Eastern Roman Empire and Avars 622-624

Acta Ant. Hung. 51, 2011, 315–328 DOI: 10.1556/AAnt.51.2011.3–4.7 MARTIN HURBANIČ

THE EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE AND THE AVAR KHAGANATE IN THE YEARS 622–624 AD*

Summary: About 620 the Emperor Heraclius succeeded in concluding a temporary peace with the Avars and concentrating his forces exclusively on the struggle with Persia. In 622, during the first great offensive, the tactical and military maturity of the Eastern Roman army was demonstrated for the first time. However, Heraclius still could not use the strategic initiative enough in this period. The complicated relations with the Khagantae forced the Emperor to return to Constantinople and begin negotiations for a new peace treaty. The planned meeting with the Khagan of the Avars almost ended in a personal catastrophe for the Emperor. Regardless of this incident, both sides had an interest in concluding peace. While the Romans needed to continue the war with Persia, the Avars had to devote attention to stabilizing the situation in the Khaganate after the outbreak of Samo’s revolt. The agreement reached at the turn of the years 623/624 lasted until the Avar siege of Constantinople in 626. Key words: Eastern Roman Empire, Avars, Emperor Heraclius, last war of the Antiquity

In the beginning of the third decade of the 7th cent., the last Roman–Persian war was entering its final stage. In 622 AD, after what had been almost ten years of afflictions and defeats, emperor Heraclius resolved to launch a new offensive against the Persians.1 The concentration of all the available military forces of the empire was a reac* This paper was written with the support of Slovak Research and Development Agency (Agentúra na podporu výskumu a vývoja), project number SK-SRB-0017-09. 1 On the first expedition of emperor Heraclius against the Persians see GERLAND, A.: Die persischen Feldzüge des Kaisers Herakleios. Byzantinische Zeitschrift 3 (1894) 330–373, esp. 340–348; BAYNES, N.: The First Campaign of Heraclius against Persia. English Historical Review 19 (1904) 694– 702; STRATOS, A. N.: Byzantium in the Seventh Century. Vol. I. Amsterdam 1968, 135–144; OIKONOMIDÈS, N.: A Chronological Note on the First Persian Campaign of Heraclius (622). Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 1 (1975) 1–9; SPECK, P.: Das geteilte Dossier. Beobachtungen zu den Nachrichten über die Regierung des Kaisers Herakleios und die seiner Söhne bei Theophanes und Nikephoros [Poikila Byzantina 9]. Berlin 1988, 107–124; HOWARD-JOHNSTON, J.: Heraclius’ Persian Campaigns and the Revival of the East Roman Empire, 622–630. War in History 6 (1999) 3–4; GREATREX, G. – LIEU, S.: The Roman Eastern Frontier and the Persian Wars. AD 363–628. London – New York 2002, 198–199; KAEGI, W.:

0044-5975 / $ 20.00 © 2011 Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest

316

MARTIN HURBANIČ

tion to the Persian invasion into the north-eastern part of Asia Minor, which probably took place around the turn of the years 621 and 622 AD.2 According to a rather vague but still valuable fact mentioned by George of Pisidia, both armies met in a battle in the late autumn or early winter of 622 AD. The battle ended with the surprising victory of emperor Heraclius.3 In this situation, he unexpectedly interrupted the expedition and left his forces stationed in the Pontic region near the Armenian border.4n The expedition fulfilled its goals only partially. Although Heraclius pushed the Persians out of the north-eastern part of Anatolia and defeated them in an open battle, he did not achieve a major turn in the war. It goes without saying that the emperor’s achievements, as they were described by George of Pisidia, are exaggerated.5 However, the idea that the only aim of the military expedition was to improve the organization and mobility of the Roman army is highly disputable. If the emperor had not been obliged to return to the capital, he would most probably have continued the military campaign during the following year. Such an assumption is supported by the fact that Heraclius had left the army stationed in the Pontic region, near the Caucasus, i.e. in a region of the highest strategic importance for any future operations against Persia. The reason why Heraclius had to return to Constantinople was that he received disturbing news from his capital. George of Pisidia acknowledges that although the emperor intended to stay with his army and continue with the campaign, he had to return because of the fear that spread in Constantinople, caused by “the western nations that were as usually suspecting they had been left with no treaty”.6 Therefore, despite

———— Heraclius – Emperor of Byzantium. Cambridge 2003, 112–118; HURBANIČ, M.: Byzancia a Avarský kaganát v rokoch 622–624 [Byzantium and the Avar Khaganate in the years 623–624]. Historický časopis 55 (2007) 229–248; POLÁČEK, J.: Heraclius and the Persians in 622. Bizantinistica 10 (2008) 105–124; HURBANIČ, M.: Posledná vojna antiky. Avarský útok na Konštantínopol roku 626 v historických súvislostiach [The Last War of the Antiquity. The Avar attack on Constantinople in 626 and its historical consequences]. Prešov 2009, 98–100. 2 Georgios Pisides, De expeditione Persica II 256–260. In PERTUSI, A. (ed.): Giorgio di Pisidia. Poemi. I. Panegirici epici [Studia patristica et Byzantina 7]. Ettal 1959, 109. This fact suggests that the Persians actually occupied the north-eastern part of Asia Minor. See BRANDES, W.: Die Städte Kleinasiens im 7. und 8. Jahrhundert. Berlin 1989, 51. 3 Previous historians tried to suggest a more exact chronological setting of the battle. They looked for a point of reference in Pisides’ mention (De expeditione Persica 361–375) of the lunar eclipse after the sudden attack by the Persians, several days before the crucial confrontation with Heraclius’ army. This event is thus supposed to have happened either on 23rd January 623 AD (see BAYNES [n. 1] 701, STRATOS [n. 1] 141) or 28th July 622 AD (OIKONOMIDÈS [n. 1] 5). In accordance with C. ZUCKERMAN (Heraclius in 625. Revue des études byzantines 60 [2002] 206–210) and SPECK ([n. 1] 114), we consider that mentioning Pisides’ record of the lunar eclipse is an incorrect interpretation of the original text of Pisides. However, this removes the possibilities to specify the chronological setting of the battle. HOWARD-JOHNSTON ([n. 1] 4) is mistaken in dating the emperor’s return to the summer of 622 AD. According to a vague but still valuable fact mentioned by George of Pisidia (De expeditione Persica II 256) both armies met in battle sometime on the turn of the autumn and winter of 622 AD. The emperor’s return to the capital can be dated only after this period. The time and the place of the battle are still subject of disputes. For the most recent data on this topic cf. in particular ZUCKERMAN 206–210. 4 KAEGI (n. 1) 116. 5 In this regard see OIKONOMIDÈS (n. 1) 1–9. 6 Georgios Pisides, De expeditione Persica III 311–312. See also translations of the passage mentioned in PERTUSI (n. 2) 129 and TARTAGLIA, L.: Carmi di Giorgio di Pisidia. Torino 1998, 129–131. Acta Ant. Hung. 51, 2011

