Romania in the Early Middle Ages: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:58, 17 January 2009

See Origin of the Romanians for a detailed description of the arguments of the divergent theories.

The Early Middle Ages in Romania could be said to begin when the Romans left Dacia province in the 270s AD; thenceforward, the modern Romania’s territories were to be crisscrossed by migrating populations for almost 1,000 years.^[1] In Romania, the Dark Ages would end around the 11th century, when the last phase of the age of migration took place.^{[citation needed]}

During this period, the north of the Balkan Peninsula became a conduit for invading tribes who, targeting richer lands further west and south, plundered the land in their passing, and prevented the appearance of any organized polities of the natives.^{[citation needed]} Urban centers were abandoned, highwaymen menaced travelers along the crumbling Roman roads, and rural life decayed.^{[citation needed]} From this time, the area experienced a state of cultural regression with the population becoming strongly rural, concentrating on agriculture and animal husbandry.^{[citation needed]}

When the Roman legions left Dacia province, the Goths occupied several parts of the territory of what is today Romania. Later, the territory became part of Attila's Empire. After the disintegration of the Hunnic Empire, parts of modern Romania were under successive control of the Gepids, Slavs, Avars, Bulgars, Magyars, and Pechenegs.

The fate of the Romanized population of the former Roman province after the Roman withdrawal is still debated by modern scholars^[1], and their controversy
has also been colored by political considerations.^[2]

The Biertan Donarium - a 4th-century Christian votive object

Scholars who think that the modern Romanians descended from the Romanized Dacian tribes suggest that only the authorities and the local elite left the province, and the mass of the Romanized population (the Daco-Romans) stayed behind (the theory of the Daco-Romanian continuity).^[3] They think that the circumstances created by the continuous invasions, caused an “ebb and tide” movement phenomenon of the natives^[4], as they found shelter in the high grounds and the thick forests when attacked, and swell back after the danger past.^[5] They also underline that although this course was difficult, it had thus provided the opportunity to preserve the unity of the Romanian language, the
ethnic identity and habits.^[5] Therefore, the followers of
the theory think that the ethnogenesis of the Romanian
people took place primarily on the territory of present-day Romania.^[5]

On the other hand, their opponents think that the Romanians descended from the Romanized population of the Balkan provinces of the Roman Empire (the theory of the "moving continuity").^[6] They suggest that the masses of the Romanized population had left Dacia province by the time the legions were withdrawn, and thus the vernacular spoken by the overwhelming majority of those who possibly stayed in the former province was not Latin.^[6] Consequently, they think that the Romanians’ ethnogenesis occurred on the central regions of the Balkan Peninsula and the ancestors of the Romanian people migrated to the territory of present-day Romania in the 11th-12th centuries.^[6]

Historical regions of Greater Romania (1918-1940)

The Roman withdrawal and its aftermath (250s-330s)

File:Roman Dacia 1.1.svg

"Dacia Trajana" province

While Dacia was still a Roman province, it faced attacks and incursions by free Dacians (whose territory had never been conquered by the Roman Empire), Sarmatians, Carpians, and as early as 211, the first of the Gothic invasions.^[1] The Romans had never succeeded in closing down the “funnel of peoples” between the rivers Danube and Tisa in the west or in safeguarding the “wet border” along the river Prut.^[7] There had always been problems in this area with peoples of all kind, who appeared for the most part as free Dacians or Dacian-speaking^[8] Carpians.^[7] We also hear of Costoboci and Rhoxolani, and for centuries the Bastarnic element had been part of the ethnic mosaic of that area.^[7]

North of the Black Sea, the migrating groups were competing each other, against indigenous populations (such as the Carpians and Iranian-speaking Sarmatians), and against Roman garrison forces.^[8] The result was a series of largely Gothic dominated political units.^[8]

Around the middle of the 3rd century, the Roman Empire entered a profound crisis, and keeping Dacia province within her boundaries became more and more difficult.^[5] Following the partial withdrawal of Roman forces from the province under Emperor Gallienus (260-268), the situation in Dacia was tenuous.^[9] Emperor Aurelian (270-275) could not spare the men and materiel that would be required to restore the Dacian limes and ordered the withdrawal of all the legionary forces stationed in Dacia.^[9] As for the remaining population, the emperor was in a position to impose terms on the Goths, and at the very least bound them over not to attack.^[9]

Scholars who think that the Romanians descended from the latinophone population of the province emphasize that archaeological and historical researches have pointed out that Roman life continued in Dacia after the 270s.^[5] The masses of the Romanized population continued to lead a peaceful life, for the time being without the savage attacks of the migratory peoples.^[5] Moreover, several free Dacians settled down in the former province, and many latinophones crossed their territories and settled amongst them, and therefore Romanization continued and was further spread, even to the areas which had not been directly conquered by the Romans.^[5] After 274, as they also point out, there was no obstacle in the way of the affirmation of Christianity, and as the Christianization of the “Daco-Romans” was done in Latin, by the spreading of the Christian faith, Romanity was actually strengthened.^[5]

On the other hand, their opponents emphasize that not only literary sources, but also toponyms and linguistic researches suggest that the vernacular spoken by the inhabitants of the former province was probably not the Latin language when the East Germanic tribes invaded Dacia, and the continuous presence of a Romanized population on the territory of present-day Romania has not been proved.^[6]

Emperor Aurelian did not abandon Dobrogea at all: it continued a part of the Roman Empire for over 350 years.^[10] But Dubrogea had suffered terribly, and the withdrawal of troops from Dacia left it dangerously open to attack.^[10] Especially outside the walled towns, the population were the victims of epidemic, economic stagnation, rapacious troops, and greedy tax-gatherers.^[10]

“The land of the Goths” (270s - 370s)

The territory of the Chernyakhiv culture (shown in orange)

Following the Roman withdrawal, the Goths were fully occupied taking possession of the northern Danubian region on both sides of the Carpathian Mountains, dividing it with the Taifali, and keeping control of it.^[7]
In the process their former allies, the Carpians, the Bastarnæ, and the Vandals, became their rivals.^[7] The latter had to give way: probably the greater part of the Bastarnæ settled in Thrace in 280, and in 295 the rest followed^[7]; around 300, large numbers of Carpians were resettled on Roman soil^[8].

