DIMITRI OBOLENSKY BYZANTIUM AND THE SLAVS SE VLADIMIR'S SEMINARY PRESSCHAPTER | ‘THE PRINCIPLES AND METHODS ‘OF BYZANTINE DIPLOMACY* ei scarcely surprising that the diplomacy of the Byzantine Empire sill avait its historan A flblength and comprehensive su ‘vey of this subject — involving of necessity a study of the Empires relations with almost every nation of Europe, wth the whol of West ‘rm and pat of cenral Asia, and with northern and easiern Aiea as ‘well Would be indeed a formidable undertaking. Attempes have een made to survey the whole fk of Byzantine diplomacy, but only Iriya sketch: the most sce, pechaps are those of Cres Dish and Lous Brier For the xt, the stent must gleam his information rom the standard text-book of Byzantine istry. fromthe exiting suis ofthe Empires relations with specie foreign powers, land expecially from monographs devoted to pail reigns — for inmance trom Diehts book on Justinian I ror Runciman’s mono raph on Romanus Lecapenus, from Rambaud's study of Consan- ine Vil ana from D. J. Geanakoplos recent work onthe western poly of Michael VIL ‘These studies, brief or parti of Byzantine foreign policy have done much to pave the way for some future scolar possessed with the necestary Knowledge and industry to attempt a comprehensive study ofthe Empire diplomacy. Such ascholar would find, moreover, thar much ofthe source material rating to ths subject has alicady ‘cen sted and analyzed wih admirable cary: Profesor Dalgers Fepesion and Profesor Morass Abzantinonurcea, for example, have amply supplemented and extended K. Ditrics oer. ut still ‘wefulcompadium of Byzantine ethnology. Kt sem to me, howeve2 BYZANTIUM AND THESLAVS that more preparatory work mast te done before we can have any Geuled and comprehensive account of Byzantine diplomacy as & whole —of its principles and methods, is ideals and tecniges, its lures and achievements; and tht inthe meantime mote limied sie dies ofthe Empire’ foreign policy in speci areas may wel provide the mest frat startng point. ‘The aim ofthis paper sto attempt och mite study in eation primany one such area, Fram the spectacle of Byzantine diplo- ‘macy at work, grappling with concrete problem, inthis ara during the couse of centuries, a general piste wil tis hoped, emerge which wil be tied inthe second half of the paper as @ bass Tor tn ‘veralassssment of some ofthe princes and methods of Byzantine ‘Silomacy ‘The area to which I shal the main confine myself inthe ist art ofthis paper ly beyond the nonhem hordrs of the Empite “his, broadly speaking, was the reyion ited nthe wes by thepiin ‘of Hungary and in the east bythe Caspian Sea It stetches over the {Carpathian Mountains, the south Rass steppe and the lowlands the north ofthe Caucasus It is bounded in the noth by & semicircle extending over the lower courses of the great Russian rivers — the Dniester, he Drieper and the Don — and whore tips come to rst on the mle Danube in the west and on the lower Volga in the east. It coincides exact with the area of which a ao-politial description is ven in the fory-second chapter of the De dminrando dmperia 8nd the srupulous care with which this reson is described therein inte suticentevience ofthe importance i posiesed inte eves oF the Byzantine statemen ofthe teh er. In stresing the ruil importance to Byzantium of the lds that lay beyond the Empire's northern borders Constantine Porphogen tus was giving expression oa encern that under the whele story of Byzantine diplomacy. For it was from this area tht ised that neverending procession of ties and mations which, in war and in race, were iesieibly drawn into the orbit of Byzanixm, whose tacks and invasions fi the aitary reoeds of the Empire, and ‘hose Tears, ambions and hae taxed eo severely the ingen ofthe Statesmen in Constantinople. Fora considerable pat of history the Empire was fighting to defend is frontiers — and often its very Me ~ spaistthe thro the northern invader, of Hun and Bult. of Avat and Sky, of Russian and Pecheneg. The role payed by Bantam in Standing Yr a millennium and more asthe guardian of Europe's east The Principles and Methods of Byantine Diplomacy 3 er frontier aginst oriental expansion and northern attacks is now. inded, widely recognized: but itis perhaps not always appreciated -how much the preservation of svzation in Faster Europe was doe to the skill and resourcefulness of Byzantine diplomacy, And it was partyin response tothe norbern challenge that was forged in the ourse of centres, by sleadfas ath and acid thinking. by careful Study and observation, by tal and errr, that Imperial diplomacy ‘ebich surely remains one of Byzanton’s lasting contebutons to the history of Europe. The fact that Byzantium in its dealings wih the turbarians generally prefered diplomacy to war isnot surprising: for the East Romans, aged withthe ever-present neesiyof having 10 butte on Wo fronts — inthe eas against Persians, Arabs and Turks, in the north against the steppe barbarians and the Balkan Slavs — Knew from personal experience how expensive in money and mat powers war Th considering the ways in which