Hristov, Byzantine Civilians in Bulgarian Captivity

WRITTEN NOT WITH INK BUT WITH TEARS
BYZANTINE CIVILIANS IN BULGARIAN CAPTIVITY

ACCORDING TO THE LETTERS OF PATRIARCH
NICHOLAS I MYSTIKOS (901–907, 912–925)
Yanko Hristov
Introduction
In the dynamic situation of the Byzantino-Bulgarian conflict that

lasted from 913 to 927, alongside the crucial notices of military suc-
cesses and failures, of no less importance is the information pre-
served about the intense diplomatic activity of the era, which reveals
the true dimensions of the rivalry between the two biggest powers in
Southeastern Europe. In this regard, the letters of Patriarch Nicholas
I Mystikos deserve increased attention from scholars for the light
they shed on dealings between the Empire and Bulgaria during this
period. A year into his second tenure as Patriarch of Constantinople
in 912, due to the rapid, successive deaths of Emperor Leo VI “the
Wise” (r. 886–912; d. May 11, 912) and his brother, Alexander (r. 912–
913; d. June 6, 913), and due to the youth of the heir to the throne
Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos (r. 913/945–959; d. November 9,
959), born in May 905, Nicholas I Mystikos proved to be a key mem-
ber of the Regency for the child emperor.1 It was from his position as
a leading regent that he wrote to the Bulgarian ruler, Tsar Symeon
I “the Great” (r. 893–927; d. May 27, 927), in order to prevent his
campaign against Byzantium.2
As is well known, the correspondence between Patriarch Nicholas
I Mystikos and Tsar Symeon the Great began before the tense events
of the summer of 913 and lasted until the last months of the hier-
arch’s life in 925. The exchange of letters did not cease either after
the high Byzantine cleric lost his key position in the Regency—
when Empress Zoe Carbonopsina, the mother of Constantine VII
Mediaevalia, Vol. 43, 2022 137

138 Written Not with Ink but with Tears
Porphyrogennetos, imposed her own control over the government—

or after the accession to the imperial throne of Romanos I Lekapenos
(r. 920–944; d. June 15, 948). Not only the so-called “Bulgarian let-
ters” (numbers 3–31, according to the commonly accepted arrange-
ment of the texts) but also the entire epistolary collection of this
prominent Byzantine hierarch have long been known by scholars.3
The abundant, long-lasting, and diverse research interest in the let-
ters of the Patriarch Nicholas I Mystikos is undoubted. Yet, there is
still more to be added to the scholarship, especially when it comes
to the substantial, vital topic of non-combatants’ experiences in the
early medieval Byzantino-Bulgarian wars. In view of the increasing
scholarly interest in captivity, human trafficking, and the enslave-
ment of Byzantine civilians, the information in the letters unequivo-
cally shows that for the period in question, the European provinces
of Byzantium continued to be а slaving zone during the conflicts
in the Balkans.4 According to the Patriarch’s correspondence, the
threat to the population of the Empire did not disappear even after
the Christianization of Bulgaria, which was the Empire’s main rival
for political domination over the peninsula at the time. The signifi-
cance, for our understanding of the period, of the information we
glean from the Nicholas Mystikos’ letters about captivity and enslave-
ment of non-combatants increases even more given that these pri-
mary sources undermine and challenge the concept presented in
the recently published and relatively long-awaited Cambridge World
History of Slavery volume concerning slavery in the medieval epoch.
In particular, study of the patriarch’s letters calls into question the
generalizing (and in fact incorrect) statement that reads as follows:
. . . no evidence of ransom or exchange exists dur-
ing the Byzantine wars against the Russians, Bulgars,
and Slavs from the seventh to tenth centuries. The
Byzantines simply enslaved their enemies in these
wars because the military strength of the Byzantine
armies was manifested and uncontested, making
exchange unnecessary or irrelevant.5
On the contrary, according to the letters, it was not the Balkan ene-
mies of the Empire but to a much greater extent the Byzantines (war-
riors and civilians) who were subject to captivity and enslavement
during the period in question. In addition, for Patriarch Nicholas
yanko hristov 139
I Mystikos, who bore the burden of difficult diplomatic contacts

with the triumphant Bulgarian ruler, exchange and ransom were
among the acceptable solutions for returning Imperial subjects to
Byzantium.
Genesis 4.8–10, Not the Lamentations of Jeremiah the Prophet
One must say without hesitation that the problem of captives does not
occupy a central place in most of the correspondence between the
aforementioned Byzantine hierarch and the Bulgarian tsar Symeon
I. When seeking evidence regarding captives, substantial difficulty
arises due to the terminology used in the letters. The lexemes con-
cerning captives, captivity, looting, and kidnapping in the course
of war are collective in their meaning.6 Moreover, they applied to
both the warriors who had fallen into enemy hands and the civilians
abducted during military actions. Of course, such a textual peculiar-
ity is not a unique feature of Nicholas I Mystikos’ letters. This is char-
acteristic of a large variety of Byzantine texts of the era, in which no
term directly corresponds to the modern definition of prisoners of
war and clearly distinguishes them from civilians not included in
any form of armed resistance.7
Without neglecting the texts of two of the Patriarch’s earliest
letters (numbers 3 and 4, written by mid-913 at the latest), it must
be emphasized that the actual information about the fate of the
“Rhōmaîoi” or Romans (i.e., Byzantine subjects) in Bulgarian cap-
tivity comes primarily from the later letters (numbers 5–31), dating
from the summer and autumn of 913 onward.8 The increased focus
on captives in the later letters can hardly be described as surpris-
ing, especially if we take into consideration the dramatic change in
Constantinople in February 914, when the government was taken
over by Zoe Carbonopsina. A decisive role in bringing her to power
was played by senior dignitaries and military commanders dissatis-
fied with the concessions and compromises in Bulgarian favor made
by Patriarch Nicholas I Mystikos.9 The new government rejected the
agreements reached just a few months earlier, which initiated a clash
that continued to varying degrees for more than a decade and ended
after Tsar Symeon’s death on May 27, 927.10 The danger to Byzantine
subjects of falling into captivity increased significantly after the
smashing defeat of the Imperial army near the River Achelous on

August 20, 917 (near the Black Sea port of Anchialus—present-day
Pomorie, Bulgaria) and the following, almost irresistible, military
dominance of Symeon’s armies until the summer of 927.
As a rule, the data relating to the captives in the text of the let-
ters are contained within other notices of what was happening with
Byzantine warriors and civilians who found themselves within the
reach of the Bulgarian detachments. However, not all of the informa-
tion available should be assigned to this more general group. Some
accounts stand out with quite a lot of specificity and are directly
related to clashes on the battlefield between the Imperial armies and
the troops of Tsar Symeon. In a letter (number 10), dated to the begin-
ning of 918, the hierarch noted that despite the Byzantine failures
on the battlefield, Symeon’s demands for the return of the Imperial
political course to the status quo of late 913 would have no effect:
Do not believe that our recent defeat tends to the
fulfillment of your insane purposes. Do not suppose
it; or, if you do suppose it, reject the supposition as
farcical. The army that took the field against you was
beaten, first, through the unsearchable decrees of
Him Who brings forth His judgments from secret
treasures when He so pleases; and second, so far as
human intelligence can determine, because of our
own mistakes. You are wrong and imprudent if you
jump to the conclusion that your victory justifies your
own ambition, or if you assume that the recent defeat
of the Roman army took place in order to put you in
control of the Roman Empire.11
Other parts of the correspondence quite openly recall the victims
on the Bulgarian side, regardless of whether such accounts are com-
pletely true or were the result of deliberate exaggeration. From letter
16 (written in late 920), a relatively short but sufficiently illustrative
example can be seen. The text reads, “Do not seem to be elated
because the Bulgarians, though very many of them fell by the sword,
nonetheless won the day, while the Romans met with defeat and
loss.”12
Many of the epistolary mentions of civilians are inserted into
calls for an end to the conflict and the reaching of peace. In an
yanko hristov 141
earlier letter from the winter of 918–919, addressed to a leading

Bulgarian dignitary, Patriarch Nicholas Mystikos wrote:
Consider (my Son) the evils of war, the griefs that
men are suffering from it, and, on the other hand,
the blessings of peace and the enjoyment which it
begets among men. And, making your comparison,
think how much honor and glory you will earn for
him if, God helping, instead of warfare, instead of
slaughters, instead of captivities, in a word, instead of
the great ruin of men, you can serve him in this godly
service, so that he shall be praised and glorified for
the blessings of peace, and not win the opposite repu-
tation through the evils arising from war.13
At the same time, even a cursory glance at the text of the letters allows
us to highlight an expression that appears at a relatively early stage
in the correspondence with Tsar Symeon: “Whom shall I bewail?
Those who, roused against one another, have polluted the earth,
polluted the air,” wrote the Patriarch in an extensive letter (number
9) sent to the Bulgarian ruler in the late summer of 917, adding,
“Those that bear the name of Christ have polluted the earth with
their own blood, have filled the air with stench.”14 It is significant
that the motif of the land polluted and desecrated by the mutual
extermination of fellow Christians is repeated several times in later
letters. The related passages in letters 16 and 17 (dating from early
921) stand out. In letter 16, we read:
By this, my soul is lacerated; and unable to keep
silent, I send you this letter. Reflect (my Son) as befits
your great wisdom, on the bloodshed of Romans
and Bulgarians which polluted the ground when
that most cruel battle was joined between their two
races.15
And in letter 17, the patriarch returns to the theme of the pollution
of bloodshed:
I know (my Son) that your Wisdom is aware that
battle is not a foregone conclusion, nor is it patent
with which side victory will be, but that the outcome
rests in uncertainty. But what is not uncertain is this:

