Army of Byzantium VI. Battle commander Belisarius (continued)

30
After a triumphant victory in Africa, Justinian decided to return Italy and Rome to the bosom of the empire. So began a long war, costing tremendous effort and losses. Looking ahead, I must say that all of Italy was never returned to the bosom of the Romanian state.

In 535, the fighting began with the army under the command of the master of the army of Illyria Munda moving to capture Dalmatia and the city of Salona, ​​and Belisarius and his commanders Constantine, Bes, Iber Peranius with an army of soldiers and isavrov, with allies Huns and Moors, put their ships, moved to Sicily. In Dalmatia, the Romans did not succeed.




Belisarius. Mosaic. VI century. Basilica of San Vitale. Ravenna, Italy

Meanwhile, Belisarius landed in southern Italy. The leader is ready Theodat did nothing. At the same time, in Dalmatia, the commander Konstantinian broke the ready and cleared it of them. Belisarius approached Naples and set up a camp near him: the city was taken in combat thanks to the cunning and dexterity of the Isaurians. Upon learning of this, the Goths chose the new King Vitiges, and Theodath was killed. The new king went to the port of Ravenna, the capital of Italy.

In 536, Belisarius entered the "eternal city". The Senate of Rome went over to his side.

At the same time, Vitiges concluded a military alliance with the Franks, and they decided to send the subordinate tribes to help the Goths, because before that they had formed an alliance with the empire and preferred not to take part in hostilities directly. Belisarius, realizing that the Goths had the advantage in manpower, began to prepare for a siege, strengthening the walls and bringing bread to Rome.

Battle of Rome This battle is one of the clearest examples of the military art of the Romans and the commander Belisarius, who, with limited resources, was able to withstand for a long time and, in the end, defeat a superior opponent.


Walls of rome

In the spring of 537, the city of Vitiges, gathering a huge army, moved to Rome. At the famous Mulvii Bridge, Belisarius himself led the attack against the Goths and stopped their rapid offensive. The Goths began to besiege the city, building seven camps around it. After the siege towers were built, they went on a general assault. Belisarius successfully repulsed the attackers. Hunger and deprivation of siege did not break the Romans. The active Belisarius forged the keys to the gate, fearing betrayal; residents, rescuing from hunger, sent south to Naples; even arrested and dismissed the father of Silveria, fearing his betrayal. The empire was able to send only 1600 riders to help: Huns and Slavs led by Martin and Valerian army masters. At the same time, the Goths were able to take the Port, breaking off the connection of Rome with the sea. In everyday clashes, success remained on the side of the besieged, and as often happens, the army confidently decided that it could defeat superior forces ready in open battle, forcing the commander to battle. In the course of the battle against the walls, the Romans did not succeed and again went into small mistakes. With the onset of winter 538, diseases intensified in the city, but the commander was able to ensure the delivery of bread from Calabria. Hunger and disease acted in the same way in the city and was ready in the camp, which is why Vitiges decided to go for a truce: the Goths liberated the Port, which the Romans occupied, by organizing the supply of grain. The master of the army and the consul John with the generals Bazas, Konon, Pavel and Rema arrived with an army from the empire. An attempt by the Germans to attack Rome again failed, in response, Belisarius began to seize small towns in the area of ​​Rome. Vitiges was forced to lift the siege, which lasted one year and nine days. John captures the Samnite region.

In the fall of 537, he moved to Ravenna, leaving garrisons in cities along the way. On the heels were the warriors of Belisarius under the leadership of his spear-bearer Mundila. They rapidly captured Liguria, taking the cities of Genoa, Titsin (Padua) and Mediolan. Thus, the victory of the besieged over the superior forces of the enemy ended the battle for Rome.

In the spring of 538, Belisarius himself moved to the north of Italy. Goths surrendered garrisons. Seven thousand soldiers arrived in Italy with the treasurer Narses and his generals: the Armenians Narses and Aratius, Justin, the commander of the Illyrians, Byzand, Aluin and Fanifei, the leaders of the Erul. The commanders met and began to advance north: the fleet under the command of Ildiger went along the coast, in parallel the fleet there was a small unit led by Martin, which had an important task: to divert the attention of the enemy, depicting a huge army. Belisarius and Narses moved through the city of Urbisali (now the Mark region). The Romans saved the besieged garrison of the city of Arminius, the Goths, seeing the fleet and infantry, fled to Ravenna.