THE EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE AND THE AVAR KHAGANATE

317

the insistence of the army on the contrary, Heraclius decided to temporarily interrupt the expedition.7 The situation obviously must have been serious, given the fact that it required the emperor’s presence in the capital. The term “western nations” undoubtedly refers to the Avars and other nations that had acknowledged their hegemony. However, the author’s reference to the actual relations of the Avars with the Eastern Roman Empire is not so easy to explain. More precisely, it is not clear whether the Avars had really broken the peace treaty, concluded between both parties back in 620 AD. James Howard-Johnston considers in this regard that Heraclius was forced to return to Constantinople because of a concrete military action of the Avars that culminated in the thirty-day siege of Thessaloniki, described in the Miracula Sancti Demetrii.8 Regardless of the existing doubts about the time frame of this attack, we do not think that Heraclius would have considered returning from the campaign against Persia in reaction to the news about the siege of Thessaloniki. The city surely was an attractive target for raids and attacks, but from the strategic and tactical point of view it was of secondary importance.9 The unclear formulation by George of Pisidia does not prove the assumption that the Avars broke the peace treaty by any concrete military operation. Instead, the poet mentions a threat resulting from the further application of the treaty. He only articulates a suspicion that the treaty might have expired, but he does not give account of a real breach of the peace treaty. According to his words, it was the citizens of Constantinople who asked the emperor to return to the capital and not the remote Thessaloniki, at the time probably only accessible by sea. This would suggest that the very centre of the empire was under Avar threat. However, a real military action did not take place earlier than the summer of the following year, when the Avars invaded the suburbs of Constantinople. Why did the Avars threaten the empire with a new invasion? The reason could have been their traditional tendency to augment the pressure upon their neighbours, as well as the intention to negotiate a higher tribute than they used to receive. The leaders 7 Georgios Pisides (n. 6) III 339–340; Theophanes Confessor, Chronographia. In DE BOOR, C. (ed.): Theophanis chronographia. Vol. 1. Leipzig 1883, 306. 7–8. Theophanes obviously took this information over from George of Pisidia. In contrast to Pisides’ version, he does not include any reasons why the expedition had been interrupted, merely stating that the emperor had returned to the capital. In Norman Baynes’ opinion, the emperor decided to return to Constantinople in order to organize the city’s defence due to a new threat, the Avars. BAYNES, N.: The Date of the Avar Surprise. Byzantinische Zeitschrift 21 (1912) 126. However, such a hypothesis is not supported by any contemporary source. The Avars did not attack Constantinople sooner than the summer of 626 AD, i.e. in the time when the emperor was fully occupied with a new strategic offensive against Persia. For the problems regarding the chronology of these events, see summarily HURBANIČ: Byzancia (n. 1) 231 (with an overview of opinions from older historiography). 8 HOWARD-JOHNSTON (n. 1) 15. Although without any direct evidence, the majority of researchers date the Avaro-Slavic attack on Thessaloniki back to 618 AD. Among others, see BARIŠIĆ, F.: Čuda Dimitrija Solunskog kao istoriski izvor [The Miracles of St. Demetrius as an Historical Source]. Beograd 1953, 100; DITTEN, H.: Zur Bedeutung der Einwandlung der Slaven in Byzanz im 7. Jahrhundert. In WINKELMANN, H. et al. (ed.): Untersuchungen zur Herausbildung des Feudalismus. Berlin 1978, 98; LEMERLE, P.: Les plus anciens recueils des Miracles de Saint Démétrius et la pénétration des Slaves dans les Balkans. II: Commentaire. Paris 1981, 91–94, 99–103; CURTA, F.: The Making of the Slavs. History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region, c. 500–700. Cambridge 2001, 108. 9 HURBANIČ: Posledná vojna antiky (n. 1) 101.

Acta Ant. Hung. 51, 2011

318

MARTIN HURBANIČ

of the khaganate were well aware of the difficult situation of the Eastern Roman Empire and almost certainly knew about the emperor’s prepared military campaign. The issue of the increase of the tribute was probably raised by the last known descendant of the khagan Bayan. According to a source from that period, it was the khagan’s younger son who took power in that time after his older brother. This “deceptive and malevolent fox” – as he was labelled by Theodore Synkellos – threatened to invade the empire.10 As soon as the emperor returned to the capital, he attempted to negotiate the conditions under which the Avars would be willing to abide by the peace treaty. Unfortunately, we do not know when the actual negotiations started since the key source – the chronicle of the patriarch Nikephoros – does not mention any specific dates in this respect. Both versions of the chronicle, the London one and the Vatican one, seem to describe only the final stage of the negotiations. In the spring of 623 AD, the Avars broke the peace treaty and invaded Thracia. The accounts of this invasion can only be found in the chronicle by Theophanes, who mistakenly sets this incident into 617/618 AD. However, this inaccuracy by no means decreases the predicative value of the original text that was the source of Theophanes’ record. This older material suggests a connection between the Avar invasion into Thracia and the accelerating pace of negotiations with the emperor that resulted in an agreement to meet later on in Heracleia.11 Although the patriarch Nikephoros records that the Avar leader had sent the emperor a personal message because he wanted to come to an agreement, it was actually Heraclius who really needed a new agreement. Therefore we can assume that the entire negotiation process started upon his initiative. Nikephoros accounts that the emperor welcomed the khagan’s cooperative approach and sent his envoys – the patrikios Athanasios and the quaestor Cosmas – equipped with abundant gifts to visit the Avar leader.12 We do not know the exact matter of the negotiations but we can assume that the main topic was the increase of the tribute. Cosmas and Athanasios made themselves familiar with the khagan’s conditions and returned to the capital.13 Thus Heraclius learned that the khagan was willing to close a new peace treaty. Although all previous agreements between the khaganate and the empire had used to be closed solely by envoys, this time a meeting on the highest level was looming. Under the pressure of a desperate situation, Heraclius agreed that the upcoming negotiation would not take place in Constantinople. The Roman army was stationed hundreds of kilometres away and could not be counted on in need of 10

