Military Review

Bulgarian campaign Svyatoslav

17
The success of the Khazar campaign of Svyatoslav made a huge impression on Constantinople. In general, the Byzantines were not against the defeat of Khazaria against Russia, since they carried out their policies on the principle of "divide and rule." In some periods, Byzantium supported Khazaria, helped it build powerful stone fortresses, the Khazars needed to counterbalance Russia and other opponents of the Romans. During the same campaign of Svyatoslav, when Russian troops struck one by one to the Khazars and their allies in the Volga region, the Azov region and the North Caucasus, Byzantium kept neutrality and complete silence. In Constantinople were happy defeats Khazars.


However, the complete defeat of the Khazars (Saber kick of Svyatoslav on the Khazar "miracle-yuda"), in Constantinople they wanted to see the Khazaria weakened and humiliated, but not completely destroyed, shook the Byzantine elite. Most feared the breakthrough of Russian troops in Tavria (Crimea). Svyatoslav troops cost nothing to cross the Bosphorus of Cimmeria (Kerch Strait), and capture the blooming land. Now the fate of the Kherson theme depended on where the great Russian prince moved troops. The Byzantine governor in Kherson had too few troops, unable to not only protect the peninsula, but even the capital. Kherson was then a rich trading city. Strong reinforcements from Constantinople could not send soon. In addition, the Russian troops could not wait for the arrival of the Roman rati, but calmly empty the peninsula and go to their limits. However, after the seizure of Tmutarakan and Kerchev, Svyatoslav had not yet intended to enter into direct conflict with Byzantium.

Kalokira mission. Balkan affairs

After returning to Kiev, Svyatoslav began to think about going to Chersonese (Korsun). The whole course of events led to a new confrontation between Russia and the Byzantine Empire. The Khazar campaign set free for the Russian merchants trade routes along the Volga and the Don. It was reasonable to continue the successful offensive and take the gate to the Black Sea - Chersonese. It is clear that this possibility was not a secret for Byzantium. Romanian merchants, including Chersonese, were regular guests at Russian auctions. In Constantinople, began to seek a diplomatic way out of this dangerous situation.

Around the end of 966 or the beginning of 967, an unusual embassy arrived in the capital city of Kyiv to Russian prince Svyatoslav. He was headed by the son of Chersonesus stratiga Kalokir, who was sent to the Russian prince by the emperor Nikifor Fock. Before sending the envoy to Svyatoslav, Basileus summoned him to Constantinople, discussed the details of the negotiations, conferred the high title of Patrik and handed over a valuable gift, a huge amount of gold - 15 centenaries (about 450 kg).

The Byzantine envoy was an extraordinary man. The Byzantine historian Leo Deacon calls him "courageous" and "ardent." Later, Kalokir will still meet on the path of Svyatoslav and will prove that he is a man who knows how to play a big political game. The main goal of Kalokir’s mission, for which, according to the Byzantine chronicler Lev Deacon, Patricia with a huge amount of gold was sent to Kiev, was to persuade him to act in alliance with Byzantium against Bulgaria. In 966, the conflict between Bulgaria and Byzantium reached its peak, and the emperor Nicephorus Fock led his troops against the Bulgarians.

"Sent by royal will to the Tauro-Scythians (as the old memory was called the Rus, considering them to be the direct heirs of the Great Scythia), the patrician Kalokir, who came to Scythia (Russia), liked the head of the Taurians, bribed him with gifts, charmed with flattering words ... Bulgarians) with a great ratiu with the condition that he, having conquered them, kept their country in their own power, and assisted him in conquering the Roman state and obtaining the throne. He promised him (Svyatoslav) for delivering the great countless treasures from the state treasury. ” The version of the Deacon is extremely simple. Readers tried to convince that Kalokir bribed the barbarian leader, made him his tool in his hands, a weapon against Bulgaria, which was supposed to be a springboard for a higher goal - the throne of the Byzantine Empire. Kalokir dreamed, relying on Russian swords, to seize Constantinople and wanted to pay Bulgaria to Svyatoslav.