the statesmen of Byzantium endeavoured to met the challenge presented 10 the security of the Sate by is northern neighbors. t may be convenient to conse in tum the principal sectors in hich these neighbors impinged on the satin diplomat postion ofthe Empire. There wee it ces fo me, three such sifory, which served asthe pivots of Byzantine {iplomacy onthe northern frontier the Caucasus, the Crimea and the Danube “The importance of the Caucasian setor tothe Empies security was a mater of elementary geopolitics: for atthe two extremities of this great sthmus separating the Black Sea from the Caspian the ‘Graeco Roman evilizaton ofthe Medteanean met and frequently toed with the westward expansion of Asiatic powers inthe orth ‘wth the nomads of Eurasia, prin toward the Black Ses and the Danube: in the south with the reat powers of the Middle Eas, push- ing towaré Asia Minor and the Bosphors. Both thew westard ‘movements spelled constant danger to Byzantium, andthe ellos of Imperial diplomacy inthis sector were directed 28 much at achieving favorable Balance of power in the lowlands north af the Caucass. as to ccaling a bulwark sgsitet posable attacks of Pesan, Arabs and “Turks though Asia Minor towards Constantinople tse. The close relationship that lays exited, in he strategy of the Empie’sgenr- bls n the mind of is diplomats and in actual fact, between ByZan- tium’s eastern and northern fonts is aowhere more apparent than i the Catcanin sector, And the tase aim of Byzantine policy inthissector was lays the same to built a chin of ale, or va, sates ffom the tower Volga apd the Sea of Azov to Lake Van in Armen. Theis peoples could render the Ene services consonant wih tet eouraphial postion and tary resoures: i the sixth etary. for instance, on the easter coast ofthe Blick Sex the Zichi and the [Xbagp could enale the Byzantine Nest to operate is Caucasian Waters and could hold the let flank of the Empte’s north-eastern Frns futher south te Lai andthe Trani guarded the approaches fo the northern eoast of Asis Minor he Georgians the central Cates sus and the Alans further north stood guard ove the Caspian Gates find could prevent the steppe nomads rom Asa from striking south ‘across this mountain pas at Byzantine Asia Minor. AU thse Cave sian peoples were succesfully woosd by the diplomacy of Justinian {he fat Tour were converted to Christianity in the sixth centry by Byzantine misionares, andthe new esl organization stp in tbsr lands proved & powerfel means of Seeing them within the Political orbit of East Rome. And the roads and foreses which the Byzantines bu in these courts were the material ounterpar of the atterng but ess tangible links which thee rlers were indeed 0 cement withthe Imperial court of Constantinople. These cups of Byrantineiflence the Casas could ao be of considerable conamse value to the Empire: thus the rations eablsted by Brrantiam with the Turks of Central Asia between 548 acd 76, which enabled the Empire o import sik while creumventing the Per ‘san conto ofthe ik routes from Chinato the Back Se, depended at eas in part onthe wade route that skied the nortern shores oF the Caspian, rose the ental Caucasus range, reached the Black Seacoast of Abusgia, and continue by sea va Phass to Trebizond ‘The central Caucasus region retained Hs strategic vale forthe Empire uni the second half of the seventh century. The AlN, slreay deserted by Procopis a “ends of the Romans fom of ‘1827 had become inthe tenth century the Inchpin of Byramine ‘ilomacy i the Caucasan stor. They were converted 10 Christian fy by Byzantine misionarin im the ist hall of that century. The ‘ars were hel in high esteem in Byzantium, and Constantine Por phyrogenitee sctes their usefulness In checking possible Khazar fcroachaents in the Cites. Ther de, mho held the Byzantine le of bovine. Nak one ofthe roe Imperial sets of that teriod to be honored asthe Emperors “spinal som"* The impor face of Armenia that bone of entention Between Byzaniu and ‘The Principe and Methods of Brsanine Diplomacy 5 ‘he Arabs — was fly recognized by the Imperial diplomats of the Macedonian peiod. The pacyof bestowing high-tounding tiles on Armenian princes to ensure chet poll doclty led tothe annexs- Win of par of the country by Bat laa of the remaining pe In Tn. Bit son the bate of Manze sealed the doom of Byzantine epemony in Tanscaucani IA the mortem enremity ofthe Empires Caucasian font lay a region of peculiar siteie importance: the lowlands beeen the lower Volgs and the Sea of Azov offered easy transit (0 nomadic invaders from Asia heading towards the Black Sea and the Danub, tr southwad to the Caucasian beyond. The peoples who dive ia this area ithey wee fren tothe Empte and sufficenty poner cul be counted on t guard the caster extremity ofthe European “Steppe conti” and, neal o belp preserve the balince of power along he whole length of the Empires nother fron. The Byzantine Statesmen were ick to reze the wrgent need of securing 9 rons ally in ths sector: and on two oozsions hey succeeded inthis task. 18 the fist hal of the seventh century a powerful barbarian