Theodoros Synkellos, De obsidione Constantinopolis homilia. In STERNBACH, L. (ed.): Analecta Avarica [Rozprawy akademii umiejętności. Wydział filologiczny. Serya II. Tom XV]. Cracoviae 1900, 301. 11 Theophanes Confessor (n. 7) 301. 25. 12 Nikephoros, Breviarium (the older London version, L) in OROSZ, L. (ed.): The London Manuscript of Nikephoros “Breviarium”. Budapest 1948, c. 20. 176–179; Nikephoros, Breviarium (Vatican version, V) in MANGO, C. (ed.): Nikephoros, Patriarch of Constantinople. Short History [Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 13]. Washington D. C. 1990, c. 10. 2–6. Theophanes mentions only the envoys having been sent to the khagan without any further specification. Theophanes Confessor (n. 7) 301. 27. 13 Nikephoros, Breviarium (n. 12) (L) 20. 179–180; (V) c. 10. 9–11. The multitude of gifts and promises is mentioned, without any specification, also by other contemporary sources: Theodoros Synkellos (n. 10) 301. 32–34; Georgios Pisides, Bellum avaricum in PERTUSI (n. 2) vv. 94–109. Acta Ant. Hung. 51, 2011

THE EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE AND THE AVAR KHAGANATE

319

help. The emperor therefore made use of a traditional imperial trick, aimed to convince the enemy that the weakened empire was by no means brought down to its knees. Instead of showing off military power, Heraclius chose to impress the Avars with a pompous ceremony full of spectacularly dressed up court dignitaries.14 It was probably himself who decided that the meeting should take place in Heracleia. The agreed date of the meeting was Sunday, 5th of June.15 The Roman diplomats had provisionally agreed to the new demands from the Avar side and now nothing was left to be done but to seal the new agreement. Heraclius planned to organize a festive reception with chariot races and other spectacular performances. Therefore he sent theatrical equipment to Heracleia and had ceremonial robes for the khagan and his entourage prepared.16 Then he sent Athanasios and Cosmas to meet the Avars again with a message that he had just left Constantinople and headed for the venue of their meeting.17 Upon receiving this message, the khagan headed for Heracleia with his army as well.18 The emperor, accompanied by his imperial guard, set out to Heracleia sometime in the beginning of June. His closest entourage included senators, clerics, various members of the nobility and prominent representatives of craftsman corporations.19 There were also prominent members of the green and blue demes, whose ritual exclamations and dances formed a vital part of the imperial ceremony.20 The rumour about the grandiose meeting soon spread in the capital and many inhabitants of Constantin14 On the Byzantine descriptions of barbarians LECHNER, K.: Hellenen und Barbaren im Weltbild der Byzantiner. München 1954, 73–128. 15 Historiography traditionally calls this incident “the Avar surprise”. See BAYNES (n. 7) 110–128. Summaries of this event in recent literature: STRATOS (n. 1) 154–160; POHL, W.: Die Awaren. Ein Steppenvolk in Mitteleuropa 567 – 822. München 1988, 245–248. 16 Nikephoros, Breviarium (n. 12) (L) 20. 181–184; (V) c. 10.13–14. 17 Nikephoros, Breviarium (n. 12) (L) 20. 184–186. The mention of the envoys being repeatedly sent to the khagan is found only in the older London version of the chronicle. As far as the language and content are concerned, this version is closer to the one that Nikephoros drew information from. For unknown reasons, Nikephoros did not include this information in his later re-written version. See also SPECK (n. 1) 263. 18 The khagan arrived in the vicinity of Heracleia three days after the emperor’s arrival in Selymbria. Nikephoros, Breviarium (n. 12) (L) 20.187–189. 19 Chronicon Paschale in DINDORF, L. (ed.): Chronicon paschale. Vol. 1 [Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae]. Bonn 1832, 712.14–15. 20 CAMERON, A.: Circus Factions. Blues and Greens in Rome and Byzantium. Oxford 1976, 257. Older researchers perceived the presence of the demes as a form of militia that in this case adopted the role of the emperor’s guard unit. In this regard in particular see MANOJLOVIĆ, S.: Le peuple du Constantinople de 400 à 800 après J. C. Byzantion 11 (1936) 632; similarly also STRATOS (n. 1) 147. However, this hypothesis is to be rejected in view of the thorough analysis carried out by Alan Cameron. Other researchers also support the sport function of the demes, see FINE, J.: Two Contributions on the Demes and Factions in Byzantium in the Sixth and Seventh Centuries. Zbornik radova vizantološkog instituta 10 (1967) 35–36. On the other hand, this does not mean that the emperor would have set out to meet the Avars unarmed and unprotected. Despite the lack of sources, it is highly probable that he was guided by his special bodyguard unit – the excubitores. This relatively small but elite military unit was in that time the primary force responsible for the emperor’s personal security. See HALDON, J.: Byzantine Praetorians: An Administrative, Institutional and Social Survey of the Opsikion and Tagmata, c. 580–900 [Poikila Byzantina III]. Bonn 1984, 136–139. There is no reason to think that it would be missing at the prepared meeting with the Avars.

Acta Ant. Hung. 51, 2011

320

MARTIN HURBANIČ

ople and nearby areas joined the emperor’s passage.21 They were not deterred by the considerable distance from the capital – who would miss the opportunity to witness such a spectacular parade? Many common people had never seen the Avars before, except for their envoys who came to Constantinople each year. It was the first time such a meeting on the highest level took place and the first time that the emperor held games before the eyes of the armoured Avar elite. Heraclius decided to accommodate in Selymbria, 40 kilometres westwards from Constantinople. Although the city was only several kilometres from Heraclia, it was a better place to stay since it was protected by the Long Walls. Meanwhile, the Avar khagan encamped in the vicinity of Heraclia where he had arrived three days after the emperor’s arrival in Selymbria. The Avar military units were positioned on high grounds on the outer side of the Long Walls.22 On 5th of June, in the early morning, the emperor set out from Selymbria to Heraclia. The Eastern Roman delegation was approaching the agreed meeting place, when the emperor received shocking news – the Avar horsemen were waiting for him in ambush in the wooded knolls around Heraclia.23 The khagan had probably ordered his selected troops to scatter in the difficult terrain and cut the escape corridor for the emperor. Heraclius was overwhelmed, but he managed to avoid panic and started to gallop away to the capital.24 Around 10 a.m., the khagan gave a sign with his whip, after which the major part of the Avar cavalry moved towards the Long Wall and crossed it without any significant resistance.25 Avars then proceeded in swift gallop along the Via Egnatia to Constantinople. However, the khagan himself did not participate in this raid and stayed with the rest of his troops near Heracleia.26 Although the Avar raiders did not manage to seize the emperor, they captured numerous members of his entourage, as well as ceremonial robes and theatrical equipment.27 Towards the end of the day, the Avar vanguard reached the plateau on the outskirts of Constantinople, known as Hebdomon. The attackers spread all along the land walls of Constantinople up to the Golden Horn.28 It was the first time the Avars man-