whether the Bulgarian force shall be destroyed by
the Roman steel, or whether the Romans are cut to
pieces by that of the Bulgarians, Christian blood will
be spilt by Christians, and the earth will be polluted
with blood of Christians, and our Christ and God,
of Whom you and these are the Peculiar People and
Sons and Inheritance, will sorrow over the destruc-
tion of the slaughtered.16
The list can easily be expanded further with passages from letters
24, 27, and 29.17
In view of the whole idea of the inadmissibility of war between co-
religionists, it is worth explicitly mentioning that the high Byzantine
cleric also makes very direct references to Genesis 4.8–10 in letter 11
(from the winter months of 918–919), the text of which reads:
How long shall Christian earth be defiled with
Christian blood emptied out by Christian hands?
Cain murdered Abel his brother, and yet the blood of
the single victim cried unto God. What do you reckon
(my Son), what do you suppose of all the blood which
has been and is being shed even today?18
In fact, the intimations of the fratricidal nature of the military
actions, the cause of death of many of those involved in the con-
flict between co-religionist Bulgarians and Byzantines—a conflict in
which Symeon had become a second Cain—should not be isolated
from the abundance of quotations and references from the Old
Testament, the Gospels, and the Apostles’ Epistles. Moreover, these
occur not only in the so-called “Bulgarian letters,” but also can be
seen in the patriarch’s entire epistolography,19 a feature hardly unu-
sual for any text that came from the pen of a well-educated hierarch
in the Orthodox world. However, even for an undisputed scholar
such as Patriarch Nicholas Mystikos, such an approach posed cer-
tain dangers. It is worth recalling that in the above-mentioned let-
ter 17 of early 921, along with the calls for an end to the bloodshed
and mutual extermination of co-religionists and to the well-known
defilement of the land, the following questions remain: “What
Jeremiah shall lament such sufferings as these? What tears shall be
equal to a disaster so cruel?”20 However, in the letter, no clear link
yanko hristov 143
can be made to the Babylonian captivity of the Israelites. On the

one hand, because the Israelites and Babylonians were not co-reli-
gionists, and the pogroms, captivity, and enslavement that conflict
entailed would hardly be described by a Church hierarch as fratri-
cidal. On the other hand, in view of the claims that Constantinople
is not only a “New Rome” but also a “New Jerusalem,” it must be
emphasized that this allusion to the Biblical text is counterproduc-
tive and even dangerous for the purposes set by Patriarch Nicholas
Mystikos. In the Lamentations of Jeremiah, the conquest and destruc-
tion of Jerusalem is the expression of God’s just punishment of the
Israelites, and the Babylonians are only the tool for its fulfillment.
The possible parallels with the Byzantino-Bulgarian conflict are
obvious, and they are probably the main reason why the name of
the Old Testament prophet was not revealed in his subsequent cor-
respondence with the Bulgarian ruler.
Striving for Looting and Pillage
Along with the stated position on the “fratricidal” nature of the con-
flict between the two great powers in the Eastern Christian world
in the first quarter of the tenth century, the so-called “Bulgarian
letters” of Patriarch Nicholas I Mystikos point out that the fall of
Imperial subjects into Bulgarian captivity was not always associ-
ated with Bulgarian victories in open battle or even after successful
sieges. Indeed, the capture of Byzantine subjects was one explicit
aim of the Bulgarian forces. Regarding the hostile actions taken in
914, Nicholas I Mystikos emphasized that according to the reports of
the local command in the themes (Byzantine military districts) of
Thrace and Macedonia, the Bulgarians carried out predatory raids.
In the patriarch’s letter to the Bulgarian ruler in the late summer of
the year in question, a passage reads as follows:
You know . . . the military governors of Macedonia
and Thrace. Well, these officers (they said) are daily
stating, both in their dispatches and by the mouths
of their own messengers, with assurances that they
are telling the truth—and there is no doubt at all of
what they say—that the Bulgarians have a plan for
the wholesale looting and pillage of our territory.21
There is no doubt that the Byzantine authorities did not limit them-
selves to diplomatic protests against the abduction of Byzantine sub-
jects, nor did they remain indifferent, but took countermeasures. In
this respect, they benefited from the experience gained and the tac-
tics already adopted against Arab raiders along the eastern border of
the Empire. Although outside the chronological framework of this
article, the evidence of countermeasures against Bulgarian actions
across the Thracian border in the middle of the ninth century—at
the beginning of the reign of Knyaz Boris (r. 852–889, d. May 907)—
is particularly illustrative. At that time, Empress Theodora (ca. 815–
after 867) was still in charge of the Regency, shortly before her son,
Emperor Michael III (r. 842–867), became sole ruler. The tenth-
century Chronicle of Symeon the Logothete describes how in response
to the attacks and the plunder of Byzantine possessions, Theodora
reinforced the garrisons in the border fortifications. The task of
the quartered units was far from being only defensive; they were
required not only to meet the invaders but also to take action them-
selves against the settlements and fortifications in the neighboring
Bulgarian territories.22
However, in the first decades of the tenth century, even the
combination of border fortifications with mobile and well-trained
units was not sufficient to prevent major invasions, which, because
of the number of participants, were far more devastating and dan-
gerous than smaller-scale raids. The full-scale involvement of the
total strength of the army at the disposal of the Bulgarian rulers
constituted a challenge beyond the strength of the entirety of the
military contingents in Byzantium’s European themes. At that time,
under the conditions of the almost irresistible military dominance
of Symeon’s armies, even the troops, which had additional rein-
forcements from the Constantinopolitan units, as well as from large
detachments from the Asia Minor military districts, could not cope
with this task. The strong fortresses, built in the key directions and
dominating important areas of the Balkan Peninsula and along the
Black Sea and Aegean coasts, played important roles in maintaining
the pressure on the Bulgarian squadrons and limiting the depth of
their invasions. In fact, during the period under review, especially
in the second and third decades of the tenth century, because of
the loss of manpower among the regular and command staff of the
Imperial armies, as well as the fear of another defeat, the Byzantines
yanko hristov 145
increasingly relied on the solidity of the walls of various fortified

strongholds. It is very clear that the successful repulsion of the
besiegers saved defenders, city dwellers, and protection seekers from
the bitter fate of captivity. In case of failure, however, the chances
of escaping were slight, and the loot and captives falling into enemy
hands often exceeded those gained after victories in open battles.
It is no less important to note that in such cases misfortune did
not only affect regular warriors, commanders of different ranks, and
servants engaged in supplying the army and maintaining the camp
(i.e., those directly related to military affairs). It must be taken into
consideration that the advance of Symeon’s troops was an unceasing
threat to all civilians in the Byzantine countryside within the reach
of the invading squadrons. In fact, judging by the case of Adrianople
(present-day Edirne, Turkey), which was conquered twice—in
915 and again in the first half of the 920s—even large, well-fortified
cities defended by trained commanders and soldiers did not pro-
vide the necessary protection.23 Not surprisingly, according to some
sources of the era, many of the settlements and fortifications in the
Byzantine provinces in Eastern Thrace (even cities in the immediate
vicinity of the Imperial capital of Constantinople) were taken over
by Bulgarians or abandoned as unfit for protection.24
Nicholas Mystikos’ letter 12 to the archbishop of Bulgaria, dated
to the winter of 918–919, reads:
Represent in his [Tsar Symeon the Great’s] presence
by your words those things which, even before you
speak, he has himself seen with his own sight and
is aware of: the desolation of so much land through
which he has passed, in place of the beauty seen in
it until now; the pitiable defacement of countries, in
place of so many crops, so many vineyards, so many
orchards. Remind him of the destruction of the holy
houses of God, which pious hands with many pains
erected to God’s glory. Add the ruin of noble mon-
asteries, in which monks and in which virgins con-
tinually sent up their hymns to God, but which are
deserted [now] and lying in ruins. And above all
the manifold slaughter of men—alas for the mighty
power of the evil demon!—the bodies of priests, of
monks, of nuns, scattered, with not so much as the

honor of burial, but exposed to be the prey of dogs
and wild beasts.25
The letters sent to the Bulgarian ruler thus provide contemporary
accounts of the destruction of church buildings and the desolation
of monasteries, intertwined with common phrases denoting the
destruction of “cities, villages, and houses” in the Imperial provinces.
In other fragments of the correspondence, however, the dam-
age that was undoubtedly suffered by the settlements in Byzantine
possessions within reach of Symeon’s units is left out of the passages
that testify to the destruction of churches and monastic cloisters.26
The distinction may be due, at least in part, to the fact that the rhe-
torical touches come from the letters of a high-ranking hierarch in
the Orthodox world. Information contained in the eleventh-cen-
tury Life of St. Mary the Younger (d. ca. 903) also allows additional
motives to be sought. The anonymous hagiographer, too, speaks of
the great devastation and overthrow of most cities in Thrace during
the reign of Tsar Symeon. He also notes, however, that the residents
of Bizye (Vize, in present-day Turkey, about 120 km/70 miles from
Constantinople), oppressed by the Bulgarian offensive, decided to
leave the city and set fire to all the houses themselves before aban-
doning it. The subsequent sections of the Life describe the accommo-
dation and actions of a Bulgarian detachment in Bizye and indicate
unambiguously that only the churches remained unaffected by the
fire. For this reason, some religious buildings were designated as
granaries, others as housing, and others as stables. The compiler
of the Life also provided details of the rotation of the Bulgarian
units, of a kind of wartime administration, and of the use of local
economic resources, and emphasized that the garrisons further
plundered the surrounding area when recalled.27 Of course, it can-
not be assumed a priori that all cases in which Patriarch Nicholas I
Mystikos wrote about the unacceptable use of Church buildings for
housing and accommodation or the depredation and devastation of
churches and monasteries by Symeon’s troops were meant to refer
to cities burnt down by their own inhabitants. Most likely, his words
can be attributed to architectural decisions in the construction of
Byzantine churches, metochions, monasteries, and adjoining build-
ings, which lent them the ability to shelter significant quantities of
people, goods, and livestock when needed.
yanko hristov 147
Civilians in the Way of the Advancing Army
Patriarch Nicholas Mystikos’ concerns about the destruction of