kingdom sos inthe angle beeen the ea of Aro, the fer Volga andthe rortern Cauca known to the Byzantines as "Old Great Bula.” its re to power was undoubtedly due to East Roman support Is ruler Kovrat had been brought up and baptized atthe coun of Con Sutinope and the spel east upon him by his memories oF the Ipe= Fal ey teved the Empire in good stead: Kova a cose Irie of he Emperor Heractvs. hs vassal all and godson. helt a parcian of the Roman Empire ofes a srking example of sult ruler faith fully guarding the interes of Byram inthe soth, Tas sacansfl ‘experiment was Soon repeat by the Empite: for when inthe mdse ofthe seventh century. "Ol! Great Bulgar” was dspace and eon- ‘quered ty the Khar, the Byzantines rarsfered thet supp (othe rewcomers. And dung the next Two centuries the Khazar Empie the most cilzed and otdered of stats created by the Turkic peoples in the early Middle Apes remained Byzantum’s most constant and Valued alin the north t's possible that inthe eighth century the Khazar alliance did much to sive Byzantium fom the Arab menace forifthe Khazars had ot has the northvard thro smo the Caucasus, the Arabe might well have invaded the seppes of South Russia, appeared on the lover Danube. and outflanked the whole Byzantine system of defence. Though the interest of te 140 powers ‘occasionally clshed — notably in the Chimea ~ relations between« YZANTIOM AND THESLAVS Constantinople and the Khazar capital af i on the lower Volua were generally fenly and cose: asthe Book of Ceremonis shows, inthe diplomatic protocol of Bantam the Khazar Kagan ranked mong non Christan fordgn rues second only tothe Khaife of ‘Baghdad. Once spain — in he sccond hal ofthe thirteenth century “id the lands fo the north of the Caseass play tei part in that ‘ulance of power which the Byzantine statesmen alvays sought to {stablsh in the Pomc steppes for, in accordanoe withthe ageong trations of Byzantine diplomacy inthis seitor, the allanoe con ‘Sed by Michael VIIL with the Tatars of the Golden Horde was pasly aimed at exering presure upon & hostile aghbor of the Empire the Bulgar Tn the central segment of the reat semicicle that marked the effetve its of Byzariuns sphere af interest inthe north, hla between is tps hat rested on the middle Danube and the lower Vols, lay the second sector ofthe Empire’ northern font. Until the arly thstssth century the Byzantine postesone in the Crimea, hove all he city of Cherson. ace asthe northern outpost of Byzan= tine diplomacy i the steppe: ther importance was pay economic, for the Crimea provided Byranium withthe raw materials of the hinterland — fish rom the vers of South Rusia, salt rom the Azov region, furs and honey rom the fess further noe, a sol tothe barbarians the manclacred aris of Byzantine industry. Politically Chesson and tr neighboring region, subject or vassal ofthe Empire, ‘yas a valle servation pot a waehtower planted onthe Very Fringe of that harbaran wort of south Russia which Byzantine diplomacy was ever anxiovs toluene al contol, We was fom the (Chimes tha Tusinans goverment could folow the moves of the Hunni tribes, encamped on bah sides ofthe Sea of Azov, and, by 2 timely brie or by sing up itermal strié among them, wand off the attacks on the Balkans. Thus, rom Byzantine Crimea, could the Emperors purse cowards the nother barbarians, the tational Romain policy of “divide and rs” or at lex, when this proved impracicable, in the words of Reson, "weaken and watch” Ad true agin tothe time-honored methods of Reman diplomay.Byzan~ ium ha seered in that region, to counterbalance the Huns, a seul ‘tlie, pat vassal an pat ally the Crimean Goths, The eerty ofthe Emit’ Balkan provinos depended as mosh upon the wach fatness of ts agent inthe Crimes a upon the ialuene ft wee in the north Cateian Str, no wonder that Byzantium hung on The Pile and Method of sine Diploma 7 tots Crimean outpost with grim determination, staging to presere it from Khazar domination, attempting, 2t always suze, to ‘analz into awl channels the traions of Greek municipal aigo- omy. which Were alvays strong in Cherson. And inte ate ninth century the wisdom of this policy of hanging on to the Crimea became forcibly apparent. The appearance of new tararians onthe rortern horizon forced the Ene hs ould ip anew balance ‘of power in the steppes. The fist of these new intrudes were the Pechenegs. This barbarous Turkic people was then tyeaening the hole wiser setion ofthe Empires noebern fon, from the a of ‘Azoy to the Danube Byzantine diplomacy met this change by 2 policy of readjustment. For the past two centuries it had ree, for reserving order in the steppes, mainly on the Khazas, but thet power was fst detning, sm the eay tenth century, Byantiom {urned fo the Pechenegs. One has but to reread the opering chapters ‘of De Adminisrando Imperio to be peraded Of the excl igor tance of the Peceneg aliznce tothe Empire dring tht century ‘They show gute cleat that for Constantine VI aliaace with the Peckengs ste cornerstone of Byzantine diplomacy in the north or —as Constantine i at pairs explant his son — hs alliance kept, Byzantine