21

Chronicon Paschale (n. 19) 712. 20. Nikephoros, Breviarium (n. 12) (L) 20. 188–190; (V) c. 10. 19–20. 23 STRATOS (n. 1) 148. 24 Nikephoros, Breviarium (n. 12) (L) 20. 192–195. In his re-written Vatican version, Nikephoros even goes so far as to talk about the emperor’s shameful escape. See (V) c. 10. 24–29. See also Theophanes Confessor (n. 7) 301. 31 – 302. 1. 25 Chronicon Paschale (n. 19) 712. 21. The anonymous chronicler obviously describes the final episode of this dramatic incident, reflecting the public concepts and rumours that were in that time predominant in Constantinople. Judging from the overall character of his reports, it is evident that he lacked access to any official documents that could have disclosed the diplomatic backgrounds of the prepared meeting in Heracleia. 26 Chronicon Paschale (n. 19) 713. 2–3. 27 Nikephoros, Breviarium (n. 12) (L) 20. 198–200; (V) c. 10. 35–37. 28 Chronicon Paschale (n. 19) 713. 6–7; According to Nikephoros, the attackers reached the bridge across the river Barbysses, that flows to the Golden Horn. Nikephoros, Breviarium (n. 12) (L) 20. 197–198; (V) c. 10. 30–32. 22

Acta Ant. Hung. 51, 2011

THE EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE AND THE AVAR KHAGANATE

321

aged to penetrate the Long Walls and approach the very capital, as well as the first time since the great Kutrigur attack in 559 AD that any hostile force got within the range of the archers, positioned on the city’s mighty walls. Heraclius managed to escape to safety, but the carefully planned peace process was in shambles. Not only did he not reach an agreement, but from then on he also had to count with the devastating psychological effect that the attack must have had on the capital’s population, which for the first time had to bear the direct implications of the Avar expansion.29 In the general panic, the capital’s defenders tried to hide or carry away all the silver and golden parts of the decoration of the Church of the Holy Mother of God in Blachernes.30 This church had also treasured one of the most valuable relics of the capital – the Virgin’s Robe. The Patriarch of Constantinople, Sergios, decided to have it sealed and relocated to the Hagia Sophia Cathedral.31 After the arrival of the attackers, Heraclius was left with no other remedy but prayers. He left his palace in an ordinary robe and went to the Church of the Holy Mother of God, situated near the southern part of the city walls by the Golden Gate.32 The emperor was accompanied in his prayers and pleas by Sergios, the Patriarch of Constantinople and litanies for deliverance from the unexpected attack were held in all other churches.33 For the rest of the day and during the following night, the inhabitants of Constantinople witnessed the cruel pillaging and destruction of the city’s suburbs. A part of the Avar invaders managed to reach the area of the Golden Horn, where they pillaged the Church of Saint Cosmas and Damian in the vicinity of the northern part of the land walls. Another unit penetrated even further, to the area of the Bosporus, where they pillaged St. Michael’s Church in the Promotos quarter.34 From both churches, the Avars stole ciboria and other valuables. To make the pillaging even worse, they also damaged the main altar in St. Michael’s Church.35 The emperor most probably tried to persuade the raiders to withdraw from the suburbs offering them money, since asking for ransom was their traditional habit.36 This is directly confirmed by an anonymous Latin chronicler from the 7th cent. According to his record, the Avars crossed the Long Walls and approached Constantinople, 29

In depositionem pretiosae vestis in LOPAREV, CH. (ed.): Staroje svidetel’stvo o položenii rizy Bogorodicy primenitel’no k našestviju russkich na Vizantiju v 860 g [The Deposition of the Virgin’s Robe Testimony and its Relation to the Russian Attack on Byzantium in 860]. Vizantijskij vremennik 1895 T. II. Vyp. 4, 595–596. 30 In depositionem pretiosae vestis (n. 29) 596. 31 In depositionem pretiosae vestis (n. 29) 598. 32 In depositionem pretiosae vestis (n. 29) 594. 33 In depositionem pretiosae vestis (n. 29) 595. 34 On the location of this church, see JANIN, R.: La géographie ecclésiastique de l’Empire byzantin. I: Le siège de Constantinople et le patriarcat œcuménique. 3: Les églises et les monastères. Paris 1969, 344–345. 35 Chronicon Paschale (n. 19) 713. 9–13. 36 Theodoros Synkellos (n. 10) 301. 38–39. The Avar habit to require financial damages in return for their departure is confirmed by various Greek sources. On this topic, see MCCOTTER, S. E. J.: The Strategy and Tactic of Siege Warfare in the Early Byzantine Period: from Constantine to Heraclius. PhD Diss. Queen’s University, Belfast 1996, 206–207 with examples. Acta Ant. Hung. 51, 2011

322

MARTIN HURBANIČ

where they negotiated with the emperor standing on the city walls. After the price of peace had been agreed upon, the raiders withdrew.37 Although the exact time of their withdrawal cannot be stated, we can at least assume – with respect to the type of the attack – that the nomadic cavalry, burdened by the loot and a multitude of captives, tried to withdraw as soon as possible to the safe territory of Thracia.38 The number of enslaved people was undoubtedly considerable, judging from the slightly exaggerated reports of those who managed to escape from the captivity.39 Constantinople, and especially its suburbs, needed a long period of time to recover from the destruction they had suffered during the raid. It took a month before the emperor ordered to have the Virgin’s Robe ceremoniously relocated back to the temple in Blachernes.40 Although the peace negotiations with the Avars were ruined, Heraclius had to make every effort to restore them. Meanwhile, the Roman army was eagerly awaiting the return of its supreme commander. It was really high time he returned, because the Persians had noticed his trouble in the west and resumed military operations against the Eastern Roman Empire. It was sometime in that period that they conquered Ancyra, gaining control over the most important route connecting Constantinople with the East.41 Another unfortunate event was the loss of the island of Rhode.42 If the Persians really attacked it, they obviously must have had sufficient sea power to pose a threat to the coasts of Asia Minor or even Constantinople.43

