned in
598,
even if the Avars agreed that the Danube will remain a boundary.
The counteroffensive followed in the summer of
599,
when the army
commanded by Comentiolus and Priscus reconquered Viminacium and advanced over
the Danube. The Avars retreated on the
Tisa
river, and Priscus won several victories,
taking thousands of prisoners from the what is now the western
Banat.
His big mistake
was that he did not continue the offensive toward the power center of the khagan.
Appointed again in the place of Comentiolus,
Petrus
tried too another offensive in the
summer of
601.
From Palastolon, he departed in the autumn to Dardania, to prepare the
campaign against the Cataracts (the Iron Gates), where the Avars were attacking with
the help of the boats made by the
Langobard
allies. From Dardania it was easy to reach
the Cataracts from backside, from Viminacium, still free. The Avar commander Apsich
requested the fortifications from this area, but
Petrus
did not agree. Both armies
retreated after these negotiations.
Petrus
resumed the offensive in summer
602,
but
against the Slavs from Walachia, although the Avars were in a critical situation.
Because the Antae fought as allies of the Byzantine army, Apsich attacked them in
Moldavia. The coin hoards from Movileni and
Horgeşti
were hidden in that
circumstance.
The order to remain north of the Danube during the winter caused the rebellion
of the army stirred by Phokas. This event had not so grave effects in comparison with
the previous Avarian and Slavic attacks. The troops from Danube were not retired then,
but in
604,
to fight against Persia, after a new peace with the Avars, when the tribute
increased at
140.000
solidi. In
the next years, although undefended, the frontier was
quiet, and only the new wave of Avarian and Slavic invasions of
614-626
caused the
end of the Byzantine domination in most of South-Eastern Europe. In Scythia and
Moesia
Secunda,
the discovery of some typical Avarian buckles could point to the
existence of Avarian chiefs in cities still peopled like Halmyris,
Histria,
Argamum and
161
Alexandru
Mađgearu
Odessos.
Six centuries of Roman military presence on the Danube ended in this way. The
Post-Roman
Dacia
lost the last ties with the empire. The Byzantine Empire will return
to Danube after three centuries and a half, when, meanwhile, the Daco-Romans became
Romanians, the population that preserved the name
Romani
to distinguish themselves
from the Slavs.
162
|
| any_adam_object | 1 |
| author | Madgearu, Alexandru 1964- |
| author_GND | (DE-588)131809555 |
| author_facet | Madgearu, Alexandru 1964- |
| author_role | aut |
| author_sort | Madgearu, Alexandru 1964- |
| author_variant | a m am |
| building | Verbundindex |
| bvnumber | BV037157434 |
| ctrlnum | (OCoLC)706985399 (DE-599)BVBBV037157434 |
| era | Geschichte 376-614 gnd |
| era_facet | Geschichte 376-614 |
| format | Book |
| fullrecord | <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01747nam a2200409 c 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">BV037157434</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-604</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20110712 </controlfield><controlfield tag="007">t</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">110124s2010 ab|| |||| 00||| und d</controlfield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(OCoLC)706985399</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)BVBBV037157434</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-604</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">und</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="049" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-12</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">7,41</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Madgearu, Alexandru</subfield><subfield code="d">1964-</subfield><subfield code="e">Verfasser</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)131809555</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Istoria militară a Daciei post-romane 376 - 614</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Târgovişte</subfield><subfield code="b">Ed. Cetatea de Scaun</subfield><subfield code="c">2010</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">200 S.</subfield><subfield code="b">Ill., Kt.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Zsfassung in engl. Sprache u.d.T.: The military history of post-roman Dacia 376 - 614</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="648" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Geschichte 376-614</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Militär</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4039305-7</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="651" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Dakien</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4070197-9</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Dakien</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4070197-9</subfield><subfield code="D">g</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Militär</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4039305-7</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">Geschichte 376-614</subfield><subfield code="A">z</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="5">DE-604</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=021072086&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Inhaltsverzeichnis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=021072086&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="940" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="n">oe</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="999" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-021072086</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">355.009</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="f">09021</subfield><subfield code="g">496</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">355.009</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="f">09021</subfield><subfield code="g">498</subfield></datafield></record></collection> |
| geographic | Dakien (DE-588)4070197-9 gnd |
| geographic_facet | Dakien |
| id | DE-604.BV037157434 |
| illustrated | Illustrated |
| indexdate | 2024-07-09T22:52:45Z |
| institution | BVB |
| language | Undetermined |
| oai_aleph_id | oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-021072086 |
| oclc_num | 706985399 |
| open_access_boolean | |
| owner | DE-12 |
| owner_facet | DE-12 |
| physical | 200 S. Ill., Kt. |
| publishDate | 2010 |
| publishDateSearch | 2010 |
| publishDateSort | 2010 |
| publisher | Ed. Cetatea de Scaun |
| record_format | marc |
| spelling | Madgearu, Alexandru 1964- Verfasser (DE-588)131809555 aut Istoria militară a Daciei post-romane 376 - 614 Târgovişte Ed. Cetatea de Scaun 2010 200 S. Ill., Kt. txt rdacontent n rdamedia nc rdacarrier Zsfassung in engl. Sprache u.d.T.: The military history of post-roman Dacia 376 - 614 Geschichte 376-614 gnd rswk-swf Militär (DE-588)4039305-7 gnd rswk-swf Dakien (DE-588)4070197-9 gnd rswk-swf Dakien (DE-588)4070197-9 g Militär (DE-588)4039305-7 s Geschichte 376-614 z DE-604 Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=021072086&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Inhaltsverzeichnis Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=021072086&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Abstract |
| spellingShingle | Madgearu, Alexandru 1964- Istoria militară a Daciei post-romane 376 - 614 Militär (DE-588)4039305-7 gnd |
| subject_GND | (DE-588)4039305-7 (DE-588)4070197-9 |
| title | Istoria militară a Daciei post-romane 376 - 614 |
| title_auth | Istoria militară a Daciei post-romane 376 - 614 |
| title_exact_search | Istoria militară a Daciei post-romane 376 - 614 |
| title_full | Istoria militară a Daciei post-romane 376 - 614 |
| title_fullStr | Istoria militară a Daciei post-romane 376 - 614 |
| title_full_unstemmed | Istoria militară a Daciei post-romane 376 - 614 |
| title_short | Istoria militară a Daciei post-romane 376 - 614 |
| title_sort | istoria militara a daciei post romane 376 614 |
| topic | Militär (DE-588)4039305-7 gnd |
| topic_facet | Militär Dakien |
| url | http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=021072086&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=021072086&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT madgearualexandru istoriamilitaraadacieipostromane376614 |