By the middle of the 4th century, the former province became the “land of the Goths” (Guthiuda).^[7] But even during this period, we have to count on the existence of non-Gothic peoples in the Guthiuda.^[7] The populations of their territories were certainly mixed, with large numbers of Dacians and Sarmatians, not to mention Roman prisoners, but the dominance of the Germanic immigrants is clear.^[8]

One of the Gothic groups, the Thervingi (“forest people”) established themselves west of the river Dniester.^[11] Their sense of identity even had a territorial dimension; by the 370s, in their conception the river Danube marked the physical limit of Roman power.^[11] The Thervingi had no monarchic kingship, but an oligarchic council could reactive a kind of monarchy by electing a “judge” (Template:Lang-la).^[7]^[11]

The Goths own material culture was almost certainly that named by modern archaeologists after two of its most significant sites: Cherniakhiv (in Ukraine) and Sântana de Mureş (in Romania)^[12], but a simple one-to-one equitation is demonstrably mistaken.^[11]
A characteristic feature of the Chernyakhov culture is its high quality wheel-turned pottery.^[11] The overwhelming majority of Chernyakhov settlements are open and unfortified, and they are of varying size.^[11] The populations of these villages derived their subsistence from mixed farming, with a high priority being given to the production of cereals, and at the same time, considerable effort was put into animal husbandry.^[7]

In the summer of 328, Emperor Constantine the Great (306-337) opened the stone bridge across the Danube between Œscus (in present-day Bulgaria) and Sucidava (now in Romania) linking the empire with Oltenia which was intended as a buffer zone.^[7] At the same time, the fortress of Daphne (in present-day Romania) was erected and linked by means of a large ferry with Transmarisca (now in Bulgaria).^[7] The construction of the bridge was considered a first-rate military event: the emperor was celebrated as renewer of province “Dacia Trajana”.^[7]

Driven away from the Danube, the Goths changed their direction of advance, and around 330 began the increasing infiltration of Transylvania.^[7] Although the Goths had probably been federates of the Roman Empire before, but their treaty with Emperor Constantine I in 332 is the first sure record of the relationship.^[13]

After 332, a succession of religious missions had come to the Gutthiuda; and the Arian mission, which proselytized in Gothic, exerted the greatest influence.^[11] Wulfila was ordained bishop to those who were already Christian in Gothic territories (many of these were descended from Christian Roman prisoners).^[11] He was expelled with many other Christians after having engaged in missionary work, but Christians still lived north of the Danube and maintained close contacts with those who lived south of the river.^[11]

Around 375, the Huns attacked the Greuthungi (the Goths living on the territories east of the river Dniester).^[11] Shortly afterwards, the Huns crossed the river and several groups of the Goths decided to seek a new home within the Roman Empire.^[11] In the autumn of 376 groups of the Goths, said by contemporaries to number 200,000, were permitted to cross the Danube.^[14] The Gothic force was not just an army, but an entire population group: men, women and children, dragging themselves and their possessions around in a huge wagon train.^[8]

In the chaos caused by the invasion of the Huns, there began in 376 a war of all against all which revealed the weaker position of the non-Tervingians.^[7] The expulsion of the Sarmatians of the Caucaland (which was probably located in the Carpathian Mountains along the Olt river) by the Goths clearly reveals this process of disintegration.^[7] In the next 30 years, numerous Gothic groups met varying fates: some delayed conquest, or perhaps avoided it altogether, by establishing themselves in geographically protected niches in Transylvania, but, however, long it took, most (if not all) of the Goths who remained north of the Danube ended up under Hunnic control.^[11] On the other hand, the Huns in part kept the Goths in subjection by co-operating their own rulers.^[14]

The Hun Empire (370s-450s)

We hear little of the Huns in the years which immediately followed their victory over the Goths.^[14]
It seems reasonable to suppose that after 379 the eastern regions of Pannonia fall under their sway.^[14] However, it was not until 395 that the Huns launched their first great invasion against the Roman Empire by crossing the frozen Danube.^[14]

In material civilization, the Huns belonged to the lower stage of pastoralism.^[14] The basic unit of Hun society was formed by the five or six persons of one family who lived in one tent.^[14] In the last quarter of the 4th century, no kind of unitary kingship is recorded of the Huns.^[12]

The followers of the continuity theory suggest that the “Daco-Romans” abandoned all their ancient cities, and established new settlements situated in sheltered, hidden places when the nomads’ predatory expeditions became increasingly destructive.^[5] Such hidden places were not only in mountainous and hilly areas, where too large a population could not be accommodated, but also in forests^[15], in small groves, in clearings in the woods.^[5] On the other hand, the migratory peoples preserved almost entirely the structures of the sedentary society in order to turn its resources in good account.^[16]

Their opponents emphasize that no place-names prove that either the mountainous and hilly areas, or the lowlands of present-day Romania were inhabited by Latin-speaking population at that time, and neither archaeological and linguistic researches nor written sources contradict to this impression.^[6]

There is no reason to believe that the Huns were very numerous, hence some of the subject peoples continued to be ruled directly by their own native kings or chiefs.^[14] Under the Huns, companies of the Scirii and Carpodacians were serving in a subordinate position, like the Alans.^[14] Again and again our sources tell us that the Huns regarded their subject as nothing more than slaves.^[14] The Huns also exploited the agricultural surpluses of their Gothic and other subjects.^[11]

The subjection of a variety of peoples, and the eventual restoration of stability in the north Danubian regions under Hun hegemony, seem to have given rise to the emergence of a unitary ruling dynasty amongst the Huns.^[12] From 441 to 453, the history of Europe was dominated by military campaigns on an unprecedented scale - the work of Attila.^[8] In 448, Attila demanded that a wide belt of country south of the river Danube should be completely evacuated by the Romans.^[14] This strip of land was to stretch from Singidunum (today Belgrade in Serbia) to Novæ (now Svishtov in Bulgaria), a distance of some 300 miles (about 480 kilometers), and was to be five days’ journey in depth, that is about 100 or 120 miles (about 160 or 190 kilometers).^[14] Consequently, the Danube, with all its fortifications and great frontier cities, was no longer to be the boundary of the Eastern Roman Empire.^[14]