churches and monasteries, as well as the demolition, looting, and
desolation of settlements in the European provinces of Byzantium,
are understandable. In view of the fate of the Imperial subjects
who fell into Bulgarian hands during and immediately after the
fighting, many references in the patriarch’s correspondence are
bound up with another dark and cruel side of the medieval clashes.
A number of passages in the letters are not about looting, nor
even the demolition of church property, but rather the great loss
of human life and the suffering of the survivors. While casualties
among the army were to be expected and to some extent acceptable,
far greater tension was generated by atrocities committed against
non-combatants. With some variation, along with outrage, accusa-
tions, and exhortations, passages about the fatal consequences of
the conflict are present in about three-quarters of all the letters
the patriarch sent to Tsar Symeon. Moreover, beyond the general-
izing designation “Rhōmaîoi” (i.e., Byzantines), one can easily find
details concerning the sex, age, origin, and social status of those
who suffered.
It is tempting to draw a parallel between the information the
patriarch offers concerning the fate of Byzantine subjects and
emblematic Old Testament texts concerning captivity and enslave-
ment. However, he makes no direct allusions to Numbers 31.7–18,
Deuteronomy 21.10–14, or 1 Samuel 30.1–3. We cannot thus be con-
fident in the attribution of a supposed resemblance to these biblical
passages, mostly because the rhetorical touches in the correspond-
ence with Tsar Symeon seem to be the result of the typical conse-
quences of medieval warfare. Due to the fact that we do not have
preserved first-hand accounts by those who experienced captivity
among the Bulgarians in the first quarter of the tenth century, it is
difficult to say with certainty whether the Byzantine patriarch exag-
gerated in what he wrote. In striving for objectivity, it must also be
acknowledged that there are no texts with direct advice regarding
what Bulgarian units in enemy territory should do when captur-
ing civilians, such as those found in Byzantine military manuals of
the epoch. Nevertheless, as John Haldon points out, even the pres-
ence and movement of large units of the Imperial armies within
the Byzantine provinces was often a challenge, and no doubt for-

eign invasions were a real disaster.28 Thus, excessive criticism of the
descriptions of carnage presented by Patriarch Nicholas I Mystikos
seems unnecessary.
A passage in a letter (number 11) sent to Tsar Symeon as late
as 918 or early 919 (written at the same time as the previously men-
tioned letter to the Bulgarian archbishop), reads as follows:
I am not speaking now of the living—the orphaned
children, the widows, those bereaved of brothers,
those desolate of children, the holy sanctuaries, the
scattering of monastics, the rape of virgins, of whom
the continual moans and tears reach continually to
God.29
The language in letters 23 and 26, sent to the Bulgarian ruler in
922 and 923, is not much different:
But when I come to consider the destruction of so
many churches of God, so many episcopal palaces
and monasteries, the murder of priests, the rape of
virgins, the insulting of monks, what reason is there
why God should overlook this? Will He not change
that long-suffering which, in His mercy and forgive-
ness and desire for your conversion, He has hitherto
shown, into anger and wrath against Bulgarians, and
wreak His vengeance for all this slaughter?30
And again,
I entreat you to be of a like persuasion, and to take
the same view, and be satisfied with the cruelties that
have gone before; long enough, too long indeed,
has been the time that has brought so many unfor-
gettable disasters between Bulgarians and Romans.
Reflect (my Son) on the destruction of churches of
God, some of episcopal rank, some of monasterial;
the murder of priests, the rape of virgins, the abuse
of monks.31
A no less vivid and imaginative passage from letter 29 (from 923/924)
can also be mentioned here:
yanko hristov 149
Consider, I beg of you, the destruction of monaster-

ies, the devastation of episcopal and other churches
that were situated up and down the countryside, and
the deprivation of the worship that went on in them
to God’s glory. I pass over the rest—rape of virgins,
lapse of that reverence due to monks, contempt of
the priests of God—which must, humanly speaking,
arise from enslavement of their order.32
It is interesting the extent to which the unhappy fate of captivity
and ill-treatment affected all representatives of the Byzantine clergy
who fell into Bulgarian captivity. Despite their captors’ Christianity,
novices and young monks and nuns were among those who were
enslaved. Here it is worth recalling the well-known example of the
application of the same practice in other parts of early medieval
Central Europe. According to the Life of St. Naum, after the death of
Archbishop Methodius (d. April 6, 885), his disciples in Moravia—
including presbyters and deacons, as well as relatively young
novices—were abducted and offered for sale as slaves in Venice.33
Thus, clerical status was no protection against enslavement.
The information about the general extermination in the settle-
ments within the reach of Symeon’s armies is found in a number
of fragments from his correspondence with the Bulgarian ruler.
Apart from the presence of passages with similar phrases to those
cited above, mentions of the shedding of blood, slaughter, great dev-
astation, and destruction are also present in letter 18 (spring–sum-
mer of 921).34 The relatively extensive text of letter 14 (summer of
920) also deserves special attention in this regard:
For who could ever have anticipated that Symeon,
who for his great wisdom, for the favor shown him by
Heaven, has led the Bulgarian nation to a height of
glory, who more than any man ever detests knavery,
who honors justice, who abominates injustice, who
is above sensual pleasures, who stints his belly like a
hermit on the mountains, who tastes no wine, who
differs from those who profess to live out of the world
in nothing except only in his government of the rule
granted to him by God—who (I say) could ever have
anticipated that such a man, so much beloved of
God, could be author of the evils which now beset

Romans and Bulgarians—the infinite bloodshed,
the great devastation. . . . What need I say of cities, or
of countryside, of houses, things cultivated by man-
kind for comfort of life, of the general disaster which
has afflicted humanity—widowhood, I say, orphan-
age, deprivation of brethren, captivity, slavery, and,
in a word, in exchange for that former prosperity of
Bulgarians and Romans, this miserable alteration
which it has undergone owing to the evils of war?35
The descriptions of destruction and suffering in the correspondence
of Patriarch Nicholas I Mystikos create an impression of a kind of
total war that entailed deliberate targeting of civilians—lay country-
side dwellers as well as local clerics. Aside from those fragments con-
cerning accusations of the particularly unacceptable rape of virgins
(nuns), within the dark descriptions of the damage and violence suf-
fered by Byzantine subjects, there is the repetition of phrases (with
little or no change) referring to the breakup of families—orphan-
hood, widowhood, the bereavement of families who lost sons, broth-
ers, and fathers.36 The “migration” of such charges from one letter to
another is most probably due to the real incidence of civilian casual-
ties in the Imperial provinces. However, with no intention to deny the
mass slaughter carried out by the advancing squadrons, such cases
hardly reach the scale of the general extermination of the entire
population in the settlements within the reach of Symeon’s armies.
Yet, even accepting that Nicholas I Mystikos wrote from a partisan
perspective and employed exaggeration in his diplomatic dealings
with the Bulgarian ruler, the account of the massacres wrought by
Symeon’s forces should not be dismissed.
It is worth asking which of all the captured Imperial subjects fell
victim to the massacres and under what circumstances. It must be
acknowledged that the answer is far from definite and unconditional,
not only because of the peculiarities of the reports in the specific
group of letters under review but also because most written sources
relating to what was happening in the Byzantino-Bulgarian conflict
of 913–927 provide scant or almost no information in this regard. To
some extent, the search for parallels helps to overcome at least some
of these challenging deficits. In early medieval Europe, teenagers
yanko hristov 151
and women of reproductive age were not usually among the victims
of mass executions, mostly due to the clear fact that in every group
of captives the most desirable were those at their youthful peak (i.e.,
young women, grown girls and boys, and pre-pubescent children
who were at the age beyond the need to be breastfed, cleaned, or
changed).37 Along with this, we must also remember that in the medi-
eval world many cases of the massacre of non-combatants were moti-
vated by the fact that they actively supported warriors in sieges or
provided shelter, transportation, food, meals, medical care, and in
the case of clerics, moral encouragement, among other things.38 The
slaughter of civilians can also be firmly connected to another cruel
side of warfare in pre-modern societies: the unmerciful practice of
execution was often applied to those who were elderly, disabled, and
weak, along with the sick and breastfed infants and toddlers—in
other words, as Kathy Gaca points out, to those who were deemed
too needy and helpless, or who seemed not useful enough to be
taken into captivity.39 In fact, even warriors, as well as full-grown and
healthy non-combatants, who survived the extremely life-threatening
initial moments of their capture, could become a burden for retreat-
ing units. Suffice it to recall that the authors of the Byzantine military
manuals, despite being clearly aware of the benefits of preserving
captives alive, repeatedly revealed that in many cases, under the pres-
sure of circumstances, their lives had to be sacrificed.40
On the basis of only the information presented in the corre-
spondence of Patriarch Nicholas I Mystikos, it is difficult to say with
certainty whether the Bulgarian forces were driven by these consid-
erations. Furthermore, it is doubtful whether Symeon’s troops prac-
ticed the principle of so-called crowd-control killing. At least in some
cases, the elimination of men is very reminiscent of other instances
from Antiquity and the Middle Ages in which, after the battles were
over, when cities, villages, or countryside were conquered, it was often
standard practice to kill warriors and adult male non-combatants of
fighting age in order to prevent them from fighting against their
conquerors in the future. The Byzantine patriarch referred to such
a possibility in his last letter to the Bulgarian ruler, written in the
first months of 925. Patriarch Nicholas I Mystikos assured Symeon
that, in addition to the available regular Byzantine military units in
the battle against Symeon’s armies, all capable of carrying weapons
would join.41
Fate of the Captives and the Diplomatic Outcome

You seek peace: good words, but show the deeds con-
sonant with the word. Peace does not covet what is
another’s, does not usurp what is not its [own], does
not take arms in hand, does not invent excuses for
war, does not delight in the shedding of blood, does
not use to make men captives.42
With all the subjective and objective reasons for pogroms against
the civilian population in the Imperial provinces in the period
between 914 and the late 920s, along with the tactical benefits of
reducing the willingness of Byzantine subjects to resist Symeon’s
armies by instilling panic and an atmosphere of fear and doom,
there are several important details about the Byzantino-Bulgarian
wars that cannot be ignored. As a rule, successful invasions of
Byzantine territory were accompanied by the abduction and
deportation of the inhabitants of the affected Imperial provinces.
This tradition ran very deep. For instance, the deportations dur-
ing the clashes of 808–815 were especially large.43 At the end of
the ninth century, the Imperial subjects in the themes of Thrace
and Macedonia were targeted in this way during Symeon’s first
war against Byzantium from 894 to 896. The written sources indi-
cate that, in addition to the warriors captured during the fighting
or immediately thereafter, at least twice during the war Symeon
also captured large groups of non-combatants. This first hap-
pened in 894, and then again in the renewal of the southward
offensive in 896. In some of the narratives, there is an open accu-
sation that the Bulgarian ruler’s actions in 896 were dictated by
the intention to take more prisoners.44 It is also interesting that
the chroniclers report the release of the Bulgarians kidnapped by
Magyars (Byzantine allies in the war of 894–896) and transferred
to Constantinople, but do not mention that Symeon released the
“Rhōmaîoi” captives. In fact, if the other group of contemporary
epistolary accounts—letters of the esteemed Byzantine diplomat
Leo Choirosphaktes (ca. 850–919)—had not reached the present, it
would not have been known at all that, contrary to the logic of the
exchange, the liberation of the Byzantine subjects was postponed,
nor that it was probably accomplished without ransom, but rather
came as part of a peace agreement.45
yanko hristov 153
Unlike the correspondence between Leo Choirosphaktes and