This version, created by the official historian of the Byzantine basileus of Basil II the Bulgarian, was included in historiography for a long time. However, later the researchers expressed a clear distrust of the version of Lev the Deacon, drawing attention to other Byzantine and Oriental sources. Found out that much the Deacon did not know, or deliberately did not mention, kept silent. Apparently, originally Kalakir acted in the interests of Nikifor Fochi. However, after the vile murder of Nikifor II Foki - the conspiracy was led by the emperor's wife Theofano (a former prostitute who first seduced the young heir to the throne Roman, and then his commander Nikifor Foku) and her lover, Nikifor's military associate, John Tzimischy decided to join the fight for the throne. In addition, there is evidence that the Rus, while helping Nikifor in the fight against Bulgaria, performed the allied duty, the alliance was concluded even before the rule of Svyatoslav. Russian troops have already helped Nikifor Foke to repel the island of Crete from the Arabs.

Were Svyatoslav a simple tool in the big game? Most likely no. He clearly guessed the idea of ​​the Byzantines. But, on the other hand, the proposal of Constantinople perfectly corresponded to his own designs. Now the Ruses could, without military opposition from the Byzantine Empire, establish themselves on the banks of the Danube, capturing one of the most important trade routes that went along this great European river and approached the most important cultural and economic centers of Western Europe. At the same time taking under the protection of the protection of the streets that lived in the Danube.

In addition, Svyatoslav saw that Byzantium for many years trying to subjugate Slavic Bulgaria. This did not meet the strategic interests of Kiev. First, the Slavic unity has not yet been forgotten. The Rus and the Bulgarians had only recently prayed to the same gods, celebrated one holiday, the language, customs and traditions were the same, with minor territorial differences. Similar territorial differences were in the lands of the Eastern Slavs, say between Krivichy and Vyatichi. It must be said that even after a thousand years there was a kinship between the Russians and the Bulgarians, for good reason Bulgaria was called the “16 Soviet Republic”. It was impossible to give the fraternal people under the authority of outsiders. Svyatoslav himself had plans to gain a foothold on the Danube. Bulgaria could, if not become part of the Russian state, then at least be a friendly state again. Secondly, the approval of Byzantium on the banks of the Danube and the gain at the expense of captured Bulgaria made the Romans neighbors of Russia, which did not promise the latter anything good.

Relations between Byzantium and Bulgaria were complicated. Byzantine diplomats held in their hands the threads of control over many nations, but with the Bulgarians such a policy repeatedly failed. Tsar Simeon I the Great (864 — 927), who miraculously escaped from the “honorable” captivity in Constantinople, himself launched an offensive against the empire. Simeon more than once smashed the imperial army and planned to seize Constantinople, creating his own empire. However, the seizure of Constantinople did not take place, Simeon died unexpectedly. A “miracle” happened that was so prayed in Constantinople. The son of Simeon, Peter I, ascended to the throne - Peter I. Peter strongly supported the Church, giving churches and monasteries lands and gold. This caused the spread of heresy, whose supporters called for the rejection of worldly goods (Bogomilism). The meek and humble Tsar lost most of the Bulgarian territories, could not resist the Serbs and Magyars. Byzantium went from defeat and resumed its expansion.

Bulgarian campaign Svyatoslav

The ruins of the city of Preslav.

While Svyatoslav fought with the Khazars, spread Russian influence over the lands of the Volga region, the Azov region and the Pridonia region, important events were brewing in the Balkans. In Constantinople, they carefully watched as Bulgaria weakened and decided that the time had come when it was time to take their hands. In 965-966 violent conflict broke out. The Bulgarian embassy, ​​which appeared in Constantinople for the tribute that the Byzantines had been paying since the times of Simeon's victories, was driven out in disgrace. The emperor ordered the Bulgarian ambassadors to be pushed down the cheeks and called the Bulgarians poor and disgusting people. This tribute was clothed in the form of the content of the Byzantine Princess Maria, who became the wife of the Bulgarian Tsar Peter. Mary passed away in the 963 year, and Byzantium was able to break this formality. In reality, this was a reason to go on the offensive.

