асоциация на византинистите и медиевистите в българия

институт за исторически изследвания при бан

ЦАР ИВАН АСЕН II

(1218–1241)
Сборник по случай
800-годишнината
от неговото възшествие
на българския престол

Съставителство и редакция
Васил Гюзелев, Илия Г. Илиев, Кирил Ненов

фонд ация ∙ българско историческо наследство ∙

Пловдив ∙ 2019
 JOHN II ASEN (1218–1241), THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING ROMAN,
AND THE BATTLE FOR DOMINANCE OVER SOUTHEAST EUROPE

vlada stanković/belgrade

George Akropolites wrote a peculiar History. Permeated with the author’s strong
ideological views of Byzantine superiority, and the portrayal of his hero Michael VIII
Palaiologos in the best possible light, Akropolites’ History also aimed at presenting
events in the thirteenth century Balkans from a distinctively Byzantine perspective.
Regardless of the actual region or the protagonists and their described actions, it is
the Byzantines that were always at the very center of his narration. On top of often
diachronically connecting events and focusing on thematic rather than on chrono-
logical or terminological accuracy, George Akropolites had a penchant for expressing
the judgments of his characters in a distinctive way: by describing their deaths that
mirrored the ways in which they led their lives.
According to this peculiar criterion, John II Asen ranks among the most posi-
tive personalities in George Akropolites’ History. Although it may seem odd to start
from the death of John II Asen in 1241, the Akropolites’ judgement of the Bulgar-
ian emperor’s character and achievements reveals historic significance of John II
Asen’s almost quarter-of-a-century long reign for the future of Byzantine relations
with Bulgaria and the entire Balkans, and for the position of the Orthodox church in
this region until the end of the Middle Ages. By announcing the Bulgarian emperor’s
death in his historical work in a manner he did, Akropolites offered – as always when
describing someone’s end of life – a brief but essential characterization of John II
Asen’s entire life and provided a judgment of his long reign.1 “A short time later”,
writes Akropolites, “the ruler of the Bulgarians, Asan, also departed this life, a man
who proved to be excellent among barbarians not only with regard to his own peo-
ple but also even with respect to foreigners”, emphasizing especially his kindness and
generosity toward the Romans. Akropolites placed John II Asen squarely among the
most positive heroes of his History, and maybe even more significantly, among purely
Byzantine positive heroes of his narrative.

1
Georgius Akropolites, Opera, volumen I, ed. A. Heisenberg with corrections by P. Wirth, Stut-
tgart 1978, 64: Μετὰ βραχὺ δὲ καὶ ὁ Βουλγάρων ἄρχων Ἀσὰν ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἐγένετο, ἀνὴρ ἐν βαρβάροις
ἄριστος ἀναφανείς, οὐκ ἐν τοῖς οἰκείοις γὰρ μόνον ἀλλά γε δὴ καὶ τοῖς ἀλλοτρίοις. ἐχρήσατο καὶ γὰρ
φιλανθρωπότερον τοῖς προσερχομένοις αὐτῷ ἐπήλυσι καὶ μάλιστα τοῖς Ῥωμαίοις, καὶ φιλοτίμως αὐτοῖς
παρεῖχε τὰ σιτηρέσια. English translation by Ruth Macrides, George Akropolites: The History,
Oxford 2007, 211. Ruth Macrides correctly pointed out in her commentary on Akropolites that
the Byzantine author used deathbed scenes as a specific narrative and thematic units within which
he expressed his judgment about the person in question, but stressed that that kind of procedure
was reserved for Byzantine deaths (Akropolites was in a way copying from his role-model in this
regard, Nikephoros Blemydes), overlooking the important case of John II Asen, and the place of
the Bulgarian emperor’s deathbed scene in Akropolites’ composition, coming immediately after the
description of the death of John Batatzes’ wife, Empress Eirene (62).
50 Vlada Stanković

The “Byzantine” character of the entire episode and the high praise of the Bul-
garian ruler were usually reserved for the Romans – hence the Akropolites’ caveat
that John Asen was the best and the most virtuous man, but still a barbarian, not
quite a Roman. And, Akropolites added, the Bulgarian emperor deserved such a
high praise only after becoming a friend and an ally of the Byzantines in Nicaea, fol-
lowing a warning sign from God: while he was laying siege to Tsurulon, terrible news
reached John II Asen that his wife and son, as well as the bishop of Tarnovo died, and
those news prompted his turn toward the friendship with the Byzantines.2 Those ca-
veats notwithstanding, the importance of John II Asen for the Romans was clear to
George Akropolites, even if the full significance of the Bulgarian emperor’s deeds
that signaled his turn toward the Romans might have escaped him and his contem-
poraries.