Tsar Symeon, that of Patriarch Nicholas Mystikos is not specifically
devoted to captured Imperial subjects and the search for ways to free
them. Nevertheless, the patriarch’s letters are not devoid of informa-
tion about the fate of Byzantine subjects and leave no doubt that they
were dragged away into Bulgarian captivity,46 even in cases where he
makes only the most general indication that non-combatants had
been captured. When looking at the texts, it stands out clearly that
along with the mention of captivity, the patriarch’s language some-
times further points to the captives’ unhappy fate of enslavement.47
One of the key announcements regarding the fate of the captured
Byzantine subjects is revealed in a letter from Patriarch Nicholas I
Mystikos dated to the summer of 921. The letter in question is well
known to scholars. It is interesting because it contains one of the
two examples from early Byzantine history used in the correspond-
ence with Tsar Symeon. The patriarch reminds the Bulgarian ruler
of events from the end of the fourth century and the actions of the
Gothic warlord Gaina, who commanded a barbarian contingent in
the Imperial army in the vicinity of the Byzantine capital and the
Balkan provinces of the Empire. From the Byzantine perspective,
the similarity between the actions of Gaina and Tsar Symeon is unde-
niable. At the same time, the parallel between the two situations is
much more multi-layered than it seems at first glance. Although he
was not a child like Constantine VII when he ascended the throne
of the Empire in 395, Arcadius (r. 395–408) was only eighteen years
old. An important role in his rule was played by one of the most
prominent leaders of the Eastern Christian world—Patriarch John
Chrysostom (ca. 347–September 14, 407). The influential hierarch
not only assisted the young ruler in difficult decisions but also person-
ally engaged in peace negotiations with Gaina and even went as an
ambassador to the military camp of the barbarian leader in Thrace.
The similarities are further strengthened by the circumstance that
there was personal enmity both between Arcadius’s wife Empress
Aelia Eudoxia and John Chrysostom, and between Constantine VII’s
mother Empress Zoe Carbonopsina and Nicholas Mystikos. In addi-
tion, both hierarchs were deposed and then restored to the patri-
archal throne of Constantinople. Thus the mention of the Gothic
leader in his correspondence with Tsar Symeon may be a covert
but recognizable assertion that Nicholas Mystikos, like his great
predecessor, would eventually prove to be the victorious party in

the conflict. As regards the Byzantine civilians in Eastern Thrace,
Gaina— like Symeon—also enslaved Imperial subjects. Тhe relevant
passage reads as follows:
But even though you are not ignorant, I yet append
this story in the form of a memorandum to one who
is aware of it. Arcadius held the Roman sceptre, and
that mighty Gaїnas, with an infinite multitude, was
burning and enslaving this land, even as you are now,
and covering every spot which he invaded with his
multitude; and it was not possible to resist him any
more than thunderbolts loosed from heaven.48
In order to outline the plans and hopes among the ruling elite of
Constantinople, the final lines penned by the senior hierarch are
particularly illustrative:
Your Honor’s letter also spoke of an exchange of pris-
oners; and as I read that passage in it I was yet more
full of tears that the devil had so much prevailed as
to make Christians to be exchanged for Christians
. . . However, since all this misery and unhappiness
has overtaken Romans and Bulgarians, and the evil
one has obtained such power, and it is impossible
that peace should intercede and each Bulgarian and
Roman return in a friendly and brotherly spirit to his
own home—if [I say] the evil has gone so far and it
cannot be that in dear and most sweet peace all those
whom the malice of the evil one has evicted from
their homes should, thus simply and on a brotherly
disbandment, return to them again, and you are ask-
ing for the kind of exchange which involves counting
enemy heads, then in the fear of God and out of regard
for generations hereafter, the Roman Government
agrees to this. But such an exchange must of course
be negotiated according to the law which governs the
procedure of exchange. It will therefore be necessary
that envoys from you should come here, and Romans
go to you, so that after mutual discussion as to the
yanko hristov 155
correct procedure of the exchange of those who are

to be exchanged, the business can be concluded in
a manner suitable and advantageous to Bulgarians
and Romans.49
In this connection, it should not be omitted that in the 920s, after
a series of Byzantine military failures, the exchange of captives with
Bulgaria was a promising option for reducing the negative effect of
the army’s bloodshed and the loss of taxable population. The lack
of information indicating that readiness for prisoner exchange was
followed by further action is reason to believe that such an exchange
did not take place. Among the factors that may have had a coun-
terproductive influence is the significant imbalance in the number
of Imperial subjects held in Bulgarian captivity, compared with
Bulgarians who experienced the hardships of captivity in Byzantium.
It cannot be excluded that the suggestion made by Tsar Symeon was
simply a diplomatic game and did not overlap with his real inten-
tions.50 Comments on the excerpted passage from letter 20 should
not be isolated from the circumstance that the obstacles were not
due solely to the large discrepancy in the number of captives on one
side or the other. Judging by the repeated calls along these lines,
compensation in money, livestock, and valuables, and even territo-
rial acquisitions in Bulgarian favor, were among the desirable and
possible solutions that the ruling circles in Constantinople were
willing to accept in exchange for the freedom of captive Imperial
subjects.51
The reports of Byzantine captives in letters composed by the
high Imperial official Thеodore Daphnopatеs52 and sent to Tsar
Symeon on behalf of Emperor Romanos I Lekapenos must also be
taken into consideration. They give sufficient reason to believe that
during the war of 913–927 there was a difference in the Byzantine
attitude toward the captured Bulgarians, compared with that mani-
fested toward the Imperial subjects in Bulgarian captivity. Judging
by these accounts, the Byzantine authorities, pressured by the devel-
opment of the conflict, tended to keep the captured Bulgarians
imprisoned, but did not sell them into slavery (at least at first), hop-
ing to use them as a bargaining chip at the right time. As mentioned
above, Bulgarian captives from Symeon’s first war with Byzantium
from 894–896 were neither enslaved nor forcibly resettled in the
provinces of the Empire but were returned to Bulgaria before the

final conclusion of the peace treaty. Yet, this does not mean that the
Byzantines were so reticent in principle. The enslavement of prison-
ers of war in the Balkans is no exception but was a fairly common
solution. However, it was only one of the possible options, and we
should not forget that slavery itself was often a transitional moment
toward fuller integration into Byzantine society.53
In contrast, judging by the correspondence between the two
rulers, at least some of the abducted Byzantines were doomed to
slavery among so-called “infidel” barbarians, beyond the borders of
the Bulgarian Tsardom.54 Given that Symeon’s troops controlled ter-
ritories from the Dniester River and the Carpathians to the Adriatic
and Continental Greece, and considering the diplomatic activity of
the Bulgarian ruler in the Black Sea steppes, Central Europe, and
the Mediterranean, it can be conjectured who these “infidels” were.
In the 920s, given direct contact between Symeon and the Fatimid
Caliph Ubayd Allah al-Mahdi (r. 909–934), as well as the amir of
Tarsus, Thamal al-Dulafi (r. 917–932), and the ‘Abbasid Caliph al-
Muqtadir (r. 908–932), it is tempting to speculate that some of the
Byzantine captives in Bulgarian hands were sold (or perhaps given)
to Muslim rulers,55 especially considering that abducted Imperial
subjects were among the main source of slaves in the Arab world
during the era in question. A closer look at the geopolitical situation
and the diplomatic rivalry between Tsar Symeon and the rulers of
Constantinople suggests that it is more likely that the “export” in
question moved in a completely different direction, satisfying the
demand for slaves within societies in Central and Eastern Europe.
Moreover, without diminishing the degree of Bulgaria’s participa-
tion in human trafficking and the slave trade, the benefit to Tsar
Symeon was clearly not so much economic (or at least not only) as
it was military and political. The positive development of Bulgaria’s
complex relations with Magyars and Pechenegs and the calm along
the northwestern and northeastern Bulgarian borders was a prereq-
uisite for the Tsar’s aggressive plans toward the Empire. Efforts to
attract the two nomadic groups as allies, as well as compromises and
concessions in their favor, stemmed from a desire to prevent them
from being drawn into anti-Bulgarian coalitions directed by the
Imperial capital. Apropos of this, Patriarch Nicholas I Mystikos him-
self draws attention in his correspondence to the Byzantine envoys
yanko hristov 157
in the Black Sea steppes, and also emphasizes that members of the
Bulgarian ruling elite and Pecheneg leaders were in constant contact
and that dynastic marriages were even concluded, despite canonical
obstacles and prohibitions regarding marriages between Christians
and pagans.56 In fact, the gift (or sale) of slaves was not unknown in
the diplomatic practice of Byzantium’s Balkan neighbors. One of the
key confirmations in this regard comes from Emperor Constantine
VII himself. In chapter 32 of his De administrando imperio, he men-
tions that the settlement of peace between Knyaz Boris and the
Serbs took place through the exchange of various valuables and the
gift of slaves.57
Conclusion
Without any attempt to downplay the effect of the Byzantino-