Crinea safe, trade wilh Rusia can lush and the Enpires northera enemies, Bulges and Magyars and Rossians Who tremble wih fear before the Pechenegs, wil not dare 10 atack “I foneive, ten” the Emperor writs, “that ii alvays greatly tothe advantage of the emperor ofthe Romans to be minded to keep the ‘ace with the nation of the Pecenegs and to conclude conventions Sand treats of fiends wit ther and to send every yea to them ftom our sie a diplomatic agent wth resents befiting tnd stable to that nation.” Its understandable and significant tha the rspon- sibiley for negotiating with the Pechenegs lay onthe Governor of heron. “The ter factor which enhanced the importance of Byzantine Crimea in this peciod was the southard movement of the Swedish Vikings down the Ruan rivers, and te foundation of he Varanain Russian principalities along the Dnieper waterway. The attacks they lsunehed fom Kiev in the century following their masive raid on CConstansinope in 80 could be ores, not prevented, by the inteligeneeburea of the sper of Cheson “Behol” the Chet Sonitesinormed the Emperor in 984, the Russians are coming ia counts ships and the ships have covered the sea In vin the Rus® yeANTIUM AND THESLANS sians sought 19 mop up this dangrous obsenation poss. Cheon, its tre, fell othe aries of Vidimirof Rusia in 989-90 but by a provider ony of fate, the ci, 50 long a foes of misonary work mone the pagan ofthe north, tock her apior captive: for Via mit coup de man rested is manage tothe Emperors ser lind inthe comersion of Russia to Chrisinity, and Cheron was fetured tothe Emperor by the Rusia ruler in exchange for his ‘ide Thas di the misionares and diplomats of East Rome gain for Chrsianty and for Byantine cilzation territory which in sie cexcedodthe Empire isl The third sestor ofthe Empltes northern font was on the lower and midsle Danube, the ancient “lines Romants": andthe Danute, inthe true sense ofthe word, was mc more of “front” than the Crimea or the northern Caveaus. This too Was & mater of geo: pois: forthe lower Danube es nea the fermi of the “steppe orion” that immemorial highway for nomadic invader from As Sd for many of ther, who had seceded in avoiding the entangle trent and taps laid for them by the canting diplomats in the ‘Caucasian and Crimean sectors, the Danube proved no insuperable ttle, andthe ood ino the Balkans by open. Teresa Snisnt Contest in the strategie postion of Constantinople, Which explains Inuvh inthe medieval history of soulbeastee Europe admirably pro Teste from stack by sea he city es open to a chance invasion by tand,acroe the lowlands of Thrace and we nd that contrast stesed fv ealy asthe Second century BC by Polis: his remarks onthe tape expose ofthe ancient Greek ity of Byzantium to attacks from the north-west re worth quoting. for they seem oe almost propery ofthe East Roman Esmpees rations with its nocthern fegibos. "As Three” — Polshive writes — "surrounds the territory ff the Byzantine om al ies, reaching from a (0 sea, they are involved in an ends and froublsome war aginst the Thracian for its oot feasible, by making preparations ona grand sale and wi hing one decisive etory over them, to gerd onee fo all of tei Fests: the barbarous nations and dst are too numerous. I they overcome one the ore worse than he Hist arise and advance tginst their coomty. No en hey gin ay advantage by sbrting fo pay tute and making definte contrat fori they make ny “Concesion to one prince, sich s coneson aes up against them five ims as many Foss For these reasons the fe involed in a never= {nding and toublewome war For whats roe dangerows hana bad ‘The Principles and Method of Beanie Diplomacy ° eighbor and whats more dsl tan a war with rts? And Tess th oer evista attend on war, th have To undergo speak petal) aso of Tamale pune, for whe they hae fen reared bythe production of an abundant snd srpasingy fire erop. then come the barra and having reaped pat the ruts teary ff with them dey wh hy cant takeaway. Te Fvantins can only marmoriiant. and ends for Poh ‘bus invading Thracans we substitute he norte oes fhe East fen Enpie Huns, Slavs, Avar. Bol Magyar, Pechene Ressias and Cumans — and it the pai endurance of the nin Byaines we ad the apc Tor tit eines ma ‘ello dspajed by ther East Roman sce nthe cy of Cor Same, yesh have at ame summary of the Epc poss toon the Das front 1 was in hs Danobian sector — and in it southern extension ino the Balkans — that Byanine iplomacy ett st power and sstaned chalenge, Brune ply in ths sector was diated by the Emre retions withthe Slavs. Te sory chute ac Painful as Poli remarks would lad one to expe, its main ep Sodes are prominent eed inthe contemporary sour sine a's temps — only purty sucess ~to hol the Danae by tn Iniate we of dfesive diplomacy: the elon of hi sso totaly Justan TT ané Maurie to replce atin balance of ower ypc of srengh again the Avar presure on the Dante; Herat alnce with she Serbs and the Crests ait he Avass and fs great vitor) agant the nother barbara in 2 ofr bythe continued sd este spend thy Save ove the mpi Balkan province the alse of Bynum Danian