Justinian’s policy, which did not allow unity of command, with the aim of opposing “usurpation”, was extremely detrimental to the conduct of hostilities: disputes began among the commanders who, in fact, were the leader leaders. The Goths and their allies, the Burgundians, who took Mundila Mediolan (Milan) at the end of 538, took advantage of this and beat Liguria.

At the beginning of 539, Justinian was forced to recall Treasurer Narses, Heruli, soldiers from the Germanic tribe who had close contact with the Treasurer, went to him through the territory occupied by Vitiges on the terms that they would never fight the Goths. And Belisarius was losing time, besieging Auxim (now Osimo, Pizeny).

At the end of 539, a new force is entering the battle for Italy. The Franks decided to take part in the plunder of Italy. The great hordes of Theodeberg, with the support of the Allied tribes, crossed the Alps and crossed Liguria and crossed the River Po. Here they made a human sacrifice, killing the captive ready, their wives and children. After that, the Franks first attacked the camp ready, and then the Romans, defeating those and others. Upon learning of their invasion, the Roman and Martin armies fled as well. Belisarius wrote a letter to Theodeberg, in which he reproached him for his treachery. But only dysentery in the camp of the Franks was able to stop their stormy invasion of Italy: a third of their troops died, and they returned behind the Alps. Belisarius, having tried various methods of capturing Auxum and spending a lot of time on this, agreed with the garrison on his surrender. Then he hurriedly marched towards Ravenna, at the same time capturing small Gothic fortresses in the Alps. At this time, ambassadors from Constantinople Domnick and Maximin arrived in Ravenna, trying to conclude a peace treaty, on the terms of the border of the Empire and ready to pass along the Po and divide the Gothic treasures in half between Vitiges and Justinian.

At the end of 539, Mr. Belisarius, outraged by the peace negotiations, refused to sign the document, which made him suspicious. The Goths tried to win Belisarius to their side, declaring him emperor of Italy, but he refused, insisting on surrendering Ravenna. The Goths, who suffered hunger, were forced to surrender themselves and surrender their capital. So did the other garrisons in northern Italy. Justinian withdrew Belisarius to the capital, leaving Besu, John and Constantine in Italy. The Goths, seeing that the great commander with prisoners and treasures left Italy, elect a new king Ildibad, nephew of the king of the Visigoths Tevdisa. The emperor, who decided that Italy had already been subdued, was busy with a new war with the Persians, fighting the invasion of the Slavs and Huns.

In the spring of 541, the winner of the vandals and ready, Belisarius, who gathered the military council in Dar, was transferred to the east. Justinian, who suspected Belisarius of usurping aspirations, did not give him the right to fully command all the troops stationed in the area. But, it should be noted that many commanders, being in fact the leaders of their troops, did not really strive for submission, pursuing their own personal interests.

In the summer of 541, the army moved from Dara to Persia to Nisibis (Nusaybin, a city in Turkey on the border with Syria). Hired, who led the Persian army, taking advantage of the fact that the Romans settled down in two camps, attacked them: Belisarius’s camp and, who did not want to obey him, Peter’s camp. He killed many of Peter’s soldiers and captured his banner, but was recaptured by the Goths of Belisarius. Since it was obvious that it was not realistic to take Nisibis, the Romans decided to besiege the city of Sisavranon, where there were many inhabitants and a garrison consisting of 800 horsemen, at the head of which stood Vlisham. At the same time, Aref together with the shield bearers Belisarius, was sent across the Tigris River to Assyria, for its destruction, since this land was rich and had not been subjected to enemy invasions for a long time. This plan was carried out, and the city of Sisavran surrendered, since the majority of its inhabitants were Greeks.

But Belisarius did not continue the offensive actions, as his secretary Procopius writes in “The Secret stories", Personal motives (treason of the wife who was friends with the empress) forced him to throw the theater of war and thereby subject the territory to Syria to plunder by the enemy. He was recalled to the capital.

