Wyniki wyszukiwania - Biblioteka Nauki

1

Innocent III and South-eastern Europe: Orthodox, Heterodox, or Heretics?

100%

Dall’Aglio F.

Studia Ceranea

|

2019

|

tom 9

11-25

EN

In the beginning of the pontificate of Innocent III (1198–1216) the necessity of creating a large coalition for a better organization of the Fourth Crusade convinced the pope to establish diplomatic relations with Bulgaria and Serbia, and to support Hungarian expansion in Bosnia. His aim was to surround Constantinople with a ring of states loyal to the Roman Church, thus forcing the empire to participate in the crusade. In order to achieve this result, Innocent was more than willing to put aside his concerns for strict religious orthodoxy and allow the existence, to a certain extent, of non-conforming practices and beliefs in the lands of South-eastern Europe. While this plan was successful at first, and both Bulgaria and Serbia recognized pontifical authority in exchange for political legitimization, the establishment of the so-called Latin empire of Constantinople in 1204 changed the picture. Its relations with Bulgaria were extremely conflicted, and the threat posed by Bulgaria to the very existence of the empire forced again Innocent III to a politics of compromise. The survival of the Latin empire was of the greatest importance, since Innocent hoped to use it as a launching point for future crusades: yet, he tried until possible to maintain a conciliatory politics towards Bulgaria as well.

2

Rex or Imperator? Kalojan’s Royal Title in the Correspondence with Innocent III

100%

Dall’Aglio F.

Studia Ceranea

|

2019

|

tom 9

171-185

EN

In the correspondence between Innocent III and Kalojan of Bulgaria (1197–1207), the title of the Bulgarian ruler is recorded both as rex and imperator. While the pope consistently employs the title rex, Kalojan refers to himself, in every occasion, with the title imperator. Some scholars have speculated that the use of this title was a deliberate political move: styling himself imperator, Kalojan was claiming a much greater political dignity than that of king of Bulgaria, putting himself on the same level as the emperor of Constantinople. On the other hand, while Innocent’s letters were obviously written in Latin, Kalojan’s letters were originally in Bulgarian, translated in Greek, and finally translated from Greek to Latin. Therefore, the use of the word imperator may be just an attempt at translating the term βασιλεύς, not in the sense of Emperor of the Romans but merely in that of autocrat, a ruler whose power was fully independent from any other external political authority. This recognition was of a fundamental importance for Kalojan, since the rulers of Bulgaria’s neighbouring states, the kingdom of Hungary, the Byzantine empire, and especially the Latin empire of Constantinople, were not willing to recognize his legitimacy as an independent sovereign.

3

Between Rebellion and Statesmanship: Attempting a Biography of Ivanko, 1196/1200 (?)

100%

Dall’Aglio F.

Studia Ceranea

|

2021

|

tom 11

91-106

EN

The paper analyses the actions of Ivanko, a Bulgarian nobleman, possibly a member of the ruling family of the Asenides, who in 1196 killed the ruling tsar, Asen, and escaped to Constantinople once his plan to take control of the country failed. Owing to the benevolence of Alexios III Angelos, he joined the Byzantine military and very quickly rose through its ranks until he became the military commander of the region of Philippopolis. In 1198 or 1999 he defected and created an independent dominion on the slopes of the Stara Planina massif, precariously balanced between Bulgaria and the empire, exploiting to his own advantage the constant state of warfare between the two polities. His adventure was short-lived: in 1200 he was captured through deception by the Byzantines, taken prisoner, and presumably executed. While his political career was very short, his importance for the history of medieval Bulgaria is not to be underestimated. It is a testimony of the fluidity of the political situation at the Bulgaro-Byzantine border, whose instability often allowed ambitious and cunning local commanders to carve up autonomous dominions, and of the difficulties experienced by the central power in keeping control of the peripheral areas of the state. It is also proof of the constantly shifting ethnic and cultural allegiances of the citizens of those polities, entangled between different and often conflicting identities, usually regarded as irreconcilable but that were actually the object of a continuous negotiation and adjusting. Ivanko is an interesting case study in regard to all of those factors, especially when considered within the larger phenomenon of provincial separatism in the imperial (and Bulgarian) lands between the end of the 12th and the beginning of the 13th century.

4

Paristrion as Centre and Periphery: from Byzantine Border Province to Heartland of the Second Bulgarian Tsardom

100%

Dall’Aglio F.

Studia Ceranea

|

2022

|

tom 12

29-50

EN

In 1185, after a successful revolt against the Byzantine empire, the so-called second Bulgarian kingdom was established on the territory of the former province of Paradounavon/Paristrion, that had been the first area of settlement of the Bulgars who had crossed the Danube and established their state in 681, and had become a peripheral region of the Byzantine empire after the conquests of Tzimiskes and Basil II. Even before the 1185 revolt, however, Paristrion had already begun to develop an embryonal degree of self-consciousness, although not in a ‘national’ way, owing to its peculiar history and ethnic composition. During the course of the 9th–12th century it had experienced a constant influx of invaders from the north, many of whom had in the end settled, either forcibly or after reaching an agreement with the imperial authorities. Those mixobarbaroi, half-civilized barbarians (according to the Byzantine point of view) had gradually integrated with the local population, made of Bulgarians, Vlachs, and Byzantine soldiers, settlers and administrators coming from the various provinces of the empire. When the military presence on the Danube was strong the region prospered economically, and became integrated in a vast trade network managed by Cuman and Rus’ traders and raiders; but during the 12th century the empire gradually withdrew its troops and its interest in Paristion, and this relative prosperity began to diminish. Coupled with the remembrance, in popular traditions, of the past glory and abundance of the first Bulgarian empire, and with the increasing fiscal burden that oppressed the local traders, the Paristrians gradually became convinced that their future prosperity, much like at the time of the first Bulgarian kingdom, was in their independence from the empire. Once again, this peripheral region began the centre of an independent polity that traced its roots in the past Bulgarian kingdom, but exhibited also some radically different traits.