fries between 679 an $8, the intasion of the Bulges ad he foundation ofthe Fist Busan Epi, whch was steal into bring Byzantium othe Wink of destotion: Byrantun'scplomate sou oth an oth the Danube esx al the rih century: the desperate gle with Symeon of Bana tho by hi imeralat depos pctned the dats of Bra tam with challenge the he of which they had aver encounter the uneasy equiibaum tht folowed, uni the vitor armies John Tames tearing asunder wt remaine of the Fst Balin pie. cased Byantons nose rote back tothe Danube the rie ofthe Second Bugsin Exp nthe te tel sets {he sage of he ding Ems ape the peal esp of Se0 BYZANTIUM AND THESLAVS phen Dusan of Sein, which in so many ways recalls Byzantan’s ont ith Symeon of Bart four centuries ear such were in the Danubian and Balkan sectors. the main phases ofthe Empires ‘Splomati id mary resistance aginst is nother neighbors. res cite es eo Seiten deters political and cultural hegemony by ereating beyond the frontiers a aos eas Scie eat eeamie ena ean Sg Tartine tas Reso ee errata Loca reece ee Semen Ee gosnrisame neat Sy gate ene gy vac secre in ere ae Semaine oie ie Sie Ses eta Opa sieaats arectementte terete Soaiaeec art i ere ee stare caer iemteeconene ‘The Pines end Methods of Bani Diplomacy " were not just the product fad foe deciions: they were rooted in the view field by the East Romans of the nature and purpose of thei Enpie. The Byzantines beeved that their Empice was in pencil. nextensive withthe ciled univers, the OLoumene of which their [Emperor was the sole legimate sovereign This ofcourse, sa char- Acterisically Roman ea forthe Romans ba sleadysufered from "he epocetieilusion that their Empie embraced the cviaed worl, 1tyas only natural thatthe Rhona of Constantine’ ety nhered this uncompromising bebe inthe ane Universal Empire Thus Apa: ‘tis, wring inthe reign of Justinian, could state tat the Emperor's ‘minions embrace the whale wor and four ents ater Con stuntne Porphyrogeat, the andar authority on Byantine pol «al theory, compared the Emperor's power. i is thythm and order, to the harmonious movement given tothe Universe by its Creator And this doctrine ofthe one Univeral Empire, rule by the Erpeor ‘ho was the supreme leglator and the tng, Wa intansigcty Ins by the Byzantines til the lat days of the Empire Move parc lin, the Olkoumene was eld to extend overall counties whose Inhabitants profesed Orthodox Chrsianty and wire bound, in 2 sense not easly definable in terms of contol la by «common allegiance to the Emperor of Byzanim, the supreme head of the whole Cristian world and God’ epresentative om earth. By the mi dle ofthe tenth century. as we se fom The Book of Ceremin,the Byzantine dplomatie protocol had evolved with some precsion thie ‘notion ofan Oscumenial society, an ordered hirrchy of subord rate sates, satelite reveling in obedient harmony round the throne ofthe universal Autocrat in Constantinople I this vst Common wealth each nation was theoretically asspned ts particu place cording othe excellence of itso, the deg of poll inde pendence enoved by is ruler, tbe military resures he commanded, andthe services he and his subjess could render to the Empire, This Byzantine Oitounone, which Profesor Oxrogosky and. Profesor Dilger have described so vividly. and which was evoked with great loguence by the Russian Scholar Lamansky in 1875. included the Onhodox Slav counties — Serbia, Bulgaria and Rissa and. vith scarey an exception, the medieval rulers of thise counts never ‘questioned ths vision ofthe one univeraal Christian Empire, destined to foreshadow on arth the Heavenly Kingdom, unt the last days and the coming of Anthrit When inthe early tonth entry Symeon of Bulgaria led his arms aginst Contantinple tdbe BYZANTIUM AND THESLAVS efany assured the ie of Emperor, he knew fll wel hat to eta Isha Bulgarian fuoici af his own was ou ofthe question: is aim teas not al to supplant Byaetiun, but to set himel ip a & Roman Emperor in Constantinople. And the Byzantine Patfareh Nicholas Mistets, who exerted ll hs diplomatic sili an ate to persuade Syreon fo abandon this venture, saw this very cla Symeon’s claim to world domination be castigated as Tivann, an until revolt against the sovereign Emperor. Ang ci remarkable that the Patriarch, who was prepared 0 goto almost ary length 10 appease the Bulgarian rule refused to concede the one esentl pont aginst Syco's imperialistic aime he solemnly erate the fundamenal tenet of Byzantine politcal philosophy: the Empire, he verte to Syncon, “stands above all earthly authority and alone on this earth was eased by the King of al” I remarkable tat coven Byzantioms biteres enemies in stern Europe imply cepted this notion of the Oskoumoe,cenired in Constantinople ‘ri just a evident inthe ple of Stephon Dusan and in the tie be assed of fuming ast lzoupévap Spins wt "Pajtos, itis in Symeors designs. And theres of medieval Rusia Who, no ‘es than those of Serbian Bulgar, lousy guarded thir poicl Sovereignty and independence, ikewise recognized thatthe Emperor in Constantinople pesesed supremacy and a measure of jursdsion ‘over al Christian