37

Continuatio Havniensis Prosperi. Ed. TH. MOMMSEN in Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores antiquissimi XI (Berlin 1892) 490. 38 According to Jean Luis Van Dieten (Zum Bellum avaricum des Georgios Pisides. Bemerkungen zu einer Studie von Paul Speck. Byzantinische Forschungen 9 [1985] 162), the Avars must have been out of reach of the capital as early as the 6th June, otherwise the miraculous rescue of the city would not have been celebrated on the previous day. 39 Nikephoros, Breviarium (n. 12) (L) 20–21. 201–205; (V) c. 10. 38–41; Theodoros Synkellos (n. 10) 301. 34–37; Theophanes Confessor (n. 7) 302. 3–4. Nikephoros’ entry is doubted by the majority of researchers. Among others, see e.g. LEMERLE, P.: Quelques remarques sur le regne d’ Heraclius. Studii medievale 3 (1960) 1, 348, n. 3. However, some accept the numbers given by a more recent chronicler, Georgios Monachos, even though he evidently drew information from the Nikephoros’ Breviarium. See e.g. KAEGI (n. 1) 119. 40 In depositionem pretiosae vestis (n. 30) 599–608. 41 Various chronicles that describe this event again draw from a single source. See Chronicon 1234 in PIGULEVSKAJA, N. (ed.): Sirijskaja strednevekovaja istoriografija [Medieval Syrian Historiography]. St. Petersburg 2000, c. 96; Michael le Syrien, Chronique. Vol. II. Ed. and transl. by J.-B. CHABOT. Paris 1901, XI. 3 (dating up to 622 AD). Theophanes dates the conquering of Ancyra in 618/619 AD. Theophanes Confessor (n. 7) 302. 22–23; Agapios, Kitāb al-‛unwān. Ed. and transl. by A. VASILIEV. PO 8, Paris 1912, 451. Summarily on these events, see FOSS, C.: The Persians in Asia Minor and the End of Antiquity. English Historical Review 95 (1975) 725. 42 Chronicon AD 724. Transl. by PALMER, A.: The Seventh Century in the West Syrian Chronicles. Liverpool 1993, 18. The chronicler dates this event into the year 934 of the Seleucian era, which corresponds to 623 AD. According to BAYNES ([n. 7] 116) the Island was attacked sometime in 621–625 AD. More recent sources describe the conquering of Ancyra and several islands. See Theophanes Confessor (n. 7) 302; Agapios (n. 41) 451; Michael le Syrien (n. 41) XI. 2. All chronicles date this event into 622 AD. 43 FOSS (n. 41) 725. Acta Ant. Hung. 51, 2011

THE EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE AND THE AVAR KHAGANATE

323

Heraclius had no time to lose. By the end of 623 AD at the latest, he sent his envoys to the Avar Khaganate with a plea for peace.44 The Avar leader demanded that the tribute be increased to 200 000 solidi.45 Such an enormous sum was much higher than any previously agreed payments to the Avars. It was even more than the Hun leader Attila had received for refraining from attacking the Roman Empire in his time.46 Besides that, Heraclius had to hand over several valuable hostages to the Avars to guarantee the fulfilment of the agreed terms of the peace treaty.47 The new treaty entered into force by the end of 623 AD at the latest.48 The emperor once again entrusted the military council, led by the patrikios Bonos and patriarch Sergios, with the administration of the capital. Then he symbolically confirmed the peace treaty with the Avars in a letter, in which he called upon the khagan to become the protector of his children.49 The situation in the west was settled for the time being. There was nothing else that would hinder Heraclius from preparing a new offensive against the Persians, planned for the spring of the following year. THE AFTERMATH OF A DIPLOMATIC INCIDENT The unexpected Avar raid did not become a mere memory of an unfortunate event for the empire. Echoes of it can be found in various Byzantine chronicles, as well as in their later Slavic translations.50 Even the primary Russian chronicle Povest’ vre-

44

Theodoros Synkellos (n. 10) 302. 4–5. The author of the sermon states that the agreement was concluded by the khagan’s prominent men in compliance with patriarchal habits. 45 Nikephoros, Breviarium (n. 12) (V) 13. 1–9. 46 The largest single payment that the Later Roman Empire ever submitted to a foreign power was the sum of 792 000 solidi, paid by the emperor Justinian after signing the agreement of eternal peace with Persia. For the overview of the sums paid see TREADGOLD, W.: Byzantium and its Army 284–1071. Stanford 1995, 193. See also POHL, W.: The Role of the Steppe Peoples in Eastern and Central Europe in the First Millennium AD. In URBAŃCZYK, P. (ed.): Origins of Central Europe. Warsaw 1997, 71. Most recently on the way of payment HARDT, M.: The Nomad’s greed for gold: from the fall of the Burgundians to the Avar treasure. In CORRADINI, R. – REIMITZ, H. – DIESENBERGER, M. (eds.): The Construction of Communities in the Early Middle Ages: Texts, Resources, Artefacts. Leiden 2002, 95–107, esp. 104–105. Tax was not always paid in gold, but as the historian Theophylact Simocatta already explicitly stated, “in the form of merchandise of silver and of embroidered cloth.” See Theophylaktos Simokattes, Historiae I. 3 in DE BOOR, C. (ed.): Theophylacti Simocattae historiae. Leipzig 1887. 47 Nikephoros, Breviarium (n. 12) (V) 13.1–9. 48 GERLAND (n. 1) 348. KAEGI ([n. 1] 121) dates this event to the turn of the years 623/624 AD. 49 Theodoros Synkellos (n. 10) 302. 13–15. 50 From amongst the most important see in particular Georgius Monachus, Chronicon. Ed. C. DE BOOR. Leipzig 1904, II. 669.7–20; Georgius Cedrenus, Compendium historiarum. In BEKKER, I. (ed.): Georgius Cedrenus Ioannis Scylitzae ope. 2 vols. [Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae]. Bonn 1838/1839, 716; Ioannes Zonaras, Epitome historiarum XIV (lib. 13–18). Ed. T. BÜTTNER-WOBST [Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae]. Bonn 1897, 205–206. Among the Slavic translations of Byzantine chronicles, see e.g. Kronika Georgija Amartola [Chronicle of Georgios Hamartolos]. Ed. V. M. ISTRIN. St. Petersburg 1920, I 434. Acta Ant. Hung. 51, 2011