Bulgarian conflict of 913–927 and its consequences for the civil-
ian population in the Balkan provinces of the Empire, it must be
borne in mind that Patriarch Nicholas I Mystikos quite consciously
and purposefully saturated his correspondence with Tsar Symeon
with dark colors. When examining the so-called “Bulgarian letters”
of the high Byzantine hierarch, the key aspect to bear in mind is
that the vast majority were written in the midst of the war, between
917 and the first half of the 920s (until the death of the patriarch
in the spring of 925). That time period corresponded to the peak of
large-scale military, as well as ideological and diplomatic, opposition
in Southeastern Europe. However, in order to determine how deci-
sive that period was in Byzantino-Bulgarian relations, it is enough
to recall that after the conclusion of peace in the autumn of 927,
the negative characterizations of the enemy, emphasizing the unrea-
sonable and excessive Bulgarian claims and condemning the cruelty
shown to Byzantine subjects, gave way to the quite different pathos
discernible in De pace cum Bulgaris homilia.58
Given the interest in the topic of captivity, forms of imprison-
ment, and human trafficking in Slavia Orthodoxa in the Middle
Ages, it is unfortunate that despite all his eloquence and verbosity,
Patriarch Nicholas Mystikos does not provide extensive description
of the ways of falling into captivity. While his letters do not com-
pletely lack details—he does mention raids, campaigns, battles,
conquered settlements, and devastated territories—the lack of

information about the distribution of prisoners as part of the loot is
problematic, a feature comparable in its limiting effect on research
initiatives only to the complete anonymity of the prisoners them-
selves. The latter lacuna is even more surprising because the letters
of the high Byzantine cleric are among the few texts that in fact
allow us to glimpse the diversity in age, family ties, gender, and posi-
tion in society of the Imperial subjects who fell into Bulgarian cap-
tivity. Surprisingly or not, in the “Bulgarian letters,” the hierarch
hardly raises the question of what happened beyond the moment of
captivity, saying nothing of the hardships endured by the Byzantines
in Bulgaria during Symeon’s reign and their life in captivity. Aside
from the passage from letter 20 concerning exchange, it must be
admitted that Patriarch Nicholas Mystikos did not give any informa-
tion about the ways to end the captivity and return Imperial subjects
to Byzantium. No less limiting for research is the lack of information
about the policies and forms of integration and assimilation of the
Byzantine captives, the process by which at least some of the abduct-
ees turned into Bulgarian subjects during Symeon’s reign.59
In fact, Patriarch Nicholas I Mystikos can hardly be blamed for
the absence of this type of information, which may be attributed to
deliberate silence. His correspondence with the Bulgarian ruler is
primarily a diplomatic file and pursues specific goals and objectives.
Nevertheless, the importance of the letters as a primary source of
information about the fate of the Byzantines who fell into Bulgarian
hands in the first decades of the tenth century is doubtless, espe-
cially given the fact that they are first-hand contemporary accounts.
The correspondence under consideration helps to build a more reli-
able and complete picture of slavery in Southeastern Europe in the
first half of the tenth century. Moreover, its real importance is fur-
ther enhanced by the fact that the correspondence unequivocally
testifies that the Balkan provinces of Byzantium were a slaving zone
for the Bulgarians in the first three decades of the tenth century.
More generally, it demonstrates that in the course of military and
political opposition to the domination of the Balkans, although
Symeon sought to copy the Byzantine imperial model, Bulgaria’s
recently Christianized subjects had no qualms about harassing
Christian co-religionists or about the enslavement of Byzantine non-
combatants—a feature of warfare used by the Bulgarian ruler as an
yanko hristov 159
additional source of pressure on the Imperial political elite in his

attempts to accomplish his political and military ambitions.
—South-West University “Neofit Rilski,”

Blagoevgrad (Bulgaria)
NOTES
The main points of this article were presented at the conference “Medieval
Unfreedoms: Slavery, Servitude, and Trafficking in Humans before the Trans-
Atlantic Slave Trade.” The original text has undergone editing, the chronological
and thematic frameworks have been narrowed, and aspects that are outside the
subject of Byzantine civilians in Bulgarian captivity have become part of another
publication.
1. “Nikolaos I. Mystikos,” in Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit Online,

ed. Ralph-Johannes Lilie et al. (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2013), www
.degruyter . com /document /database / PMBZ /entr y / PMBZ28039 / html
(accessed 14 February 2021); Romilly J. H. Jenkins, “A Note on the Patriarch
Nicholas Mysticus,” in Jenkins, Studies on Byzantine History of the 9th and the 10th
Centuries(London: Variorum Reprints, 1970), 145–47; Leendert G. Westerink,
“Introduction: I. Life of Nicholas,” in Nicholas I Patriarch of Constantinople:
Letters, Greek text and English trans., Romilly J. H. Jenkins and Leendert G.
Westerink [CFHB 6] (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine
Studies, 1973), xv–xxvii; Яков Н. Любарский, “Замечания о Николае Мистике
в связи с изданием его сочинений,” Византийский временник 47 (1986):
101–8; Alexander Kazhdan, “Nicholas I Mystikos,” in The Oxford Dictionary of
Byzantium, 3 vols., еd. Alexander Kazhdan et al. (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1991), 1466–67; Влада Станковић, Цариградски патриjарси и цареви
Македонске династиjе (Београд: Византолошки институт САНУ, 2003),
88–106.
2. Nicholas I Patriarch of Constantinople, Ep. 5, 26.1–38.207, 527–28. Cf. Theophanes

Continuatus, Ioannes Cameniata, Symeon Magister [Pseudo-Symeon], Georgius
Monachus, ed. Immanuel Bekker [CSHB 33] (Bonn: E. Weber, 1838),
380.12–22; “Псамафийская хроника,” in Две византийские хроники Х века:
Псамафийская хроника, introd., trans., and comm. Александр П. Каждан,
Иоанн Камениата: Взятие Фессалоники, trans. София В. Полякова, Ирина В.
Феленковска, introd. and comm. Раиса А. Наследова (Москва: Издательство
восточной литературы, 1959), 75–77; Symeonis Magistri et Logothetae Chronicon,
ed. Staffan Wahlgren [CFHB 44.1] (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2006), 296.39–
297.52; Ioannis Scylitzae, Synopsis Historiarum, ed. Hans Thurn [CFHB 5]
(Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1973), 195.95–196.18.
3. “Nicolai Patriarchae Epistolae,” in Spicilegium Romanum, vol. 10, ed. Angelo Mai
(Rome: Tipografia Collegii Urbani, 1844), 161–440 [reprint: Patrologiae Circus
Completus. Series Graeca, vol. 111, ed. Jacques-Paul Migne, (Paris: Apud Garnier
Fratres et J.-P. Migne Successores, 1863), cols. 27–392]; Васил Златарски,
“Писмата на цариградския патриах Николая Мистика до българския цар
Симеона,” Сборник за народни умотворения, наука и книжнина 10 (1894): 372–
428; 11 (1894): 3–54; 12 (1895): 121–211. See also Venance Grumel, Les Regestes
des actes du Patriarcat de Constantinople, vol. 1, fasc. 2: Les actes des Patriarches: les
Regestes de 715 à 1043 (Paris: Socii Assumptionistae Chalcedonenses, 1936),
145, 154–57, 160–1, 164–66, 172–73, 175–77, 179–80, 187–99 [nos. 623–24,
641, 643, 645, 655, 660–64, 672–73, 677, 681–82, 685–86, 702, 704–5, 707–10,
712–14, 716]; Nicholas I Patriarch of Constantinople, 2–592. About the peculi-
arities of Byzantine epistolography and its role in the challenges faced by the
members of the Imperial ruling, political, spiritual, and cultural elite, see:
Karl Krumbacher, Geschichte der byzantinischen Literatur (2. Aufl.) (München:
Beck, 1897), 452–54; Jean Darrouzès, Epistoliers byzantins du Xe siècle [Archives
de l’Orient chrétien, vol. 6] (Paris: Institut Français d’Etudes Byzantines,
1960); Herbert Hunger, Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner, Band
1 (München: Beck, 1978), 199–239; Margaret Mullett, “The Classical Tradition
in the Byzantine Letter,” in Byzantium and the Classical Tradition, ed. Margaret
Mullett and Roger Scott (Birmingham: Centre for Byzantine Studies, 1981),
75–93; Margaret Mullett, “The Language of Diplomacy,” in Byzantine Diplomacy:
Papers from the Twenty-fourth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Cambridge,
March 1990, ed. Jonathan Shepard and Simon Franklin (Aldershot: Ashgate,
1992), 203–16; Peter Hatlie, “Redeeming Byzantine Epistolography,” Byzantine
and Modern Greek Studies 20 (1996): 213–48; Margaret Mullett, Theophylact of
Ochrid: Reading the Letters of a Byzantine Archbishop [Birmingham Byzantine and
Ottoman Monographs, vol. 2] (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1997), 11–43; Margaret
Mullett, “Epistolography,” in The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies, ed.
Elizabeth Jeffreys, John Haldon, and Robin Cormack (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2008), 882–93; Alexander Riehle, “Introduction: Byzantine
Epistolography: A Historical and Historiographical Sketch,” in A Companion
to Byzantine Epistolography, ed. Alexander Riehle (Leiden: Brill, 2020), 1–30;
Sofia Kotzabassi, “Epistolography and Rhetoric,” in A Companion to Byzantine
Epistolography, 177–99; Floris Bernard, “Epistolary Communication: Rituals
and Codes,” in A Companion to Byzantine Epistolography, 307–32.
4. Cf. Jeffrey Fynn-Paul, “Empire, Monotheism and Slavery in the Greater

Mediterranean Region from Antiquity to the Early Modern Era,” Past and
Present 205 (2009): 3–40; Jeff Fynn-Paul, “Introduction. Slaving Zones in
the Global History: The Evolution of a Concept,” in Slaving Zones: Cultural
Identities, Ideologies, and Institutions in Evolution of Global Slavery, ed. Jeffrey
Fynn-Paul and Damian Alan Pargas (Leiden: Brill, 2018), 1–19.
5. Hussein Fancy, “Captivity, Ransom, and Manumission, 500–1420,” in The