hations,inctaing their own Ws tue tha in he losing years ofthe ourceh entry the Patearch of Consantino- ple stonaly rebuked the Grand Duke of Moscow for causing the Emperors mime to be omited fom the diptyehs of the Russian (Chute and reminded in of his ogations towards the cccumeicl Emperor: "My son." he wrote Bas T of Moscow, "you are won ‘naying we have Church, but nolan Emperor” I ot possibe {or Christians to have a Church and no obave an Empire” And he Patriarch makes ie gute clear tat the sovereignty of the Byzantine Emperor extends over Rusia: “The Emperor. appointed als and auokvarorof the Romans — to wit ofall Chistans" But his revol af the Rusian sovereign agains the asc principle of the ‘Oskounene was. a seem, exceptional; and hiss and sucesce gs Mn the very le years ofthe Epic's story. ote Uo the Emperor Constantine XI in thes terme: "You hive vested your est imperial spire. ia order to eas all Onodox Chitin fn your realm and to render great assistance {0 our dominions of Rusia and to al ou relion”™ The Principles and Methods of Bzanine Diplomacy 8 Bur the wniversalty of the Erie was infact, of course & very relive thing: for beyond the confines of the Empire. beyond ren ‘hose Chesian counties which could sil be regarded ae part of he Byzantine Odoumene, tere del in ose darkness the pagan EB, leser breeds without the law The Byzantines called them barbarians ‘ow fiippapas of course. is a Grek word. and for the ancien! Greeks the barbarians were people ousge the Helenie world whose vay of Living. thinking and Behaving Was ut-Greck. And the Beare nes borrowed thi oneept of artarias” from the ancient Gresks, bat with the new cofual emphass had aeuited inthe Hellenistic age Inthe remarkable mixture of races that made up the Byzantine Enpire there was no place for any ethnic dstincion between the Rhomaios and the barbarian, The Byzantines, it ste, would sill call the non-Greck languages “harbsin-" bot the are distinctive ‘atk ofthe Rhomaios was his membership ofthe Orthodox Church Adis allegiance to the Emperor, the vceerent of God. The babar Sn in prinpe, was now the pugtn, obtde the Emperors det Juraicion, Once you acepted Orthodox Christianity you generally ease, whatever your race and the language You spoke, to be a bar Dara’ Writing of Kova er of Old Gret Bulgin the seventh century, the contemporary chronicler John of Nis sates: “After be had been bpd with fe-iing bap be overeame al the barb jane and heathens through vite of hol baptism The eure of this Bulgar Chistian ruler may have ben somewhat erage: Bu it lear that in Byzantine ees, he war no longer barbarian. Simic, in the late twelith century the Christan Rusians (6 piste ‘ovov of “Pi ivogalliss of Byzantium, ar contrasted wth the “barbarian” apd pagan Cuma.” “The Roman idea ofthe One Universal Empire and the Gree, o¢ rather Helens, concept of arbarians” were infsed by the Byzan- tines with» metaphseiterprettion, borrowed rom the tion of Judaism and Christianity. The Byzantines belived thatthe political ‘organiaton ofthis world is par of Gods universal pla and it ‘mately bound up with te history of mans salvation. As the Univers rznism of the Roman pice had provident paved the 29 0 the vitorious advance ofthe Cristian faith, 0 were the Roma Aecated to the service of Chri by the Emperor Constantin, cap Inhee the Fst Rome ha sown, and to being the Gospel all he Peoples ofthe earth. So the Pox Romana was equated woh the Put Cristiana, and the interests of the Empire coincided with theadvancement ofthe Chistian faith ritionary wat the agent of East Roman imprali. But is per hape no always eliza how seriously mos peor ook their dt converting the barbarians. To tet the elftvenest of Byzantine foreign pole in any given period, the work ofthe Chistian misions i aay aways a sure xterion, And there can be ite doute that the greats ero in the story of Bycantinemisions bens i hemi Ae ofthe sith entry wen the Empire foreign pc, lng onthe dense, and recently crippled by the locas ers regained the iniatve in ll tee sectors ofthe northern front. This expansion of Breanne clr inthe north led tothe emergence, bythe being the eleventh century, of anew community of European nation with a nascent Chvstan euture and a common allegance tothe othe okra bu ely and potential they wee il his uber thee land remained ouside the Odoure as the rst of God's permissive wil, ofthe divine ostonomia, and some day they ‘ould bow down bere ther etme sovereign To induce them 10 do vo was the unvaryng aim of Byantine diplomacy ad in several periods of the Empire's story. when the autor” ang prestie Byzantium were onthe ascndsit, mus have seemed tothe sats mien of East Rome that thi uniter mision as on the way’ t0 brine filed: such epochs of ret cilomatie achievement were the reigns of Justinian and Heras, the pvid that extends from the cesion of Micha Tin B42 tothe death of Basi ID in 1028, and6 [BYZANTIUM AND THE SLANS. ‘onowdot The term is applied in the fith century 10 the Thracian Goss in the sist etary to the Taani* Ina cr iyobullon sued stort after the conquest of the Empire of Samuel in 1018, Bas sted thatthe county was now his ¢2sorovSo.