324

MARTIN HURBANIČ

mennykh let mentions “giants (Avars) who attacked the tsar Iraklij and almost captured him”.51 The Orthodox Church had for a long time afterwards maintained the habit of the pious commemoration of the Avar raid. Each year on 5th June, the “terrible suffering inflicted upon us by the barbarian attack” was commemorated.52 The inhabitants attributed the averting of the attack to an unexpected mercy that God and the most blessed Mother of God sent down upon the city, therefore an annual ceremonial procession would take place on this day.53 The procession, lead by the patriarch, used to start at the Hagia Sofia Cathedral and proceed through the city towards the plateau of Hebdomon – the place where the Avars had gathered before they started rampaging the suburbs of Constantinople. From there the procession would continue to the nearby Church of St. John the Baptist, where a liturgy would be held.54 The Orthodox Church also commemorated the return of the Virgin’s Robe to the temple in Blachernes after the Avars had withdrawn. Each year on 2nd of July, a procession was held, starting in the Church of St. Lawrence, to the Church of the Holy Mother of God, where, again, a mass would be served.55 The Avar incident lingered in the memory of the empire’s inhabitants. The unsuccessful effort to organize a meeting raises many questions even today. All the information we have comes from the Greek sources, which in accord report of a premeditated act of perfidiousness against the peace-loving emperor Heraclius by the untrustworthy Avars. The account of George of Pisidia is typical in this respect.56 By cutting the escape route for the emperor’s entourage, the khagan may have wanted to enforce better negotiating conditions.57 After his scheme was suddenly discovered, he must have known that no peace treaty would be concluded. In the given situation, he tried to gain at least some profit by pillaging the suburbs of Constantinople. In that time, the Avars had not been planning to siege the capital, but they might have intended to surprise the defenders and occupy it. However, the understaffed garrison was soon alarmed, Heraclius managed to return to the city and the attackers had to content themselves with the loot from the suburbs and with the money that the emperor had probably offered them for their withdrawal. Of course, we cannot rule out the possibility that the khagan wanted to seize the emperor and ask for a high ransom,

51

Povest’ vremennych let [The Russian Primary Chronicle]. Ed. D. LICHAČEV. Moskva 1996, 10. This mention probably comes from the Slavic translation of the Byzantine chronicle by Georgios Monachos (Hamartolos) from the 9th cent. 52 Patmos 266. In DMITRIEVSKIJ, A. (ed.): Opisanie liturgičeskich knig I [The Description of Liturgical Books]. Kiev 1895, 78–79. 53 Synaxarium ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae. Propylaeum ad ASS. Nov. ed. H. DELEHAYE. Bruxelles 1902, col. 729–731. 54 Hagios Stauros 40 and Patmos 266, both of them mention 5th June as the commemorative day: Hagios Stauros 40. In MATEOS, J. (ed.): Le Typicon de la Grand Église I [Orientalia Christiana Analecta 165]. Rome 1962, 306. 3–4; Patmos 266 (n. 52) 78–79. 55 Hagios Stauros 40 (n. 54) 328–331. 56 Georgios Pisides, Bellum Avaricum (n. 13) vv. 110–121. 57 POHL (n. 15) 246. Pohl does not decline such a possibility, although he considers the hypothesis of a preconceived plan to capture the emperor more probable. Acta Ant. Hung. 51, 2011

THE EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE AND THE AVAR KHAGANATE

325

or even to kill him. All in all, the entire incident can by no means be referred to as a dirty barbarian trick, as it was interpreted by the chroniclers.58 SAMO’S UPRISING Whatever the khagan’s plans had been, his risky operation gained him a better position in further negotiations. The Avars must have known about Heraclius’ difficult situation. Although an agreement with the empire would have ensured a stable income in valuables for the khaganate, it was unsure for how long. The empire was on the brink of collapse. Why did the Avars accept peace so suddenly when only a year before that they had largely contributed to its end? According to a contemporary chronicle, the Avars returned after a successful raid to Pannonia with rich loot. On their way, they met with no resistance at all.59 However, the reasons for their return might have been different. According to the Chronicle of Fredegar, in the fortieth year of the reign of Chlothar, the king of the Franks, i.e. sometime around 623 and 624 AD, a major uprising broke out.60 The uprising could hardly have taken place if the core of the Avar army had been stationed in Pannonia, therefore it must have broken out when the Avar troops were still in Thracia, i.e. probably during the summer of 623 AD.61 After they returned, 58 A very good illustration of this fact can be found in a trick by which the emperor Leo V tried to dispose of the Bulgar khan Krum during the siege of Constantinople in 813 AD. Theophanes Confessor (n. 8) 785; Theophanes Continuatus, Chronographia (lib. 1–6). In BEKKER, I. (ed.): Theophanes Continuatus: Ioannes Cameniata, Symeon Magister, Georgius Monachus [CSHB]. Bonn 1838, 612–18. See also BEŠEVLIEV, V.: Die protobulgarische Periode der bulgarischen Geschichte. Amsterdam 1981, 254–256. 59 Chronicon Paschale (n. 19) 713. 60 Fredegar, Chronicon IV. c. 48. In KUSTERING, A. (ed.): Ausgewählte Quellen zur deutschen Geschichte des Mittelalters [FSGA Bd. 4a]. Darmstadt 1982. The chronicler’s dating of the mentioned event received heavy criticism from various researchers. According to B. Krusch, the chronicler included this report accidentally in the 40th year of the reign of the Frank king Dagobert, despite the fact that the mentioned report obviously reflects a longer period of time. In this regard, Krusch pointed out various chronological problems in this part of the chronicle. See KRUSCH, B.: Die Chronicae des sogenannten Fredegar. Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft für ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde 7 (188) 434–435. These arguments were further developed by Gustav Schnürer, who discusses the report of the eastern Roman envoys to the Longobard king Adloald (Fredegar, IV. c. 49), dated again to the 40th year of the reign of king Dagobert by the chronicler, who moreover mentions Maurikios (582–602 AD) as the ruling emperor, instead of Heraclius (610–641 AD). See SCHNÜRER, G.: Die Verfasser der sogenannten Fredegar-Chronik. Commissionsverl. der Universitaetsbuchhandl. Freiburg 1900, 111–115. However, a Polish researcher, Gerard Labuda, pointed out that in contrast with Fredegar’s report of Samo, the account of the Roman embassy shows obvious features of a folk tale, which would explain the wrong chronology and confusion in the names of the emperors. See LABUDA, G.: Pierwsze państwo słowiańskie: państwo Samona [The first Slavic State: Samo’s State] Poznań 1949, 52–93, in this regard esp. 89–93. 61 According to Alexander Avenarius, the reason of Samo’s uprising was the Avar expansion into the territories north of the middle Danube, inhabited by Slavs. (AVENARIUS, A.: Slovania v severozápadnom pomedzí Avarského kaganátu [The Slavs on the north-western border of the Avar Khaganate]. In Zborník prác Ľudmile Kraskovskej k životnému jubileu. Bratislava 1984, 154). In this regard we tend to assume that the mentioned Avar expansion was a reaction to the uprising that was later joined by Samo. This uprising probably had not originated in central Pannonia, but in its north-western periphery, i.e. in the area of the Devín Gate near present-day Bratislava and the nearby areas on both banks of the