Cambridge World History of Slavery, 2, ed. Craig Perry et al. (Cambridge:
yanko hristov 161
Cambridge University Press, 2021), 61. In order to keep the focus of the pre-
sent article, a critical note will be prepared separately. See Yanko Hristov, “In
Brief on Some Particular Accounts about the Captives’ Ransom and Exchange
in the Early Medieval Southeastern Europe” (forthcoming). However, one
thing that can be mentioned is that the statement in question is incorrect in at
least a few respects: it ignores well-known facts about the Bulgarian-Byzantine
treaty of 816 and to some extent overestimates the idea that the Byzantines
were reluctant to apply the practice of exchanging captives with Balkan ene-
mies, but instead preferred to enslave them. See Youval Rotman, Byzantine
Slavery and the Mediterranean World, trans. Jane Marie Todd (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 2009), 43–46.
6. αἰχμᾰλωσία (captivity); αἰχμάλωτος (taken by the spear/captive/prisoner cap-

tured in military actions); αἰχμᾰλωτίζω/αἰχμᾰλωτεύω/ἐξαιχμᾰλωτεύω (cap-
ture/take captives/make captives); ἀνδραποδίζω/ἐξανδραποδίζω (enslave/
sell the free men of a conquered place into slavery/reduce someone to slav-
ery); δεσμεύω/δεσμόω (catch/bind/put in chains); δεσμώτης/δέσμιος (tied/
chained/prisoner/captive), ληδιος (a person who is taken as booty/captive);
ληζομαι/λήζομαι/λεΐζομαι (seize/carry off as booty, either men or things/
plunder/despoil, especially by raids or forays). Cf. A Greek–English Lexicon:
Ninth Edition with a Revised Supplement, ed. Henry G. Liddell et al. (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1996), 45, 127–28, 380, 582, 585, 1044; Greek Lexicon of the Roman
and Byzantine Period (From B.C. 146 to A.D. 1100), ed. Evangelinos A. Sophocles
(New York: Scribner, 1900), 98, 158, 351–52, 477; Древногреческо-русский
словарь, ed. Иосиф. Х. Дворецкий, vol. 1, Α–Λ (Москва: Государственное
издательство иностраных и национальных словарей, 1958), 58–59, 138, 353,
560, 1024.
7. In fact, the term prisoner of war did actually appear during the Middle Ages,
but at a much later stage than the dawn of the tenth century. Moreover,
this happened in a region far from Southeastern Europe and the Eastern
Mediterranean. The first documented cases of its use occurred during the
first quarter of the fifteenth century during the Hundred Years War (1337–
1453). It appears first in the French prisonnier de guerre and in the Latin pri-
sionarius de guerra. See Rémy Ambühl, Prisoners of War in the Hundred Years
War: Ransom Culture in the Late Middle Ages (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2013), 4–6. Cf. also Emily Crawford, The Treatment of Combatants and
Insurgents under the Law of Armed Conflict (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2010), 48–55, 61–68.
8. About the possibility that letters number 3 and 4 of the correspondence of

Patriarch Nicholas I Mystikos refer to the fate of a Byzantine prisoner who
managed to escape from Bulgaria and sought asylum in the church of St. Sofia
in Constantinople, see: Yanko Hristov and Alexandar Atanasovski, “Letters
No 3 and No 4 of Nicholas I Mystikos, Patriarch of Constantinople (901–907,
912–925),” Studia Iuridico-Historica 7 (2018): 3–14 [reprint in Science and Society:
Contribution of Humanities and Social Sciences. Proceedings of the International

Conference on the Occasion of the Centennial Anniversary of the Faculty of Philosophy
(2–5 September, Struga 2020), ed, Ratko Duev et al. (Skopje: MAR-SAŽ, 2021),
43–54].
9. Given the controversial records in the primary sources, the exact nature of
the problematic agreements is a matter of dispute. It is assumed that minor
territorial acquisitions in Thrace or the possible granting of annual tribute
infuriated the Byzantine political elite. Far more disturbing was the recogni-
tion of Symeon’s imperial title, as well as the arranged marriage between his
daughter and Emperor Constantine VII. See Jonathan Shepard, “Bulgaria:
The Other Balkan ‘Empire,’” in New Cambridge Medieval History, vol. 3 (ca.
900–ca. 1204), ed. Timothy Reuter (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1999), 574.
10. See Robert Browning, Byzantium and Bulgaria: A Comparative Study across
the Early Medieval Frontier (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975),
63–68; Иван Божилов, Цар Симеон Велики (893–927): Златният век на
Средновековна България (София: Издателство на Отечествения фронт, 1983),
118–45; Warren Treadgold, A History of Byzantine State and Society (Stanford:
Stanford University Press, 1997), 473–79; Jonathan Shepard, “Bulgaria: The
Other Balkan ‘Empire’,” 574–79; Dennis Hupchick, The Bulgarian–Byzantine
Wars for Early Medieval Balkan Hegemony: Silver-Lined Skulls and Blinded Armies
(Wilkes-Barre: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017), 149–219.
11. Nicholas I Patriarch of Constantinople, Ep. 10, 70.20–28.
14. Nicholas I Patriarch of Constantinople, Ep. 9, 54.38–40, 64.204–6.
17. Nicholas I Patriarch of Constantinople, Ep. 24, 166.1–172.85; Ep. 27, 186.1–190.98;
Ep. 29, 196.1–202.114.
19. Nicholas I Patriarch of Constantinople, 622–27. For useful comments on the

topic see Ioannis Stouraitis, “Byzantine War Against Christians – an Emphylios
Polemos?” Byzantina Symmeikta 20 (2010): 85–110 (esp. 93–101).
yanko hristov 163
21. Nicholas I Patriarch of Constantinople, Ep. 9, 58.89–94, 62.180–84. Considering

this is the initial stage of the war, these are rather actions in which the bases
of Symeon’s units were still in Bulgarian territory. When mentioning the role
of the raids in the appearance of Byzantine captives in Symeon’s Bulgaria, it is
worth noting their difference from the practice by Slavic groups in the region
of robbery (and piracy) through the “hunting of people” described in hagi-
ographical works. See Panos Sophoulis, “Bandits and Pirates in the Medieval
Balkans: Some Evidence from Hagiographical Texts,” Bulgaria Medieavalis 7
(2016): 339–51 (esp. 341–45). Such an attack on the envoy to Constantinople
of the Italian King Hugh I (926–946) is described by Liudprand of Cremona.
See The Complete Works of Liudprand of Cremona, trans. Paolo Squatriti
(Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2007), 119–20.
22. Symeonis Magistri et Logothetae Chronicon, 239.148–240.153. See the recent

English translation The Chronicle of the Logothete, trans. Staffan Wahlgren
(Translated Texts for Byzantinists, vol. 7) (Liverpool: University Press, 2019),
181. The tensions between Bulgaria and Byzantium from the first half of
the 850s are presented in a different way by Joseph Genesios, Theophanes
Continuatus, and in a text related to the Chronicle of Symeon the Logothete,
known as Chronicle of Pseudo-Symeon Magister, part of which was published
by Immanuel Bekker in 1838 under the title Symeon Magister. Cf. Alexander
Kazhdan and Christine Angelidi, A History of Byzantine Literature (850–1000)
(Athens: National Hellenic Research Foundation—Institute for Byzantine
Research), 162–70; Warren Treadgold, The Middle Byzantine Historians (New
York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), 203–24; Leonora Neville, Guide to Byzantine
Historical Writing (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018), 118–23.
These chroniclers do not hide the original hostile intentions but focus on
the settlement of relations between the two polities. However, Pseudo-
Symeon mentions looting in the themes of Thrace and Macedonia. He also
writes about Emperor Michael’s march about a decade later, which did not
lead to a war because of the decision to impose Christianity in Bulgaria. See
Theophanes Continuatus, Ioannes Cameniata, Symeon Magister [Pseudo-Symeon],
Georgius Monachus, ed. Immanuel Bekker [CSHB 33] (Bonn: E. Weber, 1838),
664.5–665.2, 665.11–666.6. In contrast, the text of Theophanes Continuatus
presents stories circulating in Byzantium about the baptism of Knyaz Boris
I and initiatives for the Christianization of Bulgaria in the 860s; Theophanes
Continuatus, 162.3–165.10. Cf. also Genesios, On the Reigns of the Emperors, trans.
Anthony Kaldellis (Canberra: Australian Association for Byzantine Studies,
1998), 77, 86.
23. Theophanes Continuatus, 387.14–388.4, 404.18–405.10; Leo Grammaticus,

293.20–294.3, 309.7–18; Symeon Magister, 303.118–22, 319.200–320.214;
Georgius Monachus Continuatus, 880.5–9, 897.3–16. Jonathan Shepard is
inclined to accept that the first takeover of Adrianople was a border incident
caused by the benevolent motives of Governor Pankratukas and not related

to genuine hostilities, despite open hostility between the two polities. See
Shepard, “Symeon of Bulgaria—Peacemaker,” ГСУ ЦСВП 3, 88 (1989):
9–48. Further information on the success of Tsar Symeon against the forti-
fied cities in Central Greece is in the Strategikon, compiled around the end
of the third quarter of the eleventh century by Kekaumenos. See Кекавмен,
Советы и рассказы. Поучение византийского полководца XI века (2-е прераб.
и доп. изд.), trans. Генадий Г. Литаврин (Санкт-Петербург: Алетейя, 2003),
198.12–31.
24. Interesting additional details create the feeling that during the period in ques-
tion, coastal settlements were preferred by the fleeing population. Cf. Théodore
Daphnopatès Correspondance, ed. Jean Darrouzès and Leendert G. Westerink
(Paris: Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1978), Ep.
5, 59.21–27; Ep. 6, 75.90–95; Angeliki. E. Laiou, trans., “Life of St. Mary the
Younger,” in Holy Women in Byzantium: Ten Saints’ Lives in English Translation,
ed. Alice-Mary Talbot (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 1996), 279–80;
The Life and Miracles of St. Luke of Steiris, trans. C. L. Connor and W. R. Connor
(Brookline, MА: Hellenic College Press, 1994), 53. See also Saints of the
Ninth-and-Tenth-Century Greece, trans. Anthony Kaldellis and Ioannis Polemis
(Cambridge, MА: Harvard University Press, 2019), XVI, 137. Quite recently
Yannis Stouraitis has pointed out that such seeking for a safer place is not
some extraordinary precedent in Byzantine history. There are various exam-
ples in time and scale with different imperial subjects from regions under
enemy threat. See Stouraitis, “Migrating in the Medieval East Roman World,
ca. 600–1204,” in Migration Histories of the Medieval Afroeurasian Transition Zone:
Aspects of Mobility between Africa, Asia and Europe, 300–1500 C.E., ed. Johannes
Preiser-Kapeller et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2020), 144–49.
25. Nicholas I Patriarch of Constantinople, Ep. 12, 86.99, 86.107–88.119.
26. Nicholas I Patriarch of Constantinople, Ep. 14, 94.59–96.85; Ep. 18, 124.69–72;
Ep. 23, 160.79–162.85; Ep. 24, 170.51–60; Ep. 26, 182.22–184.47; Ep. 28, 192.5–
14; Ep. 29, 198.35–40.
27. Laiou, “Life of St. Mary the Younger,” 239–41, 247–49, 276–79.
28. John Haldon, Warfare, State and Society in the Byzantine World, 565–1204
(London: UCL Press, 1999), 144–46, 234–47.
30. Nicholas I Patriarch of Constantinople, Ep. 23, 160.79–162.85.
31. Nicholas I Patriarch of Constantinople, Ep. 26, 182.40–184.47.