Constantinople in its relations with Bulgaria since the death of Tsar Simeon has achieved great success. On the throne was a meek and indecisive king, more busy with church affairs than with the development of the state. He was surrounded by a crazed boyars, Simeon’s old comrades were removed from the throne. Byzantium allowed itself in relations with Bulgaria more and more dictates, actively intervened in domestic politics, supported its supporters in the Bulgarian capital. The country has entered a period of feudal fragmentation. The development of large boyar landownership contributed to the emergence of political separatism, leading to the impoverishment of the masses. A significant part of the boyars saw a way out of the crisis in strengthening ties with Byzantium, supporting its foreign policy, and strengthening Greek economic, cultural, and ecclesiastical influence. A serious turn occurred in relations with Russia. Former friends, brother-countries, long-standing kinship, cultural and economic ties, they more than once opposed the Byzantine Empire. Now everything has changed. The pro-Byzantine party in Bulgaria with suspicion and hatred followed the successes and strengthening of Russia. In the 940-ies, the Bulgarians with Chersonese twice warned Constantinople about the performance of Russian troops. In Kiev, it quickly noticed.

At the same time, there was a process of strengthening the military power of Byzantium. Already in the last years of the reign of Emperor Roman, the imperial armies, under the leadership of talented commanders, the brothers Nikifor and Lev Foki, have achieved notable success in the struggle against the Arabs. In 961, after a seven-month siege, the capital of the Cretan Arabs Handan was captured. The allied Russian detachment also participated in this campaign. The Byzantine fleet established dominance in the Aegean Sea. Lev Fok won victories in the East. Having taken the throne, Nikifor Fock, a stern warrior and ascetic man, continued to purposefully form a new Byzantine army, the core of which was the "knights" - catapractic (from the ancient Greek. Κατάφρακτος - armored). The armament of the cataphractarians is primarily characterized by heavy armor, which defended the warrior from head to toe. Protective armor was not only riders, but also their horses. Nikifor Fock devoted himself to the war and conquered Cyprus from the Arabs, oppressed them in Asia Minor, preparing for the campaign against Antioch. The success of the empire was facilitated by the fact that the Arab Caliphate entered the strip of feudal fragmentation, Bulgaria was under the control of Constantinople, Russia was also pacified by Olga.

In Constantinople it was decided that it was time to complete the success in Bulgaria, to deliver the final decisive blow to the old enemy. It was impossible to give her the opportunity to escape. Bulgaria has not yet been completely broken. The traditions of Tsar Simeon were alive. The grandees of Simeon in Preslav moved away into the shadows, but still retained influence among the people. The provisan politics, the loss of previous gains and the dramatic material enrichment of the Bulgarian Church caused discontent on the part of the Bulgarian people, part of the boyars.

Bulgarian Queen Maria barely died, Constantinople immediately went to the gap. Byzantium refused to pay tribute, and the Bulgarian ambassadors were deliberately humiliated. When Preslav raised the issue of renewing the 927 peace agreement of the year, Constantinople demanded that Peter’s sons, Roman and Boris, come to Byzantium as hostages, and Bulgaria itself would not let the Hungarian troops pass through its territory to the Byzantine border. In 966, there was a final break. It should be noted that the Hungarian troops really disturbed Byzantium, passing without difficulty through Bulgaria. Between Hungary and Bulgaria there was an agreement that during the passage of the Hungarian troops through the Bulgarian territory to the possessions of Byzantium, the Hungarians should be loyal to the Bulgarian agreement. Therefore, the Greeks accused Preslav of treachery, in a latent form of aggression against Byzantium by the hands of the Hungarians. Bulgaria either could not or did not want to stop the Hungarian raids. In addition, this fact reflected the hidden struggle in the Bulgarian elite, between the provisant party and its opponents, who used the Hungarians with pleasure in the conflict with the Byzantine Empire.