Attila died in 453, and his empire collapsed under the competing claims of his sons and the revolt of most of the subject peoples.^[12] A confederacy of the latter defeated the Hun army in the Battle of Nedao in 454, and in the aftermath the Hun dominion disintegrated even more rapidly than it had first been formed.^[12]

“The land of the Gepids” (450s-560s)

File:Carphatianbasin gepidia.png

Gepidia

The most shadowy of all the major Germanic peoples of the migration period are the Gepids.^[13] The Gepids first appeared in the Carpathian region in the aftermath of the 3rd century convulsions.^[11] In 291, they tried in vain to chase out the Goths from the former province Dacia; afterwards, they settled in the area bordered by the rivers Tisa, Someş and Crasna.^[17]

The area which has produced the most convincing evidence for their presence is the valley of the river Tisa and the region immediately to the east.^[13] Settlement sites suggest that the single farmstead or hamlet was widespread; in the Transylvanian hills, earlier hilltop fortifications were occasionally reoccupied by Gepid groups.^[13]

Early in the 5th century, the Gepids were subjugated by the Ostrogoths, and in the following decades their warriors were increasingly drawn into service with the Huns.^[13] The Gepid king Ardaric was more favored by Attila than any other vassal leader^[13], but after Attila’s death the great rebellion of the Germanic peoples was led and inspired by him^[14]. After their victory, the Gepids seized the centre of the territory of the Huns, and they also took over part of the former Dacia province^[13] where they controlled the salt mine district.^[18]

File:Sant'Apollinare Nuovo (Justinian I).jpg

Emperor Justinian I (527-565)

To secure the Danube frontier in the western Balkans, Emperor Justinian I (527-565) relied on three rival groups (Gepids, Lombards, and Heruls), and imperial political influence was maintained by preventing any one confederacy from establishing a clear domination.^[12] Justinian I also built or renewed more than 600 forts in the Balkans; but along the Danube and in the immediate hinterland, relatively small forts were built.^[19] On the other hand, the shortage of troops caused many of the Danube frontier forts to be left unmanned or undermanned, a fact which encouraged the barbarians to raid.^[20]

When Emperor Justin II (565-578) was prepared to give his support to the Gepids against the Lombards, the latter appealed for help to the leaders of the nomad confederacy of the Avars.^[12] In 567, the Avars and Lombards combined to destroy the Gepid kingdom that by now, had been centered on Sirmium (today in Serbia), and the lands occupied by the Gepids passed under Avar control.^[12] However, at least, some splinters of the Gepid people survived this shock: a Byzantine general encountered Gepid settlements across the Danube in 600 and a group of them took part in the Avar attack on Constantinople in 626.^[13] They also seem to remain in possession of the salt mines in Transylvania until around 630.^[18]

The early Slavs (400s-600s)

File:700.png

The "Sklavinias" in the Balkans, 7th - 8th centuries

The Slavs are the third element (besides the
Dacians^[5] or other tribes^[6] and the Romans) that played a certain part in the configuration of the Romanians’ personality: in their relationship with Romanians, the Slavs played the same role as the one played by the Germanic elements in the case of other Romanic peoples.^[5] There are two alternative models of the appearance of the Slavs on the Danube plain: the first is that this is one of the primary areas of crystallization of the Slav cultural identity; the second alternative is to postulate that the appearance of Slavs in this area is due to some form of migration or penetration of this area.^[21]

It is likely that westward expansion of the Huns was accompanied by arrival of the first Slav-speaking settlers in the Danube region.^[21] The first stage of the process of the extension of Slav culture, along the east flank of the Carpathian Mountains towards the Danube plain, may be considered as shown by the extent of the earliest Korchak-type pottery and small square sunken floored buildings.^[21] The first written evidence of the appearance of the Slavs refers to raids around 518.^[21]

The ethnic situation in the area of the Danubian plain at the beginning of the 6th century was extremely complex with several strong groups of Restgermanen (Lombards, Gepids and Heruli among them) along the frontier.^[21] On the other hand, the written sources suggest that relative stability and peace lasted within the Slav territories through several decades of the 6th century.^[21] The apparently peaceful mode of the consolidation of Slav settlement encouraged close processes of acculturation of the new arrivals, as well as the assimilation of part of the indigenous populates.^[21] The material culture indicates a mixture of different elements: local archaeologists have identified elements which they associate with Slavs, Romanized indigenous populations, and the Greeks of the Eastern Roman Empire.^[21]

Settlement sites excavated so far in Romania are no larger than about 0,02 km² (5 acres), with a limited number of houses per habitation phase, ranging from 10 to 15.^[19] This seems to indicate that most, if not all, sites had been occupied only for brief periods, than abandoned and new settlements established nearby.^[19] What caused this shifting of hamlets must have been the itinerant form of agriculture practiced by their inhabitants and requiring that lands under cultivation be left fallow after a number of years of cultivation without manuring.^[19]

The Slav raids intensified in frequency and scale from the 530s: hardly a year went by in this period without a major raids of the Slavs sometimes together with other peoples (such as Huns, and Kutrigurs).^[21] For the 6th-century authors, who wrote about the Slavic peoples, the Slavic “homeland” was north of the lower Danube.^[19] On the other hand, the Sclavenes appear in 6th-century sources as an umbrella term for a multitude of groups living north of the Danube, which could not be classified as either “Huns” or “Gepids”.^[19]

The arrival of the Avar nomads in the lower Danubian area in the 560s further disrupted the situation.^[21] In the areas controlled by the Avars, the Slav inhabitants were obliged to pay tribute and provide services for them.^[21] The Slavic raids of the late 6th century were often associated with Avar raids and attacks against the key points of the system of defense.^[19] The process of settlement of Slavs in the Balkan Peninsula (where large areas of the countryside had already become seriously depopulated) increases in intensity at the end of the 6th century.^[21] The Balkans was freely overrun by Slavs after 615 who settled in even larger numbers than previously; as a consequence, Christianity as a religion of the Balkan population almost disappeared in the interior.^[20]

The followers of the continuity theory emphasize that after the onrush of the Slavs, the center of Danubian Romanity was concentrated in the former “Dacia Trajana” province and the neighboring areas.^[5] The Slavs’ assimilation to the Proto-Romanians had already started by the 8th century, and it lasted until the 13th century.^[5]