In the spring of 542, in retaliation for the invasion of Khosrow I, with the king of the Arabs, Alamunder III, he crossed the Euphrates. Since he devastated Syria the previous year, his goal was Palestine and Jerusalem. Local commanders, such as the cousin of Emperor Yust, a high school, tried to sit in the fortifications, not opposing the Shah. Again, the Emperor sent Belisarius, who arrived in the town of Europe (not far from present-day Qalat-es-Salihia, Syria), located on the Euphrates River, to rescue the Romanians. Khosrov sends ambassadors to him for the purpose of intelligence of the Roman troops. Since the forces of the commander were extremely small, and his fame is known to the Persians, Belisarius prepared a "spectacle." The ambassador saw a “huge army” consisting of selected warriors: Thracians, Illyrians, Goths, Heruli, Vandals and Mavrusians. Specially before the ambassador went strong and high, engaged in daily affairs, this performance made an impression, and the Sassanians decided that Belisarius had a huge army.

The task of Belisarius was to "push out" the army of the Persians from the Romanian limits, since there was no strength for the battle. At the same time, a plague broke out in Palestine. This, as well as the "spectacle", influenced the decision of the Sassanian king. He quickly brought the crossing and crossed the Euphrates: “For the Persians it is not difficult to cross any river, because when they go hiking, they take with them the iron hooks prepared in advance, which they hold together with each other long logs, immediately building a bridge in any a place where they want. "

But the suspicions of the basilus against Belisarius were not dispelled. In Byzantium, due to the absence of a mechanism for transferring supreme power, the threat of its seizure by the military, as in Rome before, was constant. Literally in 50 years, the hekatonarch (centurion) Fock would seize power from the basil warrior of Mauritius, and he himself would be overthrown by the exarch of Africa Irakli.

Describing the events related to Belisarius, Procopius believed that the emperor and his spouse very much wanted to seize the commander's wealth. It was assumed that he captured most of the treasures of the Vandals and was ready, and gave only a part to the basilica. The military leader was deprived of the position and "squads", his spearmen and shield bearers were distributed by lot. Belisarius was morally broken.

Meanwhile, in Italy, the new Gothic king Totila inflicts one defeat after another on the Roma, smashing commanders- "leaders" one by one.

In 543, Naples was commissioned. In Rome, there were unrest, throughout Italy raged plague.

Under such conditions, in 544, Belisarius returned to Ravenna with a small army. He led the army on the terms that will contain it at his own expense. But most likely he didn’t want to do this, as Procopius writes, he kept the money collected from Italy.

In 545, the city of Totila began the siege of Rome. Belisarius’s attempt to ensure the delivery of bread to Rome from Sicily failed: the head of the Roman garrison Bes did not show promptness, and the Goths seized the transports with bread. Finally, Belisarius waited for reinforcements from Constantinople with John. Again an old feud broke out between the generals. And Belisarius sends John to Constantinople. In Rome, the famine began. The commander personally commanded a breakthrough for the delivery of bread to the "eternal city", but was forced to retreat, fell seriously ill and stopped the fight.

In December, the Isaurus 546 surrendered Rome to Totil, and the Goths broke into the city: here they discovered the wealth that was earned by speculation, responsible for the defense of the city, Bes. The city was looted, the city walls, many buildings, outstanding architectural monuments that survived the previous sieges and storms of barbarians were destroyed, the Roman population and senators were captured.


Map of Rome V-VIII centuries.

Totila, leaving part of the troops to fight Belisarius, moved south against the army master, Patrik John.

In 547, the army master, John, arriving from the capital, occupied Tarent. The recovered Belisarius again entered Rome. He quickly began to build a wall around the city, but did not manage to rebuild the gate. Totila returned to Rome and went to the assault. Belisarius built his best warriors in the unfinished gates, and the city dwellers on the walls. Two assaults of Rome were repulsed.

The case of the Romanians in Italy was complicated by the fact that the problems of Italy did not interest the emperor, who was engaged in theological disputes, under these conditions, Belisarius received permission to leave the theater of operations. Justinian, despite the fact that he was the last true Roman emperor, still, like most Byzantines (the Romans), preferred quick success and profits from the enterprise, investing very little in them. Defeats and difficulties in the fight against enemies were partly associated with these particular features of the ruler of the empire. Totila, using the current situation, suffered military operations at sea, and again took Rome (again the Isaurians again betrayed him). In such circumstances, Belisarius resigned. Since then, the commander lives in the capital.