Constantinople, leading the fight against the Arab world, did not dare to divert the main forces for the war with the Bulgarian kingdom, which was still a strong enough opponent. Therefore, in Constantinople it was decided with one blow to solve several problems at once. First, defeat Bulgaria with the forces of Russia, retaining its troops, and then absorb the Bulgarian territories. Moreover, with the failure of the troops of Svyatoslav, Constantinople won again - two dangerous enemies for Byzantium — Bulgaria and Russia — faced each other’s heads. Secondly, the Byzantines diverted the threat from their Kherson theme, which was the breadbasket of the empire. Thirdly, the success and failure of the army of Svyatoslav were to weaken the military might of Russia, which after the liquidation of the Khazars became a particularly dangerous enemy. The Bulgarians were considered to be a strong enemy, and should have fiercely resisted the Rus.

Obviously, Prince Svyatoslav understood this. However, I decided to strike. Kiev could not be calm when the place of the formerly friendly Russia of the Bulgarian kingdom was taken by a weakening Bulgaria in the hands of a provisant party, hostile to the Russian state. It was also dangerous from the point of view that Bulgaria controlled the Russian trade routes along the western coast of the Black Sea, through the lower Danube cities down to the Byzantine border. Combining hostile Rus Bulgaria with the remnants of the Khazars and the Pechenegs could be a serious threat to Russia from the south-western direction. And with the liquidation of Bulgaria and the seizure of its territory by the Romans, the threat would already have come from the imperial armies, with the support of the Bulgarians. Svetoslav decided to occupy part of Bulgaria, establishing control over the Danube and neutralizing the pro-Byzantine party around Tsar Peter. This was to bring Bulgaria back into the mainstream of the Russian-Bulgarian alliance. In this case, he could rely on the part of the Bulgarian nobility and people. Later, Svyatoslav, having received a reliable rear in Bulgaria, could already set conditions for Constantinople.

The Byzantine Empire began the war first. In 966, Basileus Nikifor Fock moved troops to the border of Bulgaria, and Kalokir immediately left for Kiev. The Romans captured several border towns. They managed to capture the strategically important city in Thrace, the present-day Plovdiv, with the help of the pro-Quantized nobility. However, this military successes ended. Byzantine troops stopped in front of the Gimeis (Balkan) Mountains. They did not dare to make their way to the internal Bulgarian regions through difficult passes and forested gorges, where a small detachment could stop the whole army. There, in the past, many warriors laid down their heads. Nikifor Fok returned to the capital with triumph and switched to the Arabs. The fleet moved to Sicily, and Basileus himself, at the head of the land army, went to Syria. At this time, in the east, Svyatoslav went on the offensive. In 967, the Russian army marched on the Danube.

To be continued ...
Author:
Articles from this series:
"Coming on you!" Educating the hero and his first victory
Saber kick of Svyatoslav on the Khazar "miracle-yuda"
Bulgarian campaign Svyatoslav
Bulgarian campaign Svyatoslav. 2 part
War Svyatoslav with Byzantium. Battle of Arkadiopol
War Svyatoslav with Byzantium. Battle for Preslav and the heroic defense of Dorostol
The mystery of the death of Svyatoslav. Great Russia Construction Strategy
17 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Syrzhn
    Syrzhn 11 November 2013 09: 12
    0
    Thanks for the article. Only the similarity with the chapters from the book of L.R. Prozorov "Svyatoslav Horobre. Coming at you!" Is this a presentation "cleansed" (or "cleansed", as anyone likes) from native-faith propaganda, or is it just information from one source?
    1. leonardo_1971
      leonardo_1971 11 November 2013 15: 25
      +2
      MAZIN very beautifully writes about those times in his series VARYAG. I recommend!
    2. cdrt
      cdrt 11 November 2013 17: 06
      0
      That is the question.
      The text says that the Slavs and the Bulgarians fought together against Byzantium.
      The question is which of the Bulgarians and when?
      With utugurs and kutugurs?
    3. Skills
      13 November 2013 02: 29
      0
      Before Prozorov, many authors wrote on this topic - Rybakov, Sakharov, Pashuto, Shishov, and others.
  2. makarov
    makarov 11 November 2013 09: 31
    +2
    The historical material itself is known, just the author makes his own views and analysis, wrapping it in logic. Anyway, this is work. Read the continuation, and then the judgment.
    1. Corneli
      Corneli 11 November 2013 15: 26
      +4
      Quote: makarov
      The historical material itself is known, just the author makes his own views and analysis, wrapping it in logic. Anyway, this is work. Read the continuation, and then the judgment.