The fight for the Romanness has reached its pinnacle in the decades following the ca-
tastrophe of 1204 and the destruction of the Empire by the Crusaders of the Fourth
Crusade. In a new world without New Rome, the Romans–Byzantines struggled to
preserve the exclusivity of the Romanness for themselves, which formed the main
ideological tenet and a political bedrock of their entire concept of the world order.
Moreover, for the first time the challenge to the exclusivity of the Romannes came
from within the Byzantine world, with Theodore Angelos’ coronation in Thessalo-
niki in 1227 by the hand of the Archbishop of Ohrid and the entire Bulgaria, Deme-
trios Chomatenos, despite the claims of the Nicaeans to be the only heirs to the Byz-
antine Romanness destroyed in 1204.3 For this was not the first time that the Byzan-
tine exclusive ‘rights’ to the Romanness were challenged by someone from their own
cultural and political sphere: Simeon’s strongest threat for the Byzantines in the early
tenth century laid exactly in his claim to the title of the emperor of the Romans.4
With Simeon’s challenge long since erased from Byzantine political memory in the
wake of his son Peter’s acquiescence to the demands from Constantinople to limit

2
Akropolites, 56: Πολιορκουμένου γοῦν τοῦ ἄστεος Τζουρουλοῦ αἴφνης ἐπῄει μήνυμα τῷ Ἀσάν, ὡς ἡ
σύζυγος αὐτοῦ ἡ ἐξ Οὔγγρων ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἐγένετο· τετελεύτηκε δὲ κατὰ ταὐτὸ καὶ παιδίον αὐτου καὶ ὁ
Τρινόβου ἐπίσκοπος, θεομηνίαν νοῦν ἡγησάμενος… Akropolites uses “the sign of God”, θεομηνία, with
a distinctively negative connotations to describe the ‘deserved’ deaths of Byzantine enemies. This is
especially obvious in his note on Kaloyan’s death in 1207 (Akropolites, 23–24): … θνήσκει πλευρίτιδι
νόσῳ κατασχεθείς ὡς δέ τινες ἔλεγον ὅτι ἐκ θεομηνίας αὐτῷ ὁ θάνατος γέγονεν.
3
Demetrii Chomateni Ponemata Diaphora, ed. G. Prinzing, Berlin–New York 2002, nos. 112 and
114, 368–378. For a general picture of the rivalry between Nicaea and Epirus, see, A. Karpozi-
los, The Ecclesiastical Controversy between Kingdom of Nicaea and the Principality of Epiros, 1217–
1233, Thessaloniki, 1973; A. Stavridou-Zafraka, Νίκαια και Ήπειρος τον 13ο αιώνα. Ιδεολογική
αντιπαράθεση στην προσπάθειά τους να ανακτήσουν την αυτοκρατορία, Thessaloniki 1990.
4
Emperor Romanos Lakapenos stresses Simeon’s aspirations to the Romanness as his most serious
transgression of divine will and earthly laws, Théodore Daphnopatès Correspondance, ed. J. Dar-
rouzès–L. G. Westerink, Paris 1978, Lettre 5 (especially 59–61) and Lettre 6 (especially 73–
75).
 John II Asen (1218–1241), the importance of being Roman 51

his imperial title to emperor of the Bulgarians,5 Theodore Angelos’ appropriation of

the Romanness bore significant consequences for diffusion of this political nation in
the Balkans in the last centuries of the Middle Ages.6 His, and his ideological and po-
litical ally, archbishop Chomatenos’ reasoning that the Byzantines in Nicaea cannot
be considered as complete Romans and hence the exclusive bearers of the Romanness
since they did not rule over New Rome, brought to the fore of the political discourse
the distinctive electoral quality of the Roman imperial dignity.7 The fights among the
Byzantines and the polities of Nicaea and Epirus notwithstanding, Theodore Ange-
los’ coronation as the emperor of the Romans pointed to the political and ideological
importance of being Roman for all the aspirants to the imperial dignity. And the rul-
ers in the Balkans, particularly John II Asen, took notice of that fact.
The short period of less than two and a half years from his coronation as the em-
peror of the Romans in November 1227 to his defeat at the hands of John II Asen
at Klokotnitza on 9 March 1230 belies the significance of Theodore Angelos for dif-
fusion of the idea of Romanness and the Roman-Byzantine identity in the Balkans.
A patron of Serbian First-crowned king Stefan, and the father-in-law of his son and,
from around 1227, successor Radoslav, Theodore Angelos spread in this way the Ro-
man dominance beyond the widening boundaries of his polity. Misjudging his own
and John II Asen’s military strength, Theodore Angelos fell as a victim of his own
ideological beliefs, but the consequences of his defeat were quite unexpected. John II
Asen had strong political rationale to treat Theodore Angelos and his soldiers merci-
fully that went beyond the show of humanity, as Akropolites clearly states: John II