On the other hand, their opponents underline that linguistic researches and place names suggest that the ancestors of the Romanians did not live in close contact with the Slavs north of the Danube before the 11th-12th centuries.^[6]

The Avar Khaganate (560s-790s)

At the end of the 550s, the Avars migrated west, subjecting various Caucasian tribes and other groups north of the Sea of Azov and the Black Sea.^[20] They were excellent soldiers and horsemen and were tightly organized with their ruler, called a khagan.^[20] A vast array of subject peoples (various Slavic and Bulgar tribes, and the remnants of the Huns) was below the Avars.^[20] In addition to subject peoples, they also had large numbers of vassal tribes while others were allies.^[20]

Allied with the Lombards, the Avar khagan Bayan I defeated the Gepids and then forced the Lombards to migrate to Italy
in 568.^[19] The Avar Khaganate quickly subjugated almost all communities in East Europe and imposed a new political and military peace.^[22] The Avars constantly raided the Balkan territories and managed to capture some of the key fortifications of the Roman system of defense.^[19]

Early Avar society was based on procuring prestige goods from the Byzantine Empire and food supplies from small economic units, in the form of either direct production from family lands or tribute from subjugated population groups.^[19] More often than not, the Avars chose to move the entire population of a conquered city or territory in the middle of the Khaganate.^[19]

The Slavs appear as important partners of the Avars: the ecological niche of the steppelike Great Hungarian Plain was controlled by the nomads, and it was surrounded by a zone of Slavic settlements.^[22] The Avar Khaganate was an Avaro-Slavic commonwealth politically dominated by the nomads, but economically reliant on the subjugated agriculturists.^[22] The empire also underwent gradual Slavicization in the course of the 6th-8th centuries.^[22] It seems very likely that the Slav language was one of the main languages spoken as a lingua franca in at least part of the communication community that was the Avar Khaganate.^[21]

In Transylvania, the Avar cemeteries cluster around the salt mines which suggest that the Avars controlled the salt mine district.^[18] The salt production implies the existence of a subject sedentary population, most probably Slavs^[23] and (as the followers of the continuity theory think) Romanians.^[18] The chronology of spurs^[24] excavated in Transylvania suggests the existence of cavalry troops of Slavs, and perhaps Romanians in Avar service.^[18]

The 630s and 640s were a time of general revolt against the Avars.^[20] Thenceforward, little is known about Avar involvement in Balkan affairs.^[19] Assemblages of the Late Avar period (c. 700 - c. 800) are clearly distinguished from those of earlier periods; there are very few signs of nomadic life in the 8th century material culture of the Avar Khaganate and the sites suggest an advanced degree of sedentization.^[19].

The Avar confederacy disintegrated rapidly as a result of internal conflicts and its defeats at the hand of Charlemagne’s commanders in the 790s.^[12] Having lost their western territories to the Franks, the Avars became at war with Krum, the ruler of Bulgaria, who defeated them.^[20] Soon after their defeat in 803, the Avars, who had already been influenced linguistically by the Slavs^[25], completely disappeared.^[22]

The First Bulgarian Empire (670s-970s)

From the late 5th century, the Bulgars (a nomadic Turkic-speaking people) had been living in scattered tribes north of the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov and along the lower Don.^[20] Around 635, Kubrat succeeded in throwing of the Avar rule and uniting all the eastern Bulgar groups.^[20] One of his five sons, Asparukh moved into what is now Bessarabia, and then in the 670s crossed the Danube.^[20] He conquered the Slavic tribes there and eventually established a Bulgarian state which was centered in the northeast of present-day Bulgaria and stretched along both sides of the lower Danube.^[20]

The followers of the continuity theory emphasize that the impact of the sequential establishment of the powerful Bulgarian Empire, was particularly great, having created the historical circumstances which caused the detachment of parts of the Vlach population, from the main body of the Danubian Latinity, which once formed a continuum, consensually set north of the Jireček Line.^[5] This process, probably started as early as the Avar-Slavic invasions, had split the population into two sections: one found shelter northwards, while the other moved southwards to the valleys of the Pindus and of the Balkan Mountains: specifically the Aromanians, believed to have been separated sometimes in between the 7th and 9th century, and the Megleno-Romanians, believed to have split sometimes in the 10th century, when the Pecheneg invasions occurred.^{[citation needed]}

The Bulgars themselves do not seem to have been particularly numerous.^[20] Archaeology shows that for a while many Bulgars kept their settlements distinct from those of the Slavs, but in time (and it seems in some cases quite early) mixed settlements of Slavs and Bulgars appeared in some
places.^[20] The distinctive Bulgarian ethnicity was to emerge from a symbiosis of Slav and Bulgar elements over a period of several centuries.^[21] Despite being politically dominated by a Turkic elite, the Slavs were able to retain their ethnic identity, language and own tribal leaders.^[21]

The Bulgars had a mixed pastoral and agricultural economy, but trade was also important for them (although most of the trade seems to have been barter).^[20] Judging by the great number of cemeteries, both north and south of the Danube, the 8th century witnessed a substantial growth of population, despite written sources evidence to the contrary.^[19]

In the 9th century, Bulgaria was a major European power.^[19] In 805, Krum, the Bulgarian ruler, defeated the Avars and created a powerful state which may have extended to the river Tisa.^[20] On the other hand, all the information that we have about Avar-Bulgar relations in the aftermath of the collapse of the Avar Khaganate refers to Avars joining the Bulgars, not to Bulgars conquering Avar territories.^[19]

Contemporary sources suggest a Bulgar control of the salt-mine district of Transylvania.^[19] The Bulgarian presence in southern Transylvania is also documented by a small group of settlements and cemeteries around present-day Alba Iulia, all dated to the second half of the 9th century.^[18] On the other hand, the Bulgarian control never expanded into northwestern Transylvania.^[18]

File:250px-Pokrastvane.jpg

The Bulgarians convert to Christianity

In 864, the ruler of Bulgaria, Boris was baptized and he also allowed the Byzantine clergy to enter Bulgaria and begin their missionary work.^[19] Moreover, in 893 a council declared Christianity a state religion and turned Old Church Slavonic into the official language of Church and State.^[19]

The followers of the continuity theory underline that the Vlachs both north and south of the Danube, after having long remained faithful to the Greek ritual, had adopted the Slavonic liturgy by the 10th century.^{[citation needed]}