Acta Ant. Hung. 51, 2011

326

MARTIN HURBANIČ

the Avars had to concentrate their forces to fight the rebels; therefore it was also in their interest to sign a new peace agreement with the Eastern Roman Empire. Meanwhile in the remote areas of the khaganate, the rebelling Slavs created new political formations, their centre being represented by Samo’s Empire. This new constellation of power came into being relatively swiftly, by 625 AD at the latest.62 The defeats that the rebels inflicted upon the Avars have relatively shaken the khagan’s position. If he wanted to maintain the prestige, he had to come up with a new spectacular action that brought him before the walls of Constantinople in the summer of 626 AD. As we know from the Chronicle of Fredegar, the riot was lead by the descendants of Avar men and Slavic women, whom the chronicler calls sons of the Huns, i.e. the Avars. However, many current authors refuse such reports, considering them a mere legend, spread in various countries.63 A similar story is mentioned by the Greek historian Herodotos.64 However, Fredegar could not have been inspired by him, since he spoke no Greek and was not familiar with the contemporary imperial, let alone the classical Greek historiography. The existence of various ethnic groups in Pannonia and in its outskirts can (despite a certain level of scepticism) be identified according to archaeological criteria, while their mutual coexistence is confirmed by certain Byzantine sources.65

———— Danube. Similarly in KUČERA, M.: Veľká Morava a začiatky našich národných dejín [Great Moravia and the Beginnings of Our National History]. In Historický časopis 33 (1985) 181; LUTOVSKÝ, M. – PROFANTOVÁ, N.: Sámova říše [Samo’s Empire]. Praha 1995, 54–55. In this regard, also see POLEK, K.: Frankowie a ziemie nad środkowym Dunajem. Przemiany polityczne i etniczne w okresie merowińskim i wczesnokarolińskim (do początku IX. w.) [The Franks and the Lands on the Middle Danube. Political Changes during the Merovingian and Early Carolingian Period up to the Beginning of the 9th Century]. Krakow 2007, 183–187. Other nuclei of the uprising may have been located in the area of Lower Austria. Summarily on this topic also see FRITZE, W.: Zur Bedeutung der Awaren für die slawische Ausdehnungsbewegung im frühen Mittelalter. In Zeitschrift für Ostforschung 28 (1979) 519. After several defeats, the Avars eventually augmented their military presence in the north-western territories of the khaganate, which is confirmed by predominantly military graves of the Avar warriors found in these areas, dating back to the second half of the 7th cent. In this regard, see STADLER, P.: Avar chronology revisited and the question of the ethnicity in the Avar qaganate. In CURTA, F. (ed.): The Other Europe in the Middle Ages – Avars, Bulgars, Khazars, and Cumans. Leiden – Boston – New York 2008, 78. 62 See STEINHÜBEL, J.: Pôvod a najstaršie dejiny Nitrianskeho kniežatstva [The Origin of Nitra Principality and its Oldest History]. Historický časopis 46 (1998) 381–385; STEINHÜBEL, J.: Nitrianske kniežatstvo [The Nitra Principality]. Bratislava 2004, 30–31. However, the author assumes, in compliance with the concept presented by D. TŘEŠTÍK (Vznik Velké Moravy. Moravané, Čechové a střední Evropa v letech 791–871. [The Beginning of Great Moravia. Moravians, Czechs and Middle Europe in the years 791 – 871] Praha 2001, 26–28) that the nucleus of the uprising was located in the central part of Pannonia. 63 First to point to this fact was GRAFENAUER, B.: Nekaj vprašanj iz dobe naseljevanja južnih Slovanov [Some problems concerning the migration and settlement of the Southern Slavs]. Zgodovinski časopis 4 (1950) 116. However, similar concerns had been voiced even before Grafenauer’s study was published. Vernadsky thought that it was a legendary topos present in various countries that might have been transmitted to Fredegar. VERNADSKY, G.: The Beginning of the Czech State. Byzantion 17 (1944/45) 319. 64 Herodotus in this regard states that when the Scythians were returning from an expedition against the Medes, they were challenged by the sons of Scythian women and slaves. The initiative is here accredited to the Scythian wives, in contrast with Fredegar’s report. Herodotus IV 2–3 (transl. J. Špaňár, Bratislava 1985). 65 Miracula sancti Demetrii in LEMERLE, P. (ed.): Les plus anciens recueils des miracles de Saint Démétrius et la pénétration des Slaves dans les Balkans. Vol. I. Paris 1979, II 284–286. LABUDA ([n. 60] Acta Ant. Hung. 51, 2011

THE EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE AND THE AVAR KHAGANATE

327

But who actually instigated this uprising? The Frankish merchant Samo only joined it after it had started. Similarly as it was in the case of the unexpected Avar threat to the empire on the turn of 622 AD, neither in this case can we tell whether the uprising was a spontaneous effort of the oppressed population of Pannonia, or an indirect operation of the Persian or eastern Roman diplomacy. Heraclius and the Persian king Khusro II were undoubtedly looking for potential allies in all relevant regions. Could the Eastern Romans and their gold have been the real reason of the Slavic riot in Pannonia?66 Although several researchers think it might have been so, we have no direct evidence confirming such an alternative.67 It is highly improbable that the imperial administrative apparatus would have directly contacted the opposition in the khaganate.68 Although we have to bear in mind that the empire had lost control over the Balkan territory and its important communication routes, distance was probably not the main reason for an indirect operation. On the other hand, we cannot rule out the possibility that a secret message would have found a direct way to Pannonia. The Romans and the Byzantines always tried to augment tensions between enemies and thus weaken them. However, the sources indicate that the imperial diplomats only tried to instigate groups against the Avars who had a comprehensible political organization and power structure, such as the Turks, the Longobards, the Franks, or possibly also the Slavic Ants.69 Had the emperor wanted to look for allies inside