      The conclusions are too "own")
      Moreover, Svyatoslav saw that Byzantium had been trying for many years to subdue Slavic Bulgaria. This did not meet the strategic interests of Kiev. First of all, Slavic unity has not yet been forgotten. Rus and Bulgarians only recently prayed to the same gods, celebrated only holidays, language, customs and traditions were one, with small territorial differences.

      Well, yes, "trying to subjugate" ... as it did in 650 in Thrace, on its own head, so it "subdued". "Common Slavic unity" is generally something! Bulgarians are nomads and not Slavs. Over time, as a result of assimilation with the local Thracian and Slavic tribes, the Bulgarians became like a Slavic people. But at that time, the memory of nomadism was still strong. The brothers of the Bulgarians were the Volga Bulgars. Apparently Svyatoslav before that, during the Volga campaign, tried to pay them a friendly visit laughing
      "According to the most widespread view, the Bulgars were part ogursky an array of tribes originally inhabiting Central Asia. From this point of view, the Bulgars were one of the earliest Turkic groupsadvancing to Europe during the Great Migration. Bulgarian language is among the Turkic languages. "
      I did not know that the Slavs prayed to the sun god Edf, thought Perun ...
  3. ivanovbg
    ivanovbg 11 November 2013 11: 05
    +5
    Nicephorus I Genik ended badly. From his skull trimmed with gold, the Bulgarian Kan Krum made a bowl for feasts.
    1. vahatak
      vahatak 11 November 2013 15: 03
      +3
      Quote: ivanovbg
      Nicephorus I Genik ended badly. From his skull trimmed with gold, the Bulgarian Kan Krum made a bowl for feasts.

      It is not very beautiful to cite such a fact (and especially a photo) in an article about Svyatoslav.
      1. Corneli
        Corneli 11 November 2013 15: 44
        +2
        Quote: vahatak
        It is not very beautiful to cite such a fact (and especially a photo) in an article about Svyatoslav.

        Why? The article pretends to be "historic" and a sound discussion of REAL events. So why hush up some "unseemly" facts of those times?
        Personally, I am disgusted by the author's juggernaut and his constant attempts to portray the Byzantines as such evil geniuses who slept and saw how Russia was seized, and Svyatoslav was all noble, trying to destroy their insidious plans and help the Bulgarian brothers. In reality, the Byzantines NEVER went on campaigns to Russia, but on the contrary, yes (Oleg, Igor, Svyatoslav, Vladimir). The author sometimes contradicts himself, then his Byzantines are afraid that Svyatoslav will attack Chersonesos (which it seems should not be, he is a kind and ally, moreover) and make insidious plans, and immediately it turns out that Svyatoslav was going to attack (for some reason, this with "noble" and "just" purposes). Well, dancing around Bulgaria, funny attempts to ennoble Svyatoslav and denigrate Byzantium. Especially it killed:
        Constantinople closely watched as Bulgaria was weakening and decided that the time had come when it's time to get your hands on it. In the years 965-966. violent conflict flared up. Bulgarian Embassy in Constantinople for tributethat the Byzantines paid since the time of Simeon’s victories, was cast out in disgrace. The emperor ordered the Bulgarian ambassadors to be whipped on the cheeks and called the Bulgarians poor and vile people.

        Have you seen any Byzantines insidious villains !? Tribute refused to pay! laughing And they also dreamed of "renewing expansion", i.e. to recapture their province of Thrace (which before its capture by the Bulgarians for 700 years belonged to the empire) and create a normal border along the Danube.
        1. vahatak
          vahatak 11 November 2013 16: 35
          +2
          Quote: Corneli
          Why? The article pretends to be "historic" and a sound discussion of REAL events. So why hush up some "unseemly" facts of those times?