On the other hand, their opponents point out that the ancestors of the Romanians adopted the Slavonic liturgy on the central territories of the Balkan Peninsula which were under the control of the First Bulgarian Empire until 1018; and from 1020, the jurisdiction of the archbishopric of Ohrid expanded over them within the Byzantine Empire.^[6]

Around 895, Tzar Simeon I of Bulgaria attacked the Magyars, who had earlier devastated northern Bulgaria, and at the same time incited against them the Pechenegs.^[19] The destruction brought by the double attack forced the Magyars to embark on another migration, which took them into the Carpathian
Basin.^[19]

In 969, Grand Prince Sviatoslav I of Kiev lead his army to Bulgaria and seized the Bulgarian capital of Preslav.^[26] In 971, the Byzantine Emperor John I Tzimiskes marched against the Russians and defeated them; thus Grand Prince Sviatoslav had to withdrew to Kiev.^[26] The emperor forced the tzar Boris II of Bulgaria to abdicate and annexed most of Bulgaria outright advancing the frontier to the lower Danube for the first time since the early 7th century.^[26] Although, tzar Samuel of Bulgaria could restore the Bulgarian Empire for a while, but by 1018 the whole territory of Bulgaria had been occupied by the Byzantines.^[26]

The first (possible) political structures on Romania’s territory (700s-900s)

The followers of the continuity theory suggest that after the 350s, the proto-Romanians adjusted the old Roman institutions to fit life in rural communities, or villages (in Romanian sate from Latin fossatum) which were led by a village headsman, the chosen “judge” (later called knez under Slavic influence).^[5] They also emphasize that as early as the 8th-9th centuries, some of the knezes had already become village owners and had people working for them, and some even managed to possess all the villages (15-20) on the valley of a river or in a depression.^[5] These landholders were considered “nobles” (in Romanian boieri, adopted from Slav).^[1] For defensive needs, several knezdoms would gather together under the rule of a more powerful knez with military skills, also called duke (in Romanian voivode or vodă, also adopted from Slav^[25]).^[5] Therefore, as they underline, during this stage we can speak of incipient states on Romania’s territory, organized by Romanians or by the populations with whom they lived.^[5]

On the other hand, their opponents emphasize that both place-names and linguistic researches^[6] suggest that at the time when the incipient states of the Romanians are assumed to exist, the ancestors of the Romanians lived south of the river Danube, and the territory of present-day Romania was inhabited by peoples whose vernacular was a Slavic (and possibly a Turkic) language.^[25]

The followers of the continuity theory think that after the defeat suffered by the Avars, the Romanians enjoyed a period of relative peace, which lasted for about one century.^[5] They point out that according to the 13th-century Gesta Ungarorum (“The Deeds of the Hungarians”), at the end of the 9th century, the Magyars when invaded the Carpathian Basin came across three knezdoms.^[1]
- Thus, there was the knezdom^[1] or voivodeship^[5] of Menumorut in Crişana, inhabited by various “nations” (among them only “the peoples that are called Cozar”^[27] are mentioned by the author of the Gesta)^[25], with its center at the Bihor fortress. The author of the Gesta mentions that he was the vassal of the emperor of Byzantium.^[5]
- The second incipient state was in the Banat; it was ruled by voivode Glad whose army comprised Romanians, Petchenegs (actually the author of the Gesta mentions Cumans)^[25] and Bulgarians.^[5] He is described to own strong fortresses in Orşova (today in Romania), and in Kovin and Horom (today in Serbia), but the inhabitants of his voivodeship are described to be poor, suffering greatly because of the Petchenegs’ attacks from the east.^[5]
- The third knezdom^[1] or voivodeship^[5] was situated in the east of Crişana in Transylvania.^[5] This state was inhabited by Romanians and Slavs; Gelou, described as being “a certain Romanian”,^[1] had the supreme authority over them.^[5] It is quite possible that the Romanian-Slavic duchy emerged in connection with the salt production and trade, since the northern salt route crossed this region.^[18]

The followers of the continuity theory think that although the three voivodes (knezes) and their armies were defeated by several Magyar chieftains whose objective was plunder, but these countries further preserved their sovereignty.^[5] An other view is that the Magyars defeated the three knezdoms, and an agreement was reached whereby the dukedoms of Crişana and Banat remained separate entities under Magyar suzerainty^[1]; or the Magyars conquered Gelou’s duchy at some point during the first half of the 10th century.^[18]

The Gesta Hungarorum is the earliest surviving chronicle of Hungary, which was written at some point after 1196.^[19] Although the version given by the unknown author of this chronicle is in sharp contrast with that of Simon of Kéza and other chronicles, but it would be a mistake to treat the Gesta as a forgery, for nothing indicates that its author had any reason to forge anything.^[18]

The opponents of the continuity theory point out that nothing proves that the author of the Gesta Ungarorum had factual knowledge of the real conditions of the turn of the 9th and 10th centuries and thus he defined the ethnic bond of the leaders hostile to Magyars on the basis of the ethno-political circumstances surrounding Hungary around 1200.^[25] Therefore, apart from a few bits of information conserved by tradition in connection to the ancient history of the Magyars (and only the Magyars), his romantic work cannot be regarded a source on the history of the late 9th century.^[25] In contrast with the Gesta, both early written sources and archaeological researches suggest that the territory of present-day Romania was inhabited by Slavic tribes and possibly by Turkic peoples when the Magyars invaded the Carpathian Basin.^[25]

The Magyars (830s-1020s)

The first written record specifically and without doubt referring to the Magyars is a Byzantine account from 839.^[28] They quickly established a firm control over the entire steppe corridor between the river Don and the Lower Danube.^[19]

Having been defeated by the Pechenegs and the Bulgarians around 895, the Magyars moved into the Middle Danube region via the mountain passes of the eastern Beskids.^[19] No evidence exists of Magyars crossing the eastern Carpathian Mountains into Transylvania, or even moving from the Middle Danube region into Transylvania before the middle of the 10th century.^[19] Even chroniclers of the 12th and 13th centuries were aware of the fact that the Magyar conquerors did not occupy Transylvania.^[25] Even if Hungarians moved across a part of Transylvania around 895, they abandoned it after a short period of resting and gathering strength, because Transylvania was not suited to give shelter to and maintain nomadic Magyars for a longer period.^[25]