———— 106) as well as TŘEŠTÍK ([n. 62] 26) consider Fredegar’s report of the young men of mixed origin in the khaganate a mere legend, while Curta considers it a part of the ethnogenetic myth. For more details, see CURTA, F.: Slavs in Fredegar and Paul the Deacon: medieval gens or ‘scourge of God’? Early medieval Europe 6 (1997) 141–167, esp. 151–155; and most recently in CURTA, F.: The early Slavs in Bohemia and Moravia: a response to my critics. Archeologické rozhledy 61 (2009) 1–30 esp. 13–15. For the criticism of the latter concept, see PROFANTOVÁ, N.: Kultura s keramikou pražského typu a problém šíření slavinity do střední Evropy. K článku Florina Curty [The Prague-type pottery culture and the problem of the diffusion of Slavinity into central Europe. On the article by Florin Curta]. Archeologické rozhledy 61 (2009) 303–330, esp. 308; and BIERMANN, F.: Kommentar zum Aufsatz von Florin Curta: Utváření Slovanů (se zvláštním zřetelem k Čechám a Moravě [The Making of the Slavs (with a special emphasis on Bohemia and Moravia)]. Archeologické rozhledy 61 (2009) 337–349, esp. 344–345. 66 STRATOS, A. N.: The Avars’ Attack on Byzantium in the Year 626. In Polychordia. Festschrift Franz Dölger zum 75. Geburtstag. Byzantinische Forschungen 1–3 (1967–68) 371. 67 POHL (n. 15) 249. 68 Similar assumptions can be found in VERNADSKY (n. 63) 321; STRATOS (n. 66) 170–171; DITTEN (n. 8) 127; HALDON, J.: Byzantium in the Seventh Century. The Transformation of a Culture. Cambridge 1997, 47. 69 For the Eastern Roman policy towards the Turks during the reign of the emperors Justin II and Tiberios, see POHL (n. 15) 41–43, 66, 80. As far as the Longobards are concerned, we have reports that during the siege of Sirmium the emperor Tiberios tried to create an alliance with them. However, the emperor’s diplomatic mission lead by the eunuch Narses was unsuccessful. See John of Ephesus, Historia Ecclesiastica. In PAYNE-SMITH, R. (ed. and transl.): The Third Part of the Ecclesiastical History of John of Ephesus. Oxford 1860, VI 30–31. The Ants were amongst the potential allies of the Eastern Roman Empire. On the turn of the years 577 and 578 AD, during the great Avar offensive in Thracia and the Slavic occupation of the western parts of the Balkans, the emperor Maurikios instigated the Ants to attack the settlements of the Low-Danube Slavs. Michael le Syrien (n. 42) X 21. This information was taken over by Michael of Syria from the Ecclesiastical History by John of Ephesus from the 6th cent. In this regard see MARQUART, J.: Osteuropäische und ostasiatische Streifzüge. Leipzig 1903, 479–488; WHITBY, M.: The Emperor Maurice and his Historian: Theophylact Simocatta on Persian and Balkan Warfare. Oxford 1988, 110–112. Acta Ant. Hung. 51, 2011

328

MARTIN HURBANIČ

the khaganate, he would rather have contacted other nomadic ethnicities – such as the Bulgars. Looking for partners among the mass of politically incomprehensible Slavs might have posed a serious problem to the empire. There was only one possibility for Heraclius in that time to weaken the influence of the Avars: through their strong and stable neighbours – the Longobards and the Franks. Especially the latter alternative seems to be feasible, despite the lack of any concrete evidence.70 Heraclius might have lured the Franks with promises or money and leave the concrete steps upon their own decision. The arrival of the unknown merchant Samo, who later became the leader of the uprising, undoubtedly suggests a direct interference by the Frank political scene.71 On the other hand, such an action could not have had a clear support from the Eastern Roman Empire, if Heraclius had wanted to maintain and ensure lasting peace with the Avars in order to be able to continue with the war against the Persians. In any case, the temporary deterioration of the relations between the Eastern Roman Empire and the Avar khaganate benefited the Persians. It is also possible that they were somehow connected with the unexpected Avar threat in 622 AD. Although due to the significant geographical distance it might have been difficult for them to form an alliance with the Avars, such an alternative cannot be ruled out.72 Martin Hurbanič Department of History Comenius University, Bratislava Gondova 2 814 99 Bratislava Slovakia [email protected]

70

Similarly in POLEK (n. 61) 180–181. Unfortunately, the only relevant proof of the intended alliance between the Eastern Roman Empire and the Franks against the Avars is related to the reign of the emperor Maurikios. See Theophylact Simocatta (n. 46) VI 3. 7. In that period, the Avars were still only a marginal problem for the Franks; otherwise the Frank message would have required gifts from Maurikios for waging a war against the khagan. Although there are two Frank messages mentioned in Fredegar’s chronicle that refer to Heraclius’ reign, they both correspond with the final part of his reign and do not say anything about the potential alliance against the Avars. Fredegar (n. 60) IV c. 62 and 65. 71 AVENARIUS, A.: Die Awaren in Europa. Bratislava 1974, 136; POHL (n. 15) 256. 72 Similarly in LABUDA (n. 60) 191; HOWARD-JOHNSTON (n. 1) 15; REGAN, G.: First Crusader: Byzantium’s Holy Wars. Gloucestershire 2001, 88. For the possible Persian–Avar contacts before 626 AD, see in particular SZÁDECZKY-KARDOSS, S.: Persisch-Awarische Beziehungen und Zusammenwirken vor und während der Belagerung von Byzanz im Jahre 626. In Kontakte zwischen Iran, Byzanz und der Steppe in 6–7. Jh. Hrsg. CS. BÁLINT [Varia Archaelogica Hungarica IX]. Budapest 2000, 313–321; most recently on this topic, HURBANIČ, M.: Historické súvislosti a príčiny avarského útoku na Konštantínopol roku 626 [The historical background and causes of Avars’ attack upon Constantinople in 626]. Vojenská história 12 (2008) 3, 3–23. Acta Ant. Hung. 51, 2011