          You are generally right, and I agree with your reasoning, I can even cite a couple of new examples of the author’s mutually exclusive arguments. But I mean something completely different. The previous commentator cited a fact that was not related to the topic of the article, and from a moral point of view, it’s not nice to exhibit such atrocities, especially if you know that Svyatoslav also ended his life as shown in the photo.
        2. cdrt
          cdrt 11 November 2013 17: 33
          +1
          Quote: Corneli
          Have you seen what Byzantines are insidious villains !? Tribute refused to pay! And they also dreamed of "renewing expansion", i.e. to recapture their province of Thrace (which before its capture by the Bulgarians for 700 years belonged to the empire) and create a normal border along the Danube.


          Generally always amused.
          Byzantines in relation to the Slavs behaved quite peacefully. It was the Slavs who conquered part of the lands of the empire. The empire, of course, remembered this well (she had lived for a long time, she always remembered everything).
          In relation to Kievan Rus - generally funny. Rome (as the heir to the Greeks in the Black Sea region) existed as towns along the Black Sea coast and in Crimea historically always, long before the appearance of the Slavic tribes themselves.
          Indeed, the scoundrels do not want to pay tribute (i.e., a civilized country, lives, trades with the neighboring barbarian kingdoms (I do not see much difference between the Slavic states on the border of the empire and the German barbarian states of 6-7 centuries in Western Europe).
          It is clear that it is sometimes easier for a civilized state to pay local "field commanders" money than to wage an endless war with them.
          A complete analogy is the Russian government and the Kadyrov regime.
          You can fight to infinity.
  4. Hort
    Hort 11 November 2013 11: 39
    +3
    from Rodno-propaganda propaganda
    Oh! Just the same propaganda laughing So Svyatoslav, in general, was an ardent "Rodnover" and, in fact, was at enmity with Christians. This is a historical fact. Although yes, there is a similarity with Prozorov's book
    1. cdrt
      cdrt 11 November 2013 17: 35
      +2
      Quote: hort
      from Rodno-propaganda propaganda
      Oh! Just the same propaganda laughing So Svyatoslav, in general, was an ardent "Rodnover" and, in fact, was at enmity with Christians. This is a historical fact. Although yes, there is a similarity with Prozorov's book


      The fact that he was a Rodnover is probably the reliable and dreams of today.
      He was just a Slavic pagan who believed in traditional East Slavic gods.
      But how this faith relates to the current Rodnoverie is an open question.
      1. Hort
        Hort 12 November 2013 08: 40
        0
        Well, of course, he was not a Rodnover - this is a modern word and concept.
        But "paganism" is not a self-name either.
  5. Nika
    Nika 11 November 2013 13: 43
    +2
    Thank you for the article, leave it for the evening for a thoughtful reading.
    One "but":
    Byzantine governor in Kherson had too few troops, not being able to not only protect the peninsula, but even the capital. Kherson then it was a rich trading city.

    The year of foundation of Kherson is 1778. Geography, again.
    Chersonesus, as I understand it? It just bothers somehow)
  6. tankovod
    tankovod 11 November 2013 15: 12
    +3
    The fifth column convinced the Bulgarians - the very Byzantine boyars who surrendered the Iron Gate or Klisury - an important pass, where the Byzantine armies had been exterminated more than once. Alas, the oligarchs at all times do not bring benefit to their people and sell it at an opportunity.
    1. cdrt
      cdrt 11 November 2013 17: 38
      -4
      Quote: tankovod
      The fifth column convinced the Bulgarians - the very Byzantine boyars who surrendered the Iron Gate or Klisury - an important pass, where the Byzantine armies had been exterminated more than once. Alas, the oligarchs at all times do not bring benefit to their people and sell it at an opportunity.