Until the mid-900s, the Magyars were under constant threat of Pecheneg attack^[25], and when the Byzantines tried to incite them against the Pechenegs, the memories of the events of 895 seem to have been much stronger than any possible gains the Magyar chieftains could hope to obtain from such expeditions.^[19] Therefore, the Magyars built a double defensive line on both the western and eastern side of the Apuseni Mountains and the Banat Mountains so that they could surely defend themselves against possible attacks.^[25] Anything east of the double defensive line as far as the dwelling area of the Pechenegs was considered a marcher region (indago in Latin).^[25] Marcher regions extended to some tens or even hundreds of kilometres between nomadic peoples; in Transylvania, it was inhabited: people (mostly of Slavic tongue) had settled here earlier.^[25]

Around 950, one of the Magyar tribal leaders (the gyula) visited Constantinople and was baptized.^[19]
He was also given a bishop named Hierotheos who accompanied him back to “Tourkia” (that is, to Hungary).^[19] The dwelling area of the gyula is to be sought around the region bordered by the rivers Timiş, Mureş, Criş and Tisa.^[25]

The disastrous defeat of the Magyar forces in the Battle of Lechfeld in 955 put an end to the raids in the West; their campaigns to the south came to an end in 970, when the Magyar forces allied with Grand Prince Sviatoslav I of Kiev were defeated in the Battle of Arcadiopolis.^[28] After 970, the free nomads were locked into the tight “prison” of the Carpathian Basin, while the nomadic lifestyle would have called for vast spaces; therefore, some of them migrated away and thus they expanded the boundaries of the Magyar dwelling area and reached regions in which they could not continue living as nomads.^[25] We do not have any information about how this happened, in which direction and at what pace it took place, but the earliest layer of Hungarian place-names suggest that as part of the settling process Transylvania also received a new Hungarian population.^[25] In the 980s-990s, the gyula and his family also transferred their seat to Transylvania.^[25]

After 1002, a chieftain named Ahtum (in Hungarian Ajtony), who had been ruling over the Banat, was baptized in the Orthodox faith in Vidin (today in Bulgaria).^[19] His base of power was in Morisena (today Cenad in Romania) where he established a monastery which he populated with Greek monks.^[19] His power was based on considerable resources, mainly cattle and horses, but he also controlled traffic along the river Mureş and taxed transports of salt from Transylvania.^[19]

The Pechenegs (890s-1110s)

The Pechenegs were a Turkic tribe^[29] who were driven out of their former lands on both sides of the river Volga by the Oghuz Turks.^[19] In 894/895, the Pechenegs crossed the river Don and concluded an alliance with Tzar Simeon I of Bulgaria against the Magyars.^[28] The Pechenegs fell upon the latter who, wedged between two hostile forces, immediately looked for a new home further west.^[28]

The land of the Pechenegs (Patzinakia) was divided into eight “provinces” (most likely the territories of the leading clans).^[19] Of the eight “provinces”, four were located west of the river Dnieper; thus the entire steppe corridor between the Danube and the Dnieper rivers was under their control.^[19] By the mid-11th century, there were already thirteen (instead of eight) clans, and competition between chieftains made it necessary to organize a general council, with delegates from each clan.^[19]

The Pecheneg economy was predominantly pastoral.^[19] Most settlements in the region between the rivers Danube and Dniester continued to be occupied after 900 and no significant changes in material culture have been noted that could be attributed to the defeat of the Magyars and the subsequent Pecheneg migration.^[19] According to the 12th-century Russian Primary Chronicle, the Tivercians, a Slavic tribe lived by the Dniester river and extended as far as the Danube.^[19] In permanent need of agricultural produce, the Pechenegs had no reason to destroy the local network of rural settlements that had flourished in the 800s under the protection of the First Bulgarian Empire.^[19]

The Pechenegs frequently invaded the Byzantine Empire (for example, in 934, 944, 1015, and 1035/1036), the Kievan Rus' (for instance, in 969 and 971), and the Kingdom of Hungary (for example, in 1018, 1068, and 1071).^[19]^[29] In 1018, they were allies of Grand Prince Sviatopolk I of Kiev against his brother, Grand Prince Yaroslav I the Wise.^[19] The unknown author of an early 13th-century biography of St. Olaf of Norway also mentions Blókumenn among Sviatopolk’s allies.^[19] Similarly, the inscription of an 11th-century runestone commemorates a merchant who was traveling to Constantinople and was killed by Blakumen.^[19]

The traditional interpretation of the ethnonym Blokumenn is Vlach (that is Romanian).^[30] In this case, the Vlachs were clearly north, not south of the river Danube at that time, although the exact region cannot be established with any precision.^[19]
On the other hand, the ethnonym is also interpreted as Black Cuman which may stand for the mixed tribes that are called “Black Hats” in the Russian sources.^[31]

It is perhaps during this period of time that most, albeit not all, sites south and east of the Carpathian Mountains were deserted.^[19] By 1050, the sites that had flourished during the 10th century in the region of the Kahul, Ialpukh, and Katlabukh Lakes had already been abandoned.^[19]

In order to bring the rebellious Pechenegs into the fold, the Byzantine Emperor Constantine X Doukas dispatched a mission of evangelization, which began performing mass baptisms in the waters of the Danube.^[19] However, in 1087, the Pechenegs invaded Thrace where at last they were put to flight, but Emperor Alexios I Komnenos made the mistake of pursuing them, and was beaten at Silistra.^[29] The empire was saved by the arrival of another Turkic horde, the Kipchaks (the Cumans) who emerged from the Russian steppe behind the Pechenegs and defeated them on the Danube.^[29]

On April 29, 1091, the combined Byzantine and Cuman forces crushed the Pecheneg army at Mount Levunion; it was the decimation of a whole people.^[29] The remnants of the Pechenegs made a fresh attempt in the succeeding generation in 1121 - an attempt which was confined to Bulgaria, but they were surprised and massacred by Emperor John II Komnenos.^[29]

The Kingdom of Hungary (1003-1100)