In 559, in the winter, huge hordes of Hun-Kuturgurs and Slavs invaded the ice of the Danube across the Balkans into Thrace. The Huns laid siege to the Thracian Chersonesos and approached the capital. The palace troops, little adapted to war, took over the protection of Byzantium. As Procopius wrote: “Such terrible and great dangers seemed unquestionable that lohagi, taxiarchs and many warriors were really placed on the walls, in Sikka and the so-called Golden Gates, if they attacked. In fact, however, they were incompetent and were not even sufficiently trained in military affairs, but were from those military units that were appointed to keep guards day and night, which are called scholaria. ”


A rich citizen in the form of scholaria. VI century. Reconstruction of the author

Fortunately, 54-year-old Belisarius was in the capital. He spoke out against Khan Zabregan. Having neither a numerical advantage nor a trained army, he, using military cunning, armed and equipped both decorative, by this time, scholarians, and ordinary people. The terrible name of the commander did his job, the Huns fled from the walls. Huns and Slavs could not take Chersonesos. When they left the Danube, Justinian redeemed the prisoners from them, paid a huge tribute and provided them with a ferry.

So in the slope of life, Belisarius once again served the cause of the Romans.

In conclusion, it is worth noting that he has gone from a spearman to a master or stratilate, the highest military post. Nevertheless, with all the higher military ranks of previous periods observed in the 6th century, as indeed in the 5th century, we observe that troop control in reality takes place on the basis of “leaderism”. The commander is gathering his "army" -druzhinu among those groups of the population, barbarians and warriors, where it can be done and with them acts in the campaign. Partly, the war becomes the personal enterprise of military leaders, when they at their own expense recruit troops and "earn" money from the war, sharing the loot with the supreme power. This system successfully worked throughout the reign of Justinian the Great, but began to give serious failures by the end of his reign. Because of it, the affairs of the Romans took a completely lamented turn already in the Fokey board. This continued until stabilization, thanks to the fem reform. But these events are beyond the period under consideration.

It should be noted: one should not confuse the system of formation of troops and the system of using it on the battlefield, such confusion often leads to numerous mistakes in studying the army of this period.

As for the management system, if we look from the present, then that harmony that was in Rome during the period of the republic and the early empire, we, of course, do not observe.

The problem for the Roman Empire was that all the brilliant beginnings of this period were not brought to the end. The return to the bosom of the state of Africa, Italy and even parts of Spain was not completed: the wars did not cease here. The codification of Roman law and the novels, which, according to Justinian, should be removed from the court by professional litiggers (lawyers) who turned him into a circus, failed. Comments on the Code appeared in just a few years and the lawyers continued their “circus” activities.

It is difficult to say, and even the sources that have come down to us do not allow this, but Basil Justinian was surrounded, or created an environment consisting of brilliant commanders, leaders, lawyers and geometers (builders and architects).

One of them, of course, was the hero of our small article.

But, the work that they carried out was not systemic, but project-based, since it depended heavily on the bastion that was “fascinated” by the projects, including the destructive ideological disputes about faith.

Belisarius proved himself to be an outstanding warrior during the restoration of the Roman State, who can be ranked with the best generals of the past. UN was one of the few who could "less achieve more."