5
V. Stanković, A Ninth Century Turnaround in Southeast Europe: Christianization of Bulgaria
and Constantinople’s Embracing of the Slavs, in I. Biliarsky (ed.), Laudator temporis acti. Studia
in memoriam Ioannis A. Božilov, vol. I, Religio-Historia, Sofia 2018, 257–263.
6
I understand and define the phrase ‘political nation’ in the context of medieval southeast Europe
as a combination of the overarching ethnic name and the political traditions of the polity associ-
ated with that ethnic name. Unlike the ‘political nation’ of the early modern Britain, which refers
to those people who had economic, political and social influence, with the monarch as the head
of that ‘political nation’, the political traditions of a particular polity formed the base of a political
nation in the Balkans in the Middle Ages. It implies that a particular political nation could com-
prise different ethnic groups whose ethnic identity was not diminished by their acceptance of the
“outer”, political ethnicity – be it Roman, Bulgarian or Serbian. The Roman political nation is by
far the most important one, but first the Bulgarian and, toward the end of the Middle Ages, the
Serbian political nations gained significance as the ideological basis of their polities broadened to
encompass not only the different political traditions of their ethne but also that of the Empire of
the Romans. The role of John II Asen in this process was crucial, since he was the first ruler whose
Roman element of the imperial title was practically if tacitly recognized by the Romans–Byzantines
themselves. For the question of ethnicity of the Romans–Byzantines, see, A. Kaldellis, Hellenism
in Byzantium, Cambridge 2008; Y. Stouraitis, ‘Reinventing Roman Ethnicity in High and Late
Medieval Byzantium,’ Medieval worlds. Comparative & interdisciplinary studies, Volume 2017.5,
Comparative Studies on Medieval Europe, 70–94, and A. Kaldellis, ‘The Social Scope of Roman
Identity in Byzantium: An Evidence-Based Approach’, Byzantina Symmeikta 27 (2017), 173–210.
7
H.-G. Beck, Byzantinische Jahrtausend, Munich 21994, chapter II (Staat und Verfassung), espe-
cially 60–70 (Die Kaiserwahl).
52 Vlada Stanković

Asen wanted to become the overlord of the Romans and succeeded in taking the Ro-
man authority in his hands.8
After defeating the emperor of the Romans, becoming the lord of the vast Roman
territories and the patron of the Athonite monasteries, John II Asen took a historical
decision that annulled the anti-Roman, pro-papal policies of emperor Kaloyan that
dominated the post-1204 Bulgaria: he became the emperor of the Bulgarians and
the Romans.9 It was the step that symbolized John II Asen’s strong turn toward the
Byzantine world, but its importance went far beyond bilateral relations between Bul-
garia and the Romans – it signified the repositioning of political nations and polities
in the region with the accentuated importance of the Romanness for obtaining the
prevalence within it. Gone was the old world order in which the imperial dignity
was a God-given prerogative of the Romans, as stated in the clearest manner in the
Hilandar founding chysobull by monk Simeon, former Serbian great zhupan Stefan
Nemanja: “In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth and the people on it
and gave them power over all His things, and installed some as emperors, others as
knez, others again as bishops to keep their flock and protect it from all the evil. Then,
brothers, God Full of Grace established the Greeks [Romans] as emperors and the
Hungarians as kings (…), and installed me as great zhupan named at the holy baptism
Stefan Nemanja”.10
But to obtain the respectful, if not dominant status among the real Romans, John
II Asen needed his own church organization of the appropriate rank: an Orthodox
Patriarchate, the blessing for which he received from the Roman emperor in Nicaea