In 997, the new Grand Prince of the Magyars, Stephen, who had been baptised during his father's lifetime, defeated the army of his kinsman, Koppány who had revolted against him.^[28] Koppány died in the battle; his corps was quartered and its parts were pinned to the gates of four castles, among them to the gates of Bǎlgrad (today Alba Iulia in Romania) which was the seat of Stephen’s maternal uncle, the gyula Prokuj.^[28] At Christmas of the year 1000 (or on New Year’s Day in 1001), Stephen was crowned; and thus he became the first king of Hungary.^[28]

Stephen, in order to become king of entire Hungary, had to defeat the chiefs of the tribal states one after another.^[25] He stared it with his greatest rival, his uncle, Prokuj and occupied his territory
in 1003.^[25] The 14th-century Hungarian chronicles suggest that after 1003, he occupied the parts of the Transylvanian territories administered by the Bulgar governors.^[25] Ahtum, who had been ruling over the Banat, also found himself in conflict with King Stephen I when taxed transports of salt from Transylvania to the heartland of Pannonia.^[19] One of his retainers named Csanád fled to the Hungarian king, only to return at the head of a large army, with which he eventually defeated and killed Ahtum in Stephen’s name.^[19]

Saint Michael on a 13th-century Byzantine icon

Although no data of medieval charters alludes to the establishment of the Bishopric of Transylvania, it must have happened shortly after 1003.^[25] The bishopric was dedicated to Saint Michael whose cult was especially strong in the territory of the Byzantine church which suggests that a bishopric of Latin rite succeeded the missionary bishopric of Byzantine rite that had been set up when the gyula was baptized in Constantinople around 950.^[25] In Ahtum's former "kingdom" a Venetian monk named Gerald began a mission of Chrisitianization of the entire region.^[19] He established a new monastery near Morisene, now conveniently renamed Cenad after its conqueror, and became Bishop of Cenad in 1030.^[19]

Where King Stephen I enjoyed an effective authority, counties and castle districts appeared together with bishoprics; the county was an independent administrative institution based entirely on territory - as opposed to this, the castle districts included only the king’s properties.^[25] In Transylvania, already five (maybe six) castle districts or counties had been established before the mid-11th century: Dăbâca, Cluj, Turda, Hunedoara, Bǎlgrad, and perhaps Cetatea de Baltă.^[25]

The count of Bǎlgrad was considered the principal official in Transylvania; after 1199, he had the title voivode (in Hungarian vajda) and by that time, he had managed to secure the rule for himself in several Northern Transylvanian counties.^[25] The voivode was the chief officer of the king in Transylvania; he was appointed by the king who could revoke the appointment and delegate the office to someone else in sign of his favor.^[25] That the counts of Bǎlgrad of the 11th and 12th centuries appeared in variety of ways in Latin (tribunus, princeps, comes) might be connected to the fact that the Latin equivalent of the voivode common name was sought after.^[25]

The followers of the continuity theory emphasize that the title voivode suggests that since the days of Duke Gelou, Transylvania, although part of the Kingdom of Hungary, had a different tradition, with predominantly Romanian population.^[1] It developed a different political organization from that of the other Hungarian provinces.^[1]
On the other hand, the voivode name which derived from the Slav is likely to have come from the Slavs of Southern Transylvania.^[25] It seems that considerations of border defense, the continuously threatened situation of Transylvania might have shaped the policies of the sovereign, and the voivode became the lord of Transylvania (dependent on the monarch) with the consent of the king.^[25]

Footnotes

^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ ^j ^k Klepper, Nicolae. Romania: An Illustrated History.
^ Durandin, Catherine. Histoire des Roumains.
^ Brezeanu, Stelian. "History and Imperial Propaganda in Rome during the 4th Century a. Chr - A Case Study: the Abandonment of Dacia". Annuario - Istituto Romano di cultura e ricerca umanistica.
^ Costiescu Ghyka, Matila; Cliff, Anne. A Documented Chronology of Roumanian History. {{cite book}}: More than one of |first1= and |first= specified (help); More than one of |last1= and |last= specified (help)
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ ^j ^k ^l ^m ⁿ ^o ^p ^q ^r ^s ^t ^u ^v ^w ^x ^y ^z ^aa ^ab Pop, Ioan Aurel. Romanians and Romania: A Brief History.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ Schramm, Gottfried. Frühe Schiksale der Rumänen. Acht Thesen zur Lokalisierung der lateinischen Kontinuität in Südosteuropa.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ ^j ^k ^l ^m ⁿ ^o ^p Wolfram, Herwig. History of the Goths.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g Heather, Peter. The Fall of the Roman Empire - A New History of Rome and the Barbarians.
^ ^a ^b ^c Watson, Alaric. Aurelian and the Third Century.
^ ^a ^b ^c MacKendrick, Paul. The Dacian Stones Speak.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ ^j ^k ^l ^m ⁿ Heather, Peter. The Goths.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ Collins, Roger. Early Medieval Europe, 300-1000.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h Todd, Malcolm. The Early Germans.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ ^j ^k ^l ^m ⁿ Thompson, E. A. The Huns.
^ Over 70% of Romania’s territory was covered by forests during that time; Pop, Ioan Aurel: op. cit. (1999) p. 30.
^ Brezeanu, Stelian. "The Lower Danube Frontier during the 4th-7th Centuries. An ambiguous Notion". Annuario - Istituto Romano di cultura e ricerca umanistica.
^ Haarman, Harald. Lexikon der untergegangenen Völker - Von Akkader bis Zimbern.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ ^j Madgearu, Alexandru. Salt Trade and Warfare: The Rise of Romanian-Slavic Military Organization in Early Medieval Transylvania.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ ^j ^k ^l ^m ⁿ ^o ^p ^q ^r ^s ^t ^u ^v ^w ^x ^y ^z ^aa ^ab ^ac ^ad ^ae ^af ^ag ^ah ^ai ^aj ^ak ^al ^am ^an ^ao ^ap ^aq ^ar ^as ^at ^au ^av ^aw ^ax ^ay Curta, Florin. Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages - 500-1250.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ ^j ^k ^l ^m ⁿ ^o ^p Fine, John V. A. The Early Medieval Balkans - A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ ^j ^k ^l ^m ⁿ ^o Barford, P. M. The Early Slavs - Culture and Society in Early Medieval Eastern Europe.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e Urbańczyk, Przemysław. Early State Formation in East Central Europe.
^ The involvement of the Slavs in salt extraction and trade is documented by several Romanian words and place-names of Slav origin, such as ocnă (salt mine) and Slănic; Madgearu, Alexandru: op. cit. (2005) p. 104.
^ The internally hooked spurs were found in western Slavdom in a broad zone from the river Elbe to the Bug and as far as the Danube; Barford, P. M.: op. cit. (2001) p. 84.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ ^j ^k ^l ^m ⁿ ^o ^p ^q ^r ^s ^t ^u ^v ^w ^x ^y ^z ^aa ^ab ^ac ^ad Kristó, Gyula. Early Transylvania - 895-1324.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Treadgold, Warren. A History of the Byzantine State and Society.
^ It is unlikely that Cozar conceal the name of the Khazars, rather the author called the some people after the Hungarian word for a goatherd (kozár); Martyn Rady: The Gesta Hungarorum of Anonymus, the Anonymous Notary of King Béla p. 8 [1]
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g Kontler, László. Millennium in Central Europe - A History of Hungary.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f Grousset, René. The Empire of the Steppes: A History of Central Asia.
^ Jesch, Judith. Ships and Men in Late Viking Age: The Vocabulary of Runic Inscriptions and Skaldic Verse.
^ Vásáry, István. Cumans and Tatars - Oriental Military in the Pre-Ottoman Balkans, 1185-1365.