* nthe wlth ene tury the same word applied to the Rusian prin: of Gals and tothe King of Hungary.” ‘Siyqayon Calis) denoted the Hel inte soth century the Russians inthe ceverth® and the Hungarians in thee inthe same century’ Manuel Conmens ssid to have olleed a ony tothe pine of Kies and in the erly yeas ofthe thitenth century Kaloyan of Bulgaria described as yuan of Axis IL. ‘The tem xenon: obedient” ct Toxo? —"o Be sjec”) vas somewhat les common; i is appl 1o the Tani inthe sath cory and to the Serbs the nelth " The wo other terms, v= oot Caubject) and. mpotevr (public fends), ae used by the Pauaych Photius in his encela ter of 867 to defn the relation ship ofthe newly-converted Russians to the Emp” The choke of te last two terms, Both of which go back to esi anti heleve signa: Unxot war a word apple to the subj ais of Athens. wile one ofthe meanings of apéBevos was a iiaen Who had ‘eon nominated bya ora sate tobe end Te semi (o me tat these sx technical terme have, in tei given contexts, much the shme Significance. The fst thee were ear ap- pled tothe Toedera and “sok popu Roman.” autonomous sib- jects ofthe Roman Empire who, by virtue ofa eat (fos) eo ‘ded with Rome. guarded her foatir in exchange fora regu Sasi. imperial protection and the righ of slegoverament. The Foadra™ are expiily sented with the indomovSou in afl century sour" and ses that inthe sixth century the “osdeat™ fame tobe called ctaigyou W would pera be unin vew of the linguist rationalise ofthe Byzatines, to attach too much i= rience tothe ecutence of these technical enn. Vet such ae the continuity of Romano Byrantne nations that it seems by m0 teats impossible thatthe Bytes tl thought of theisatlis in terms of Roman administration; and thatthe postion within the ‘Oitkounene of these stelle, theoretically subst tothe Emperor Independent in pratce. may to some extent be understood inthe light of the Roman conception of “foderto” which expres the status ofthe Empires subjects. In ths manner Byzantium could ‘afegusd i universal cms thou being oie to pes hen ton ‘The Pinciplesand Methods of Bzamine Diplomacy ” far, while the “prbarians sining a new prestige from thir eal _ssocation withthe Empire, could preserve th polical autonomy. "The asoction ofthe cbararians” wil the Empire was ‘ertber ‘expressed by the testo upon te rues of ties taken fom the Irarehy of the Byzapine cour The purpose of such ties was tree foto Mater he vanity of the Imperial stelle; o bind ther 1 the Enmpite bya eationship of dependence: and to sign the partial rank ccouped by the ruler and his people within the Ooumone. The ‘Shiner of this Herachrtidaur has often been dscused by Byeantnss it need only be pointed out here thatthe highest of all ties inte hierarchy dependent onthe supreme authority ofthe Bost Juss eo wizoxpdcop rv Pansow — that of dimple Pre — was ranted several ies by Byzantium to foreign res: 0 Charlemagne Jn SIZ; to Peer of Bulgaria in 927: grobaby, as Profesor Ost tosky has demonstrated, to Symmeon of Bulgarian 913: and possibly, 8 Thaveargied elseere to Vladinic of Rus around 989. “Tse concessions of Imperial diplomacy, sometimes acommpanied by bestowals of Byzantine bsdes and Byzantine insgea (cluding crowns, wee sinforsed bythe work of East Roman misionaic, For the ost powerful instrument of Byzantine uriversalmy was (he Orthodox Chrisian faith which united the barharian proses the Rhomaici by membership ofthe same Church and by drt all ance tothe Empeor, head of the Chsian ikownene. When the King of the Caveman Lavi sought the protection of ain 1 be is suid to have addresed the Emperor in tes terms "We wish thee (0 make ws Civitas Eke thysell and we shall then be subjes of the Roman Empize”™ The dependence ofthe new Christian satelites on Byzantium was often expressed in sprital terms the barbara rcs Inte becoming the Emperor’ "pst sn.” And ths dependens was further stengtiened bythe work ofthe Byzaatne missionary ler, ‘who by se wn teaching and trough the collection of Byzantine anon I hich they brought othe new converts abroad, spread the notion ofthe univesalsoereignty ofthe bass Byzantine ecsiatical diplomacy, in certain periods at lest shod, 0 x then its seul counterpart genius for combining & ‘rogram of Imperial heprmony’ with» policy of conceasons tothe ational apzaions of Byzantm's salts, Acris instance of this policy af conesons provided bythe evidence of an agreement, concluded between the autortes of Byzantium and Russa. acord- ing to which the primate of the Rustan Church were tobe uppoitedees coum sain Romney ie say crates Seer aces {eign the inte ceventh and telth cari, the ees of Qt {Me Sine abt someting o that cosmolian unites Seven afiat sear te Sa at oe mana carey es et = Eat amracnnmen ee! esse tear oer ek trsintantan wae Bette ceca cee dint taupe oe iecaiaatatanadins we waite atc cece Cie Seine eames Rope ton are di ecpeeamep a eae cc Sched tas crac tonenaens ‘walls But in Constantinople itself, the envoys woukd generally be sou baer etc ee Eien arc Chatman coigeetescbeatett neta Serine