8
Akropolites, 42–43. И. Божилов, Фамилията на Асеневци (1186–1460). Генеалогия и просо-
пография, Sofia 1985, 43–68. И. Божилов, В. Гюзелев, История на средновековна България
VII–XIV век, том I, Sofia 1999, 443–464.
9
G. A. Ilyinskiy, Gramoti bolgarskih carey, with an introduction by Ivan Dujčev, London 1970, no.
1, 13: Asen, emperor of the Bulgarians and Romans [Asen, car Bolgarom i Grkom]. For the equation
of Slavic ‘Greek’ with ‘Roman’ see the following text. J.C. Moore, Pope Innocent III (1260/61–
1216). To Root Up and to Plant, Leiden–Boston, 2003, 113–114; 123–129, for policies of Innocent
III toward Bulgaria and Kaloyan.
10
Зборник средњовековних ћириличких повеља и писама Србије, Босне и Дубровника, књига I,
1186–1321, приредили В. Мошин, С. Ћирковић, Д. Синдик, редиговао Д. Синдик, Бе-
оград 2011, no. 9, 68–69 (my translation). That Slavic ‘Greek’ is an absolute equivalent for ‘Roman’
is clear from the above example as well as from the consistent use of “Greek” emperor for Stefan
Nemanja’s in-law, the emperor Alexios III Angelos in this charter composed between June 1198 and
13 February 1199, the Life of St Simeon written by St. Sava around 1208 (The Life of Saint Simeon
Nemanja, in V. Ćorović (ed.), Spisi sv Save, Beograd–Sremski Karlovci 1928), the Boril’s Synodi-
con (И. Божилов, A. Totomaнова, И. Билярски, Борилов синодик. Издание и превод, Sofia
2010, 159, section 31b) and from many other examples. The fact that ‘Greek’ in Slavic intitulations
equals “Roman” in titles in Greek should be taken into account when assessing the vastness of po-
litical significance of John II Asen’s adding of the ‘Greeks’–the Romans to his title. The same applies
to the analysis and understanding of the similar actions of other Balkan rulers, for example, John
Alexander in Bulgaria or his brother-in-law in Serbia, Stefan Dušan, who for a brief time bore the
title of the king of the Serbs and the Greeks (in Slavic), before his imperial proclamation (before
Christmas 1345) and coronation (16 April 1346) as the emperor of the Serbs and the Greeks.
 John II Asen (1218–1241), the importance of being Roman 53

John Batatzes and Patriarch Germanos II.11 The formal recognition of the Bulgarian
Patriarchate by the Byzantines represented a second step in establishing close rela-
tions and alliance with them after marriage alliance between John II Asen’s daugh-
ter Helen and John Batatzes’ son and future emperor, Theodore II Laskaris, which
was followed shortly thereafter in 1237, with a final step in this direction undertaken
when the emperor John II Asen himself married Eirene, the youngest daughter of
Theodore Angelos. The fact that emperor John Batatzes not only accepted but prac-
tically supported and sanctioned John II Asen’s appropriation of Romanness with
the recognition of the Patriarchate of Bulgaria is of utmost significance for the rela-
tions between the Empire of the Romans – the Byzantine Empire – and the Balkan
polities that from that moment on participated in the Roman political heritage of
Byzantine Orthodox world.

John Asen’s return to the Byzantine world was of utmost importance not only for the
course of the historical events in the medieval Balkans but also for the character of
the entire region even beyond the Middle Ages. The Roman became an integral part
of not only Roman, but also Bulgarian – and following Bulgarian example – Serbian
political identity from the mid-fourteenth century onwards. Moreover, Byzantine
Orthodoxy was never again challenged as the bedrock of all the political and ethnic
nations in Balkans until the end of the Middle Ages and the Ottomans’ conquest
of the region. Equally significant, John II Asen had secured his dominance within
the network of Orthodox polities of the Balkans by establishing his rule over the
vast areas of the Empire’s former European territories, and becoming, in the place of
Theodore Angelos, the patron of Serbian kingdom, where his son-in-law Vladislav
ruled from 1234 as king, replacing older brother and Theodore Angelos’ son-in-law,
Radoslav.
With John Asen’s policies, a clear new political model was established in the Bal-
kans that included:
– a complete and absolute return, and adherence to Orthodoxy and abandon-
ment of the union with Rome;
– a close personal connection with Byzantine emperor through marriage alli-
ances;
– and consequently, an acceptance that there existed a “purely” Roman emperor
whose authority over New Rome will not be challenged while at the same time ap-
propriating the Romanness as a part political identity and participating in the Ro-
man political traditions.

11
V. Laurent (ed.), Les regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople, vol. I Les actes des patriarch-
es, fasc. IV Les regestes de 1208 a 1309, Paris 1971, no. 1278 from the end of 1234 (Germanos II’s
letter to the Eastern patriarchs asking them to support the emperor’s decision to recognize the Patri-
archate of Bulgaria); no. 1282 (recognition of the Patriarchate of Bulgaria). Божилов, Totoma-
нова, Билярски, Борилов синодик, 157–161, sections 30b–32b emphasizes the importance of
the Byzantine sanctioned patriarchate for the political standings of the Bulgarian empire.
54 Vlada Stanković

With his policies, John II Asen changed radically the political trends in the Bal-
kans and established the political path which all the rulers in the region followed
until the establishment of Ottoman rule in the fifteenth century. The Romanness
became an a priori political nation, an inescapable element of the imperial titles of
all rulers in Southeast Europe – regardless if they were “real” Roman, i.e. Byzantine,
Latin Romans, Bulgarian or Serbian.