External links

Original Text Documents and Monument Information on Romanian Medieval Ages at the Romanian Group for an Alternative History Website. (Mostly in Romanian.)

Sources

Barford, P. M.: The Early Slavs - Culture and Society in Early Medieval Eastern Europe; Cornell University Press, 2001, Ithaca, NY; ISBN 0-8014-3977-9.
Brezeanu, Stelian: History and Imperial Propaganda in Rome during the 4th Century a. Chr - A Case Study: the Abandonment of Dacia; in: Annuario 3; Istituto Romano di cultura e ricerca umanistica, 2001 (English: [2]).
Brezeanu, Stelian: The Lower Danube Frontier during the 4th-7th Centuries. An ambiguous Notion; in: Annuario 5; Istituto Romano di cultura e ricerca umanistica, 2003 (English: [3]]).
Collins, Roger: Early Medieval Europe - 300-1000; St. Martin’s Press, 1991, New York, NY; ISBN 0-312-21886-9.
Costiescu Ghyka, Matila - Renier, Fernand Gabriel - Cliff. Anne: A Documented Chronology of Roumanian History; B. H. Blackwell, 1941.
Curta, Florin: Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages - 500-1250; Cambridge University Press, 2006, Cambridge; ISBN 978-0-521-89452-4.
Durandin, Catherine: Historie des Roumains /The History of the Romanians/; Librairie Artheme Fayard, 1995; ISBN 978-2-213-59425-5.
Fine, John V. A.: The Early Medieval Balkans - A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century; The University of Michigan Press, 1991, Ann Arbor; ISBN 0-472-08149-7.
Grousset, René (Author) - Walford, Naomi (Translator): The Empire of the Steppes: A History of Central Asia; Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 2002; ISBN 0-8135-0627-1.
Haarman, Harald: Lexikon der untergegangenen Völker - Von Akkader bis Zimbern /The Encyclopedia of Disappeared People - From the Akkadians to the Cimbri/; Verlag C. H. Beck oHG, 2005, München; ISBN 978-3-406-52817-0
Heather, Peter: The Goths; Blackwell Publishers Inc, 1997, Oxford; ISBN 0-631-16536-3.
Heather, Peter: The Fall of the Roman Empire - A New History of Rome and the Barbarians; Oxford University Press, 2006, Oxford; ISBN 978-0-19-515954-7.
Jesch, Judith: Ships and Men in Late Viking Age: The Vocabulary of Runic Inscriptions and Skaldic Verse; Boydell &Brewer, 2001; ISBN 978-0-851-15826-6.
Klepper, Nicolae: Romania: An Illustrated History; Hippocrene Books, Inc, 2005, New York, NY; ISBN 0-7818-0935-5.
Kontler, László: Millenium in Central Europe - A History of Hungary; Atlantisz Publishing House, 1999, Budapest; ISBN 963-9165-37-9
Kristó, Gyula: Early Transylvania (895-1324); Lucidus Kiadó, 2003, Budapest; ISBN 963-9465-12-7.
MacKendrick, Paul: The Dacian Stones Speak; The University of North Carolina Press, 1975, Chapel Hill; ISBN 0-8078-1226-9
Madgearu, Alexandru: Salt Trade and Warfare: The Rise of Romanian-Slavic Military Organization in Early Medieval Transylvania; in: Curta, Florin (Editor): East Central and Eastern Europe in the Early Middle Ages; The University of Michigan Press, 2005; ISBN 978-0-472-11498-6.
Pop, Ioan Aurel: Romanians and Romania: A Brief History; Columbia University Press, 1999, New York; ISBN 0-88033-440-1.
Schramm, Gottfried: Frühe Schiksale der Rumänen. Acht Thesen zur Lokalisierung der lateinischen Kontinuität in Südosteuropa /Early History of the Romanians - Eight Theses for Determining the Place of Continuity of the Latin in South-Eastern Europe/; in: Zeitschrift für Balkanologie (Nr. 21/2, 23/1, 22/1), 1985-1987, Wiesbaden.
Todd, Malcolm: The Early Germans; Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2003; ISBN 0-631-16397-2.
Treadgold, Warren: A History of the Byzantine State and Society; Stanford University Press, 1997, Standford, California; ISBN 0-8047-2630-2
Urbańczyk, Przemysław: Early State Formation in East Central Europe; in: Curta, Florin (Editor): East Central and Eastern Europe in the Early Middle Ages; The University of Michigan Press, 2005; ISBN 978-0-472-11498-6.
Vásáry, István: Cumans and Tatars - Oriental Military in the Pre-Ottoman Balkans, 1185-1365; Cambridge University Press, 2005, Cambridge; ISBN 0-521-83756-1.
Watson, Alaric: Aurelian and the Third Century; Routledge, 1999, New York, NY; ISBN 0-415-07248-4
Wolfram, Herwig (Author) - Dunlap, Thomas J. (Translator): History of the Goths; University of California Press, 1988, Berkeley and Los Angeles; ISBN 0-520-06983-8