Unfortunately, his experience was not taken into account in the subsequent development of the country: scholasticism, which flourished in Byzantium, captured the military sphere, and only the return of power to the warriors from the 9th century BC. contributed to changes in this area.
30 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +10
    8 March 2019 06: 16
    Damn, damn, damn - dear and respected Eduard (Author of the article) forgive me for God's sake for my words outlined below, but I can not keep silent!
    For all the depth of your knowledge on the topic, the material has been systematized, chronological, but alas, in a “dead language”! Dry fact, dry fact, dry fact, intermediate conclusion, dry fact ..... etc.
    For the first time in my life, I forced myself to read interesting information for myself!
    Priceless for users of VO Eduard, on behalf of all readers add to your work a little bit of “native, rich and powerful” !!! You are welcome!!!
    Do not take my criticism as disrespect, the material you submitted is always interesting and I will personally read it, but I would like to do it with pleasure !!!
    Sincerely yours, Kote!
    1. +8
      8 March 2019 07: 26
      I completely agree that the article is interesting, but the presentation is very dry. The author also needs to pay attention to the correct spelling of names: the king of the Franks is not TeodeberG, but TheodeberT, the king of the Arabs is not AlamundEr, but Alamundar, and it is customary to write the name of the Visigothic king not Tavdis, but Teudis, or Theoda, because in the Russian historical tradition, the endings "with" are often "omitted", let's say we write the name of the emperor as Justinian, not Justinianus, which would be more correct.
      1. +2
        8 March 2019 08: 21
        Quote: fuxila
        pay attention to the correct spelling

        I also drew attention to "basileus", although the spelling basileus is more common. So how is it correct? Part of the history described by the author is reflected in the book "Primordial Rus".
        1. +1
          8 March 2019 16: 07
          The fact is that the Greek letter "beta" is read as "v" in our country, and as "b" in Western historiography. For example, the name that we write in Russian as Basil, in the Italians is pronounced as Basilio, and in the Anglo-Saxons as Basil. Also the Russian Bartholomew, the Italians Bartolomeo, etc. As far as I know, the sound denoted in Russian by the letter "beta" was pronounced by the Greeks neither as "b", but not as "c", it was something in between, and this difference arose from that. A similar example with the letter "W", which denotes a sound that is absent in the Russian language, and therefore you have to write either West Virginia or West Virginia, which is actually equally wrong.
        2. +1
          8 March 2019 19: 34
          The second letter in the Greek alphabet is vita. So all the same "Vasileus".
          1. 0
            9 March 2019 06: 27
            In modern Greek, there is indeed "vita", but the Basileus do not live there either. The ancient Greek alphabet originates from the Phoenician alphabet, where there were the letters "Aleph" (bull), "Bet" (house), etc. In ancient Greek, they became alpha, beta, etc. And by the way, there are three Greek languages: Ancient Greek, Middle Greek and Modern Greek. A modern Greek will not understand anything if you speak to him in ancient Greek.
            1. 0
              9 March 2019 18: 08
              Absolutely agree with you not derived from "vassileus" names like Vasilios anyway Vasilios, not Basilios.
    2. +2
      8 March 2019 09: 01
      Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
      For all the depth of your knowledge on the topic, the material has been systematized, chronological, but alas, in a “dead language”! Dry fact, dry fact, dry fact, intermediate conclusion, dry fact ..... etc.
      For the first time in my life, I forced myself to read interesting information for myself!
      Priceless for VO Edward users, on behalf of all readers add a little bit of “native, rich and powerful” to your work !!! You are welcome!!!

      I’ll only say from his Name: The article is written in good, competent Russian. Interesting and informative. Yes

      nothing (from "mighty") add do noteach author has his own style and manner ..

      maybe for one article, the volume of the information proposed for the review is too big .....