      No need to fabricate the current propaganda about evil oligarchs, pass off as something confirmed by history.
      There is, for example, the point of view that the Bulgarian state has in fact decomposed under the influence of bohemianism, a heresy that is in fact unequivocal albigism and, in many ways, dualistic.
      There are two more states in the world, which the practice of dualism led to actual annihilation - early medieval Uyghuria and Albigensian Occitania.
      You can probably also apply to the Pavlikian lands in Byzantium.
      Everywhere dualism actually led to the disappearance of the formations that accepted it.
      1. tankovod
        tankovod 11 November 2013 18: 41
        +2
        Quote: cdrt
        No need to fabricate the current propaganda about evil oligarchs, pass off as something confirmed by history.

        Apparently, the representatives of the authorities and the army of the Russian Federation, who released militants in the Caucasus or sold military equipment to them and state secrets for the hill, are victims of troubled times, perestroika and cruel morals for you, not traitors.
        Against the troops under the leadership of John Tzimiskes, the Bulgarians fought, along with the Russians, who did not want to give their country to the Greeks, the fate of Bulgaria in this case would not be enviable. Byzantium was already at war with the growing Muslim East, and any resources would not be superfluous, and nobody canceled imperial ambitions. Yes, and as subsequent history showed, the Slavs of the Balkan mountains, except for the Russians, in principle, as no one needed people
        1. Corneli
          Corneli 12 November 2013 01: 02
          0
          Quote: tankovod
          Against the troops under the leadership of John Tzimiskes, the Bulgarians fought, along with the Russians, who did not want to give their country to the Greeks, the fate of Bulgaria in this case would not be enviable.

          Do you seriously think that Bulgaria’s fate would be more enviable under Svyatoslav? Remember Philippopol then. in addition, the Bulgarians also fought against Svyatoslav, and in the troops of Svyatoslav, in addition to the Slavs and Bulgarians, there were also Hungarians and Pechenegs (who attacked Kiev and killed Svyatoslav later)
          Quote: tankovod
          Byzantium was already at war with the growing Muslim East, and any resources would not be superfluous, and nobody canceled imperial ambitions.

          You are a little confused about the timing. The Arabs were gaining strength and continuously attacked Byzantium since 630 (Svyatoslav's campaign in 967), and the Byzantines can only say thank you, they kept the Arabs in all possible ways from Spain to the Caucasus for 400 years. Just at the time of Svyatoslav, the situation changed, the emperors began to seriously pinch the Arabs. Crete and Cyprus were recaptured, the Levant was captured with Antioch. The same Necyphorus, who called Svyatoslav, in addition to the war in Syria, fought 2 more wars - 1 against the Arabs in Sicily (he tried to repulse it), 2 against the German Empire in Italy. All the "ambitions" of Byzantium boiled down, at best, to recapture some of their former provinces:
          Having inflicted severe defeats on the Arabs in the East, having taken away Crete, Nicephorus set his task to expel the Arabs from Sicily and thereby secure their Italian possessions. Enormous funds were raised for the Italian war, austerity was introduced in government spending, and levied on church property. Nicephorus equipped two campaigns in Italy; although both enterprises were unsuccessful, but this did not weaken the emperor’s energy. The enterprises of Nicephorus in southern Italy were struck by the German emperor Otto I; military forces assigned against the Arabs were to be turned against the Germans. In the year 967 (familiar date)) Nicephorus temporarily had to sacrifice Sicily for Italy: he made a truce with the Arabs to free his hands for the war with Otton I. Under the influence of the advice of Bishop Cremona Liutprand, who was already in Constantinople, Otton negotiated with Nicephorus, but they were inconclusive. While Liutprand assured the Byzantine emperor of Otto's friendship and loyalty, the latter continued the war in Puglia and Calabria, striving for something that Byzantine interests could not allow. Otto's army was defeated by the Greeks; his ally, Prince Kapui Pandulf I, was captured.