armor mats ue ore tawees cate The Pimps ond Method of zane Diplomacy » Asset as their City, protected by God, with alts glory ts pals ‘nd churches could provide far tore efeive means of propaganda ‘The Byzantine poe Paul the Siar describes a scene he sw i the avium of St. Sophia: a group of Arcane were Being shown round ~ and soiree the were with the beauty and majesty of Roms, ‘symbolized by Justinian’ Church, that cey submited oftheir own fre wil othe Church and the Emperor of Byzantium And four ‘entries liter thee comes from a Sav source the exe counterpart to this suggestive sone when th envoys of the Russian prince Vi imi. seat abroad totes the ifeent regions ofthe earth returned home, they are sid to have made tis report to hse pagan sovereign: “We came 10 the Greeks fie. into St Sophia] and. we knew not whether we were heen or on earth for on ert thee i no soch Teauy of splendour. we know only that i that pace God dvels among men. and thee service is more Beat than that of other rations: Tor we cannot foyet that beauty." To atempt an overall etinte ofthe achiovements and alues of Byzantine diplomacy on te bast ofthe fragmentary pct sketched in this paper would, no doubt, be hizardous. Buta few tentative suggenions may be advanced in consusion Inthe fist plc, would ‘be wrong to ideale this diplomacy. Not all the note barbarians appreciated that ingenious and elaborate mythology by which the [Byantne justified the chime oftheir Emperor to execs wives jvsdction” When Bayan. Khagan of te Avars, demanded of Jusin Tithe surreder of Simi, he eyialy mocked the Emperor's rights of adoption: ithe Emperor sh ater he asserted, thi pant him what was duc 10.2 son#® Moreover, the art of instigating one Trarian ibe spain ancter, ia which Byzantine diplonaie cela, and the treachery ith which the Empire sometimes ated tonard is erstwhile ales, wer not lays calculated o enhance is [este among the vis of this diplomatic ame of ches. When Valeria, envoy fom Justin I to the Turks of Central Asia, pre- sented his credentials to the Khsgan, he was met by an explosion of ‘ae puting his hands os mouth, the Turkish sovereign exclaim “are you not those Romans who have en tongues, and one deci AAs my te fingers are now io my mouth, so You use many tongues ‘vith one you deveive me, wth another the Ave, my slvee, You fate and deceive ll peoples with the artfulnes of your words and the tracery of your thoughts, iadiferent 1 those who fall headlong» PYZANTIUM AND THESLAWS Jato misfortune, from which you yousehes derive beet.” “Ie strange and unnatral” he aed in stinging rebukes, “fr a Turk to Te Op occasion the tadonalsm of Byzantine foreign pay could lapse ino archaic romantisen, Fest Stein has pointed ott that Justinian’ fue to protet adequately the Danube frontier can be pty expaind by his obsession wih clssialreminicenos hs wats bith Pena, with the memories of Marathon and Salamis and Hs econguestof Roman lands offered more appeal than a boeder wa fare on the Danube against miserable burke and forth fl ‘re, Joss sucesors paid day ‘As we look closer into the history of Byzantine diplomacy we may ete ins methods a curious duality mixer of conservatism ad lastty, of overbearing pride and extreme open-earednes of segrsie imperialism and political generosity. This daly & partic Javyapparect in the artnoge of Byzantium to the Slaw ngage! ia the nih and tent centuries the Empire axel encouraged Sit vonie prosltes to Build up thee own cura ile on vernacular foundations: n the folowing centres a policy of helenzation and elural oppression was at times ited. Is pethaps dificult decide which was tbe normal, and which th aberrant tendency pos Sib both were always in exteoe, But # i worth reminding ou ‘eles that a poiy of clr eras ang selintrested enero asthe halbmark ofthe Emperors ofthe Macsdanian hows ard of these Bos Cand Bas I wee perhaps th greatest “Thee an be no doubt that, onan overall view, Byzantine dipto- macy was remarkably suecesful By saving the Empie many times ftom invasion and destruction, by atticting so many ofthe pagan om inc the orbit of Graeco-Roman cliation, by gining for Che tendom and for Europe so many lands ofthe Balkans and othe north fof the Black Sea, his diplomacy was a fete of major mpostance in European hisory. As sich, tea sobet not unworthy offre stud. [Nor hai inuens on or etal Inheritance been nelle: forthe ‘ations of Eater Europe received much of tet eduction in frign poly fom the statesmen of Byzantvm: the East European sovereigns {tthe Middle Ages art much rom ther master; whe some est {ofthe trations of Byzantine diplomacy wee asi on othe West through the itermediary of Venice. Ad inthe wari tds foreign poly that could combine in so oustanding depres an wncomproms- Ing bebe inthe rth ofits own values with an ality to nepoiate wth opponents, may have ie reevance as wal Pooronsemcaarens “See SST man ih ny 2. Hf a Bo gee al a ct Sei oh a aca tion ry ie Se ‘ncaa op ai Rg Rie ten a Tw nw Ta Seen te someninranom Seite Se aE eee ceeeencnar SRE cause SA ag NE en Samm 22 BYZANTIUM AND THE LAYS Seda SESS i te Sn Sho Bn oe,