      Article plus.
    3. +10
      8 March 2019 11: 10
      It is very important for me! Thank. Uchtu in the next article. Let me explain: these articles are part of the great work on armaments of the 6th century. Specifically VIv. based on iconography and archeology. In form, I did a "reconstruction." But since writing only about armaments without a historical and technical military aspect is not realistic, given historiography, where this aspect is viewed vaguely: the army from V to VIII. To reduce the "number of pages" - I dried the structure. Something like this. Anyway, thanks!
      1. +4
        8 March 2019 12: 20
        Dear Edward, better in small pieces, but a lot! Believe me, if your work was spread over ten articles instead of two, we were only happy !!!
        Regards, Vlad!
        1. +3
          8 March 2019 19: 42
          Dear Edward, I am reading your articles with interest. Let me make a small remark:
          Khan Zabergan was not a Hun (at least, science does not think so). He was a khan of the Turkic tribe of Kutrigurs. Some attribute them to the tribal union of the Proto-Bulgarians. Evidence that if necessary I can give. But even writing that he was the leader of the Western Turkic tribe would be more correct.
          Yours!
          1. 0
            10 March 2019 08: 53
            Dear Ivan Ivanich! About Zabregana. Thanks for the information! Not in terms of a dispute, but to clarify some points.
            It seems to me, I stress, it seems that with respect to the nomads of this period, and later, by the way, as many here write in the comments, it should not be determined by rigid schemes. We know about them (nomads) exclusively from Byzantine authors, and they traditionally attributed them to the Huns. Moreover, the Huns did not share anywhere, but joined (who did not resist) into the ranks of the new nomadic waves. And the Byzantine authors attributed Kutrigurs to the Huns. It seems to me that they came from the language and appearance. At the same time, for example, the Avars on them - by their appearance - made an unprecedented impression (Corypp).
            Proto-Bulgarians (again, according to Byzantine authors) appear on the borders of the empire at the end of 5-beginning of 6вв., Just at the time of the disintegration of Hun tribal unions.
            So there is no contradiction. Of course, if it is somehow very strictly, strictly assumed that the Huns of Attila (V century) differ sharply from nomads (not Avars) in the 6th century, and this is not seen according to sources, much less according to archeology .
            I have a large article devoted to the arming of the Huns of the 6th century strictly on archeological data, written and some iconographic sources: federates and non-federates, but it is not a VO format, since it was written as a reconstruction. I think where to place. It also touched upon the “ethnic” history of the steppe tribes mentioned in the sources. But very “softly”, I repeat, there cannot be a single opinion, there are very few sources or one source (Jordan or Procopius, for example) - it is difficult to confirm the data. This, you know, how to assert, according to Byzantine monuments, that "dew is a great skuf and Achilles was a Scythian, as blue-eyed." Thank.
            1. 0
              10 March 2019 15: 41
              Dear Edward,
              Thank you for the answer. I agree that the topic of nomads during the Great Migration of Nations is very interesting. Unfortunately, nomads in most of their worlds remained "mute" for history. Written sources have not survived from them. And it is difficult to rely only on archeology.
              I will familiarize myself with your article on the Huns with interest and I think that Vo will only win if you post it here.
    4. +1
      9 March 2019 16: 01
      Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
      For all the depth of your knowledge on the topic, the material has been systematized, chronological, but alas, in a “dead language”! Dry fact, dry fact, dry fact, intermediate conclusion, dry fact ..... etc.

      I personally liked it. Probably the events described in the article were so interesting for me that I did not notice any "dryness".
  2. +5
    8 March 2019 11: 01
    Everyone has their own language. It seems that if the author would have told it live, it would be better for perception.

    For me, a slightly sketchy presentation.

    But criticizing is much easier than writing yourself.
  3. +4
    8 March 2019 11: 09
    Article plus, author respect and respect. smile
    Personally, I am amused:
    The codification of Roman law and the novels, which, according to Justinian, should be removed from the court by professional litiggers (lawyers) who turned him into a circus, failed. Comments on the Code appeared in just a few years and the lawyers continued their “circus” activities.
    laughing
    Interestingly, the author expressed here his own point of view on the work of lawyers, or the point of view of Justinian himself? If the latter, then I really need a reference to direct speech, I promise to learn by heart, I have someone to retell it. laughing
    Yes, and about the specifics of the presentation and the volume of the text - I agree with those commentators who noted some difficulty in its perception. With such a concentration of information, articles can be made smaller. Well, or "deacademize" the style a little. smile
    1. +4
      8 March 2019 14: 56
      In sources (Digesta for example) there is no such information directly, I obviously read it in the comments, but where I can not remember. Alas.
      1. +1
        8 March 2019 22: 39
        Thank. Sorry, of course. If it falls somewhere again, do not take the trouble to notify, please ... smile hi
        1. +1
          10 March 2019 08: 49
          Required!
  4. +1
    8 March 2019 11: 51
    “Is it true that at the end of his life Belisarius was blinded or is this a legend?
    1. 0
      9 March 2019 10: 42
      Is it true that at the end of her life Belisarius was blinded or is it a legend?