yanko hristov 165
33. See “Life of Naum,” in The Voices of Medieval Bulgaria, Seventh–Fifteenth Century:
The Records of a Bygone Culture, ed. Kiril Petkov (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 106.
34. Nicholas I Patriarch of Constantinople, Ep. 18, 122.41–46, 124.69–72.
35. Nicholas I Patriarch of Constantinople, Ep. 14, 94.59–96.69, 96.71–77.
36. Aside from the above-cited Patriarch Nicholas I’s letter to the Archbishop
of Bulgaria (Ep. 11, 74.39–40 in particular), see also Nicholas I Patriarch of
Constantinople, Ep. 14, 96.74; Ep. 21, 144.55–57; Ep. 23, 160.63; Ep. 26, 182.32;
Ep. 28, 192.11.
37. However, membership in the most valued group of captives did not guaran-
tee survival. A fatal end could easily come to them, bearing in mind every-
thing that might happen to them at the hands of their abductors. See Corinne
Sounders, “Sexual Violence in Wars: The Middle Ages,” in Transcultural Wars
from the Middle Ages to the 21st Century, ed. Hans-Henning Kortüm (Berlin:
Akademie Verlag, 2006), 151–63; David R. Wyatt, Slaves and Warriors in
Medieval Britain and Ireland, 800–1200 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 116–32; Kathy
Gaca, “The Andrapodizing of War Captives in Greek Historical Memory,”
Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 140, no. 1
(2010): 117–61; John Gillingham, “Women, Children and the Profits of War,”
in Gender and Historiography: Studies in the Earlier Middle Ages in Honour of Pauline
Stafford, ed. Janet L. Nelson, Susan Reynolds, and Susan M. Johns (London:
Institute of Historical Research, 2012), 61–74; Yanko Hristov, “A Short Note
on Women’s Captivity in Early Medieval Bulgaria: Between the Absence of
Written Evidences and the Lack of Scientific Interest,” Studia Iuridico-Historica
4 (2015): 49–58.
38. See Christopher Allmand, “War and the Non-Combatant in the Middle Ages,”
in Medieval Warfare: A History, ed. Maurice Keen (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1999), 253–72; Matthew Strickland, “Rules of War or War without
Rules? Some Reflections on Conduct and the Treatment of Non-Combatants
in Medieval Transcultural Wars,” in Transcultural Wars from the Middle Ages to
the 21st Century, 107–40. See also Sean McGlynn, By Sword and Fire: Cruelty and
Atrocity in Medieval Warfare (London: Weinfeld and Nicolson, 2008).
39. Gaca, “The Andrapodizing of War Captives,” 122, 127–56.
40. See also the examples and clarified bibliography in Άbdelaziz Ramadān,
“The Treatment of Arab Prisoners of War in Byzantium, 9th–10th Centuries,”
Annales Islamologiques 43 (2009): 155–94; Symon Wierbiński, “Prospective
Gain or Actual Cost? Arab Civilian and Military Captives in the Light of
Byzantine Narrative Sources and Military Manuals from the 10th Century,”
Studia Ceranea 8 (2018): 253–83.
41. Nicholas I Patriarch of Constantinople, Ep. 31, 210.70–92. See also Christos
G. Makrypoulias, “Civilians as Combatants in Byzantium,” in Byzantine
War Ideology between Roman Imperial Concept and Christian Religion: Akten des
Internationalen Symposiums (Wien, 19–21 Mai 2011), ed. Johannes Koder and
Yannis Stouraitis (Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences, 2012), 109–20.
43. Yanko Hristov, “Prisoners of War in Early Medieval Bulgaria (Preliminary

Remarks),” Studia Ceranea 5 (2015): 73–105 (esp. 76–78, 86–93). For deporta-
tions in Byzantine history see Yannis Stouraitis, “Migrating in the Medieval
East Roman World, ca. 600–1204,” 149–53.
44. See Symeonis Magistri et Logothetae Chronicon, 277.130–138; Славянский перевод

хроники Симеона Логофета с дополнениями, ed. Вячеслав И. Срезневский.
(Санкт-Петербург: Типографiя Императорской Академiя Наук, 1905), 117;
Theophanes Continuatus, 360.8–14; Pseudo-Symeon, 701.23–702.5.
45. Léon Choerosphactès, magistre, proconsul et patrice: Biographie, Correspondance,

ed. Georges Kolias [Texte und Forschungen zur byzantinisch-neugriechis-
chen Philologie, Band 31] (Athens: Verlag der Byzantinisch-neugriechische
Jahrbücher, 1939), 76–91. Cf. the recent Russian translation of the letters Лев
Хиросфакт, Сочинения, trans. Татьяна Сенина (Санкт-Петербург: Алетейя),
202–10. The stay of the captives in question ended with the settlement of rela-
tions between Bulgaria and Byzantium. This is assumed to have been by the
summer of 899 at the latest; see Bozhilov, “A propos des rapports bulgaro-
byzantins sous le tsar Syméon (893–912),” Byzantinobulgarica 6 (1980): 79–80.
Regarding the idea that the liberation of the Imperial subjects happened as
early as 897, see Shepard, “Bulgaria: The Other Balkan ‘Empire,’” 570–71.
For the Byzantines, the practice of exchanging prisoners of war (warriors and
civilians) was consolidated in the wars with the Arabs and seems to fully rep-
resent the efforts of the rulers in Constantinople to bring back their subjects
in enemy captivity. For more information, see Arnold J. Toynbеe, Constantine
Porphyrogenitus and His World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973), 375–93;
Athina Kolia-Dermitzaki, “Some Remarks on the Fate of Prisoners of War in
Byzantium (9th–10th Centuries),” in Atti del Congresso Interdisciplinare di Studi
Storici “La liberazione dei ‘captivi’ tra Cristianità e Islam: Oltre la Crociata e il Ğihād:
Tolleranza e servizio umanitario,” ed. Giulio Cipollone (Città del Vaticano:
Archivio segreto vaticano, 2000), 583–620; Youval Rotman, “Byzance face
à l’Islam arabe, VIIe–Xe siècle: D’un droit territorial à l’identité par la foi,”
Annales: Histoire, Sciences Sociales 60, no. 4 (2005): 767–88; Ramadān, “The
Treatment of Arab Prisoners of War,” 155–94; Youval Rotman, Byzantine
yanko hristov 167
Slavery and the Mediterranean World, trans. Jane Marie Todd (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 2009), 27–44, 47–81 (with my reservations about
some of Rotman’s views on the prisoners of war from the conflicts with the
Balkan rivals of Byzantium); Koray Durak, “Performance and Ideology in
the Exchange of Prisoners between the Byzantines and the Islamic Near
Easterners in the Early Middle Ages,” in Medieval and Early Modern Performance
in the Eastern Mediterranean, ed. Arzu Öztürkmen and Evelyn Birge Vitz
(Turnhout: Brepolis, 2014), 167–80.
46. Cf., for example, Nicholas I Patriarch of Constantinople, Ep. 21, 144.78–146.81.
47. Nicholas I Patriarch of Constantinople, Ep. 13, 90.28–29; Ep. 14, 96.74; Ep. 13,
90.28–29; Ep. 21, 144.47–51, 144.57; Ep. 28, 192.10; Ep. 29, 198.39–40; Ep. 31,
210.87.
48. Nicholas I Patriarch of Constantinople, Ep. 20, 136.94–99. The mention of the
Gothic warlord may have an additional connotation given his tragic end.
See also Barry Baldwin, “Nicholas Mystikus on Roman History,” Byzantion
58, no. 1 (1988): 174–78; Liliana Simeonova, “Power in Nicholas Mysticus’
Letters to Symeon of Bulgaria: Notes on the Political Vocabulary of a Tenth
Century Byzantine Statesman,” Byzantinoslavica 54, no. 1 (1993): 89–94;
James D. Howard-Johnston, “A Short Piece of Narrative History: War and
Diplomacy in the Balkans, Winter 921/2–Spring 924,” in Byzantine Style,
Religion and Civilization: In Honour of Sir Steven Runciman, ed. Elizabeth M.
Jeffreys (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 340–60; Mirosław J.
Leszka, “Bizantyńscy intelektualiści o wojnie i pokoju (Mikołaj Mistyk i Teodor
Dafnopates),” Vox Patrum 77 (2021): 35–50.
50. Exaggerating the importance of quantitative mismatch is unnecessary. By the

tenth century, a considerable amount of experience with unequal prisoner
exchanges with the Arabs had already been gained in Byzantium. However,
downplaying it is also unacceptable. There were cases when the previously
agreed-upon exchanges were a failure and delayed, as it turned out that the
Caliph had fewer captured Byzantine subjects than the number of Arabs
held in prison in Constantinople. See Александр А. Васильев, Византия и
арабы. Политические отношения Византии и арабов за время Македонской
династии (Санкт-Петербург: Типография И. Н. Скороходова, 1902), 156–61,
II. 46–51, 72–73; Toynbеe, Constantine Porphyrogenitus and His World, 388–9,
391; Kolia-Dermitzaki, “Some Remarks,” 584–86, 614; Rotman, “Byzance face
à l’Islam arabe,” 767–78.
51. Nicholas I Patriarch of Constantinople, Ep. 18, 122.46–54; Ep. 19, 128.25–27; Ep.
25, 176.84–92.
52. See Alexander Kazhdan, “Daphnopatеs, Thеodore,” in The Oxford Dictionary of