          And then the Bulgarians with their tribute ....
  7. Sour
    Sour 11 November 2013 20: 54
    +1
    The invasion of Svyatoslav in the Balkans was no different in methods from the invasion of Batu in Russia.
    The same mass looting and murder, burning villages and cities. Svyatoslav won a number of high-profile victories in the Balkans, but also suffered heavy defeats. In the end, the conquests of Svyatoslav were quickly lost, as in the subsequent conquests of Napoleon. His wars in the Balkans did not give anything to the Eastern Slavs in the sense of their economic and cultural development, and there is also a complete resemblance to the Mongol conquests, which the nomadic peoples also did little.
    If you believe "The Tale of Bygone Years", then Svyatoslav saw the meaning of his rule not in state building and economic development (which Russia then needed), but in the military plunder of neighboring peoples. The same Monomakh was a warrior no worse than Svyatoslav, but he did not neglect state building. And he acquired fame in the defense of the Fatherland, and not in predatory campaigns to distant countries.
  8. Maximars
    Maximars 11 November 2013 20: 58
    0
    I would like to add ...
    For 50-100 years before the events described above, Procopius of Caesarea worked - secretary of the 1st general of the Byzantine Empire, Belisarius. In his historical writings, he noted that basically the empire tried save his power, but how not to extend it further (militarily), because there was no possibility. The Goths in his time cleared all of Italy. And the Russian regiments that were part of the Romance army could only be Mercenaries.
    1. Sour
      Sour 11 November 2013 21: 18
      +1
      Quote: Maximars
      And the Russian regiments that were part of the Romance army could only be Mercenaries.

      I see nothing bad in military mercenarism. Everyone chooses a profession for himself.
      But I will not admire Russian mercenaries in foreign service. I have much more sympathy for foreign mercenaries who served Russia. There were enough of them even then - the troops of the Kiev princes were full of Varangian mercenaries (infantry) and nomadic mercenaries (cavalry). They are somehow closer to me than Russian mercenaries who shed blood for the interests of others.
      There were also enough mercenaries in Muscovite Russia - Germans, Scots, Italians, French. They fought bravely, as befits a professional military.
      Under Peter, about one and a half thousand Dutch men served in the Russian Navy as ordinary sailors - mainly helmsmen, signalmen, ship carpenters, sailing masters, boatswain, underskeepers. Hundreds of foreigners (Dutch, English, Danes) served in officer posts. In recent years, Peter the Baltic Fleet was commanded by a certain James Lawrence, admiral of the Russian service, an Englishman by nationality. In general, the formation of the Russian fleet without foreign mercenaries would hardly have taken place.
      So a mercenary is a personal choice. They need only to be used correctly.
      1. Sour
        Sour 11 November 2013 21: 28
        +1
        I'm sorry, I'm improving. James Lawrence commanded the flagship of the Peter the Great's fleet (the battleship Saint Catherine), and the commander of the fleet was Vice Admiral Daniel Wilster, a Swede with Danish roots. But this does not change anything in essence.
    2. Corneli
      Corneli 12 November 2013 01: 20
      +1
      Quote: Maximars
      For 50-100 years before the events described above, Procopius of Caesarea worked - secretary of the 1st general of the Byzantine Empire, Belisarius. In his historical writings, he noted that basically the empire tried to maintain its power, but how not to extend it further (militarily), because there was no possibility. The Goths in his time cleared all of Italy.

      Eh ... Hiking Svyatoslav 967-970gg. Procopius of Caesarea wrote under Justinian 527-546. 420 years! In general, the army was a lot different. And whoever but Justinian did not differ in peacefulness, in fact with him Byzantium territorially had maximum dimensions. Under him, Italy was recaptured (the Ostrogoths destroyed), Sev. Africa / Carthage (vandals destroyed), Southern Spain (the Visigoths also got it, drove them into the mountains, to the sheds). At the same time, he regularly waged the most serious wars with Persia and repulsed the attacks of the Huns on other fronts.
      But further emperors, really tried to keep the maximum that Justinian captured, and life in the inner provinces was peaceful. In Asia Minor, for example, there were many large cities without walls! (during the Middle Ages it just sounds fantastic)
  9. datur
    datur 11 November 2013 22: 59
    +1
    YES (filter, in vain, Svyatoslav - regretted everyone !!! it was necessary to kill them all! (There is still time)