      Nobody really knows. There is no information and most historians think that this is a legend. We will never know.
  5. +2
    8 March 2019 14: 26
    Kuturgurs, Unnogurs like Bulgarian tribes, and at that time like Avars, they ruled them, or are they Huns, as the author writes?
    1. +2
      8 March 2019 14: 55
      Kutrigurs or Kuturgurs - a tribe that the Romans attributed to the Huns. They roamed west of the Don, i.e. reached the Danube and invaded more than once in the chapels of the empire. Avars at this time were located on average during the Danube - in Panonia. Later, when the Avars capture the entire Danube, and the Kutrigurs break the Utigurs, the first will fall under the power of the Avars.
      1. +2
        8 March 2019 19: 49
        One of the khans of the Kutrigur Kuber will stop in Macedonia as federates. Khan Tervel at the beginning of the 8th century will call it "my father's brothers who settled in Macedonia". Google about the decoding of the Madara Horseman's inscriptions.

        https://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/Мадарски_конник

        In addition, the Greeks traditionally called the nomads "Scythians" and "Huns".
    2. 0
      8 March 2019 20: 05
      Kuturgurs, Unnogurs like Bulgarian tribes


      Yes, exactly, the name of a Byzantine Greek - Kutrigurs, Onogurs, Utigurs (.Κουτρίγουροι, Κουτούργουροι, Κοτρίγουροι, Κοτρίγοροι, Κουτρίγοροι, Κοτράγηροι, Κουτράγουροι, Κοτριαγήροι) Prabolgarskie tribes as madzhar (sovremenne vengr) UTB tribes Hun Empire. But the problem of those times that you are called by one name in one place, walk 500 km and there is already another so that everything we have is Byzantine sources about Old Great Bulgaria (Παλαιά Μεγάλη Βουλγαρία, Palaiá Megálē Boulgaría). Below he gave all the sources.
  6. +1
    8 March 2019 15: 46
    Thanks to the author for an interesting article. From myself I will add the case of the Romans was not ruined by professional civilian administration. From the very top. Justinian saw more talented rivals in the talented travelers. And his civil servants in the adjoining lands were doing such an unkillfulness, the population was so famously selected that it was more likely to perceive the barbarians as liberators. In Italy, barely a fifth of the population remained due to their activities, the plague and the protracted war. North Aurica was also ravaged. And this is after all the richest provinces capable of becoming the granary and pillar of the empire.
  7. -1
    8 March 2019 19: 51
    559, in winter, huge hordes of Huns-Kuturgurs and Slavs


    Dame the correct name is Kutriguri (Κουτρίγουροι, Κουτούργουροι, Κοτρίγουροι, Κοτρίγοροι, Κουτρίγοροι, Κοτριγροι, Κουτργ

    Onoguri, Kutriguri, Utiguri - later known as the Bulgarian, and their power is called the Byzantines Παλαιά Μεγάλη Βουλγαρία, Palaiá Megálē Boulgaría. Sources - Ethiopian translation of the chronicles of Yoan Nikiu, Ashkharatsuyts, Cambridge correspondence of the Khazar Hagan Joseph, Patriarch Nikifor, Teofan the Confessor.
    1. 0
      8 March 2019 21: 20
      Well, all the Proto-Bulgarians were a related group of Turkic tribes, which formed the tribal alliance Παλαιά Μεγάλη Βουλγαρία :) And then the alliance fell apart under the onslaught of the Khazars.
      You can’t immediately record everyone in the Bulgarians. For example, the Chuvash and Balkars, as well as the descendants of the Proto-Bulgarians in Italy, are not directly related to the Danube Bulgarians. The formation of the Bulgarian nationality differs from the fate of other proto-Bulgarian tribes.
  8. +1
    9 March 2019 00: 01
    A very interesting period. Which is illegally disavowed, both in Western historiography and in ours. As the famous popularizing historian John Norwich writes, he was simply struck by flagrant injustice: the empire, which lasted more than 110 years, made a giant treasure in the preservation and development of science, art and religion, jurisprudence, and created unrivaled examples of art in the same British educational standard, is simply hushed up. And the figure of Belisarius, a kind of Suvorov of those years, is also undeservedly forgotten.
  9. 0
    13 March 2019 10: 18
    Interesting material, but written so poorly and inconspicuously that it is impossible to read this, you have to force yourself.