Byzantium, 588; “Theodoros Daphnopates,” in Prosopographie der mittelbyzanti-
nischen Zeit Online, ed. Ralph-Johannes Lilie et al. (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter,
2013), www.degruyter.com/document/database/PMBZ/entry/PMBZ29849/
html (accessed 12 February 2021); John Duffy, “Authorship and the Letters
of Theodore Daphnopates,” in Reading in the Byzantine Empire and Beyond, ed.
Teresa Shawcross and Ida Toth (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2018), 547–57.
53. See Rotman, Byzantine Slavery, 46–47; Rustam Shukurov, “Barbarians,

Philanthropy, and Byzantine Missionism,” in Philanthropy in Anatolia through
the Ages: The First International Suna & İnan Kiraç Symposium on Mediterranean
Civilizations (March 26–29, 2019, Antalya): Proceedings, ed. Oğuz Tekin,
Christopher H. Roosevelt, and Egin Akyürek (İstanbul: Koç University Press,
2020), 141–52. Cf. also Noel Lenski, “Slavery in the Byzantine Empire,” in The
Cambridge World History of Slavery, AD 500–AD 1420, vol. 2, ed. Craig Perry
et al. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021), 453–81. A useful view-
point is also provided in Daphne Penna, “The Role of Slaves in the Byzantine
Economy: Legal Aspects,” in Slavery in the Black Sea Region, c. 900–1900: Forms
of Unfreedom at the Intersection between Christianity and Islam, ed. Felicia Roşu
(Leiden: Brill, 2021), 63–89.
54. Théodore Daphnopatès, Ep. 5, 59.40–42, 59.47–61.49; Ep. 6, 69.20–71.30; Ep. 7,

83.34–85.68; It is not surprising that the correspondence of Patriarch Nicholas
I Mystikos also reveals the enslavement of Imperial subjects taken in Bulgarian
captivity. See Nicholas I Patriarch of Constantinople, Ep. 13, 90.24–32; Ep. 14,
96.71–77; Ep. 29, 198.39–40. Cf. also Kolia-Dermitzaki, “Some Remarks,” 607–
11; Yanko Hristov, “Writing on the Emperor’s Behest: A Remark on Theodore
Daphnopates’ Correspondence to the Bulgarian Tsar Symeon I (893–927)”
(forthcoming).
55. Regarding the efforts to build an anti-Byzantine alliance with the Fatimids and
the amir of Tarsus, see Красимир Кръстев, “България, Византия и Арабският
свят при царуването на Симеон I Велики,” together with the attached bibli-
ography, in Българският Златен век: Сборник в чест на цар Симеон Велики
(893–927), ed. В. Гюзелев et al. (Пловдив: Фондация Българско историческо
наследство, 2015), 361–78 (esp. 371–78).
56. Nicholas I Patriarch of Constantinople, Ep. 9, 58.98–112. See also Ian Mladjov,
“Trans-Danubian Bulgaria: Reality or Fiction,” Byzantine Studies/Etudes
Byzantines 3 (1998): 85–128 (esp. 90–96, 108–20); Jonathan Shepard, “Symeon’s
Confrontation with Byzantium c. 917: Diplomatic Ripples across Eurasia,” in
Симеонова България в историята на Европейския Югоизток: 1100 години от
битката при Ахелой, ed. Николай Кънев et al., vol. 1 (Велико Търново: Фабер,
2018), 11–21; Пламен Павлов, “За ролята на номадите маджари и печенези в
българо-византийските отношения при цар Симеон Велики (893–927),” in
yanko hristov 169
Симеонова България в историята на Европейския Югоизток: 1100 години от

битката при Ахелой, ed. Николай Кънев et al., vol. 2 (Велико Търново: Фабер,
2018), 96–106.
57. Constanine Porphyrocenitus, De administrando imperio, ed. and trans. Gyula

Moravcsik and Romilly J. H. Jenkins [CFSB 1], 1 (Washington, DC: Dumbarton
Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies, 1967), 156.
58. Cf. Mirosław J. Leszka and Kirił Marinow, “Peace,” in The Bulgarian State in 927–
969: The Epoch of Tsar Peter I, ed. Mirosław J. Leszka and Kirił Marinow (Łódź-
Kraków: Łódź University Press, 2018), 47–53. See also Romilly J. H. Jenkins,
“The Peace with Bulgaria (927) Celebrated by Theodore Daphnopates,” in
Jenkins, Studies on Byzantine History of the 9th and the 10th Centuries, 287–303;
Patricia Karlin-Hayter, “The Homily on the Peace with Bulgaria of 927 and
the “Coronation” of 913,” Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 17 (1968):
29–39; Ivan Dujcev, “On the Treaty of 927 with the Bulgarians,” Dumbarton
Oaks Papers 32 (1978): 217–95; Kirił Marinow, “Living in Peace: Byzantino-
Bulgarian Relations According to the Homily ‘On the Peace Treaty with the
Bulgarians,’” in Standarti na vsekidnevieto prez Srednovekovieto i Novoto vreme,
vol. 3, ed. Krasimira Mutafova et al. (Veliko Tarnovo, 2014), 271–83; Kirił
Marinow, “Facing the Atrocities of War: Attitudes, Thoughts and Feelings.
The Byzantine Example,” in Standarti na vsekidnevieto, 284–93.
59. About such processes and efforts in Byzantium, with useful comments, see
Rustam Shukurov, “Barbarians, Philanthropy, and Byzantine Missionism,”
141–52.

Hristov, Byzantine Civilians in Bulgarian Captivity

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hristov, Byzantine Civilians in Bulgarian Captivity

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WRITTEN NOT WITH INK BUT WITH TEARS

BYZANTINE CIVILIANS IN BULGARIAN CAPTIVITY

In the dynamic situation of the Byzantino-Bulgarian conflict that

Mediaevalia, Vol. 43, 2022 137

Porphyrogennetos, imposed her own control over the government—

I Mystikos, who bore the burden of difficult diplomatic contacts

Genesis 4.8–10, Not the Lamentations of Jeremiah the Prophet

smashing defeat of the Imperial army near the River Achelous on

earlier letter from the winter of 918–919, addressed to a leading

rests in uncertainty. But what is not uncertain is this:

can be made to the Babylonian captivity of the Israelites. On the

Striving for Looting and Pillage

increasingly relied on the solidity of the walls of various fortified

monks, of nuns, scattered, with not so much as the

Civilians in the Way of the Advancing Army

Patriarch Nicholas Mystikos’ concerns about the destruction of

the Byzantine provinces was often a challenge, and no doubt for-

Consider, I beg of you, the destruction of monaster-

God, could be author of the evils which now beset

Fate of the Captives and the Diplomatic Outcome

Unlike the correspondence between Leo Choirosphaktes and

predecessor, would eventually prove to be the victorious party in

correct procedure of the exchange of those who are

provinces of the Empire but were returned to Bulgaria before the

Without any attempt to downplay the effect of the Byzantino-

conquered settlements, and devastated territories—the lack of

additional source of pressure on the Imperial political elite in his

—South-West University “Neofit Rilski,”

1. “Nikolaos I. Mystikos,” in Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit Online,

2. Nicholas I Patriarch of Constantinople, Ep. 5, 26.1–38.207, 527–28. Cf. Theophanes

4. Cf. Jeffrey Fynn-Paul, “Empire, Monotheism and Slavery in the Greater

5. Hussein Fancy, “Captivity, Ransom, and Manumission, 500–1420,” in The

6. αἰχμᾰλωσία (captivity); αἰχμάλωτος (taken by the spear/captive/prisoner cap-

8. About the possibility that letters number 3 and 4 of the correspondence of

Contribution of Humanities and Social Sciences. Proceedings of the International

11. Nicholas I Patriarch of Constantinople, Ep. 10, 70.20–28.

12. Nicholas I Patriarch of Constantinople, Ep. 16, 106.42–44.

13. Nicholas I Patriarch of Constantinople, Ep. 13, 90.24–32.

14. Nicholas I Patriarch of Constantinople, Ep. 9, 54.38–40, 64.204–6.

15. Nicholas I Patriarch of Constantinople, Ep. 16, 106.35–40.

16. Nicholas I Patriarch of Constantinople, Ep. 17, 114.62–69.

18. Nicholas I Patriarch of Constantinople, Ep. 11, 74.34–38.

19. Nicholas I Patriarch of Constantinople, 622–27. For useful comments on the

20. Nicholas I Patriarch of Constantinople, Ep. 17, 112.47–49.

21. Nicholas I Patriarch of Constantinople, Ep. 9, 58.89–94, 62.180–84. Considering

22. Symeonis Magistri et Logothetae Chronicon, 239.148–240.153. See the recent

23. Theophanes Continuatus, 387.14–388.4, 404.18–405.10; Leo Grammaticus,

caused by the benevolent motives of Governor Pankratukas and not related

25. Nicholas I Patriarch of Constantinople, Ep. 12, 86.99, 86.107–88.119.

29. Nicholas I Patriarch of Constantinople, Ep. 11, 74.39–43.

30. Nicholas I Patriarch of Constantinople, Ep. 23, 160.79–162.85.

31. Nicholas I Patriarch of Constantinople, Ep. 26, 182.40–184.47.

32. Nicholas I Patriarch of Constantinople, Ep. 29, 198.35–40.

34. Nicholas I Patriarch of Constantinople, Ep. 18, 122.41–46, 124.69–72.

35. Nicholas I Patriarch of Constantinople, Ep. 14, 94.59–96.69, 96.71–77.

39. Gaca, “The Andrapodizing of War Captives,” 122, 127–56.

42. Nicholas I Patriarch of Constantinople, Ep. 21, 144.47–51.

43. Yanko Hristov, “Prisoners of War in Early Medieval Bulgaria (Preliminary

44. See Symeonis Magistri et Logothetae Chronicon, 277.130–138; Славянский перевод

45. Léon Choerosphactès, magistre, proconsul et patrice: Biographie, Correspondance,

49. Nicholas I Patriarch of Constantinople, Ep. 20, 140.169–91.

50. Exaggerating the importance of quantitative mismatch is unnecessary. By the

52. See Alexander Kazhdan, “Daphnopatеs, Thеodore,” in The Oxford Dictionary of

Mediaevalia, Vol. 43, 2022 137