Three Byzantine Provinces and the First Byzantine Contacts with the Rus

Author(s): WARREN TREADGOLD

Source: Harvard Ukrainian Studies, Vol. 12/13, Proceedings of the International Congress
Commemorating the Millennium of Christianity in Rus'-Ukraine (1988/1989), pp. 132-144
Published by: Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41036309
Accessed: 12-01-2017 12:45 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/41036309?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Harvard Ukrainian Studies

This content downloaded from 193.198.16.210 on Thu, 12 Jan 2017 12:45:43 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Three Byzantine Provinces and the

First Byzantine Contacts with the Rus'

WARREN TREADGOLD

In the ninth century the nearest place to Rus' with good records was Byzan

tium. Nonetheless, Byzantium and Rus' were not very close to each other

To make matters worse, the Byzantines who wrote our surviving sources

for the ninth century were primarily interested in events at Constantinop

only secondarily in events in the provinces, and only slightly in what ha

pened outside the empire. Consequently, Byzantine sources say little abou

the Rus', just as they say little about the Khazars or the Magyars, who wer

settled in territories closer to the Byzantine capital and had been there a

good deal longer than the Rus' had been in their land. Under such ci

cumstances, a scarcity of Byzantine references to the Rus', or even a tot

absence of such references, proves absolutely nothing. An argument from

silence cannot even prove that the Rus' were not in contact with Byzantium.1

Here I cannot adduce any direct evidence for Byzantine contact with the
Rus' that is not already known to specialists on the subject. My new evidence is indirect. In my opinion, it indicates that three Byzantine military

provinces were created in the early ninth century primarily to bolster

defenses against the Rus'. Although no source explicitly states the reason
for the creation of these provinces, they were plainly directed against some
enemy or enemies; and in all three cases much the most likely candidates to

be those enemies are the Rus'. The provinces' creation therefore lends support to, and suggests a date for, an otherwise uncorroborated and undatable
reference to Rus' raids of Byzantine territory - that in the Life of George of
Amastris.

So indifferent were the Byzantines to foreigners that the earliest certain

appearance of the Rus' at Constantinople passed entirely unrecorded in any

Byzantine source. This is the embassy of 839, known only from a Western

compilation, the Annales Bertiniani. According to a passage from this

work, cited by modern scholars many times, on 15 June 839 the Frankish
1 The present article has grown out of my recent book, The Byzantine Revival: 780-842
(Stanford, 1988), which includes a full discussion of the Byzantine history of the period.

This content downloaded from 193.198.16.210 on Thu, 12 Jan 2017 12:45:43 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

FIRST BYZANTINE CONTACTS WITH THE RUS ' 133

emperor Louis the Pious received a Byzantine embassy at

included some Rus' ambassadors. These had been sent to

by their ruler, who used the title of khagan, for the purpose

friendly relations with the Byzantines. When they were rea

home, however, they had been unwilling to travel by the sa

had come because it was controlled by tribes who were h

Therefore, the Byzantine emperor Theophilus had sent them

emperor with a request that he help them to return to their

another route. Louis questioned these Rus' and discovered tha

Scandinavians. Since the Frankish Empire had recently been su

Scandinavian raids, Louis was by no means well disposed tow

tunate Rus' ambassadors, whom he appears to have detained i

concealing his action from Theophilus.2

Some implications of this report are both reasonably clear

By 839, the Rus' had a state, presumably somewhere alon

Dnieper, with at least a modicum of political organization an

Their relations with the peoples who occupied the territory

and Byzantium, evidently the Khazars and Magyars, were ho

ably as a result of earlier conflict. Consequently, they found

tion with Byzantium difficult, though not impossible. The a

originally come to Constantinople through the enemy-held te

ably by staying out of their enemies' way on the sparsely pop

and they seem to have known well enough how to reach the B

tal. Their ruler was aware of the importance of Byzantium a

be on good terms with the Byzantines. For his part, the empe

did not rebuff the Rus' ruler's overtures and took some trou

ambassadors return home. They would have left Constantino

the Byzantine ambassadors to the Frankish court, roughly in

Other points are much less clear from the account of the An

ani. The annals seem to indicate that the Rus' occupation

area along the Dnieper was of at least a few years' duration, b

exclude the possibility that it had gone on considerably long

how the Rus' had become enemies of the Magyars and Khazar

and how the Rus' had previously come into contact with the B

annals give us no means of conjecturing. Nor is it certain pr

the Rus' wanted from the Byzantines - but some sort of coope

the Magyars or Khazars is a reasonable guess, because whi

the Byzantines were cut off from each other friendship was o

2 Annales de Saint-Bertin, ed. F. Grat et al. (Paris, 1964), pp. 30- 3 1 .

This content downloaded from 193.198.16.210 on Thu, 12 Jan 2017 12:45:43 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

1 34 WARREN TREADGOLD

either side. Nor is it plain whether The

beyond ordinary diplomatic courtesy.

None of these points can be clarified f

dence, because no such evidence is kn

cidence that later in the same year,

military province in the part of their ter

Magyars, and the Khazars: that is, the

as the Climata (meaning "the district

therefore included a permanent gar

apparently of 2,000 men. The Theme of

tant province with the status of an arc

regular troops apart from a small body

Theme of the Climata was therefore

sources state that Theophilus created it
Crimea.3

Since until recently it was believed that the Theme of the Climata was
created not in 839 but in 833, it will be useful to recapitulate the evidence

for the date. The Byzantine chronicle known as Theophanes Continuatus

puts the foundation of the Theme of the Climata in the year following two

events: namely, the consecration of John the Grammarian as patriarch of

Constantinople and the relegation to a monastery of a certain Martinaces on
suspicion of aspiring to the throne. Theophanes Continuatus dates John the

Grammarian's consecration to Sunday, April 21; unfortunately, the chronicle omits the year, because bothering with specific years did not suit the
most fastidious Byzantines' idea of the elevated style appropriate to historiography.4

April 21 fell on a Sunday twice in the reign of Theophilus, in 832 and

838. A. A. Vasiliev, followed by most specialists in Russian, Ukrainian,

and Belorussian history, expressed a preference for 832 as the date of
John's consecration. But fifty years ago Venance Grumei pointed out that

John cannot have been consecrated as early as 832, because a letter

addressed to his predecessor, Anthony Cassimates, by the patriarchs of
Syria and Egypt bears the date of April 836. It follows that John was consecrated in April of 838. Although Grumei argued that the correct date for

the consecration was January 837, emending "April" to "January," his

emendation is highly implausible, and Grumei resorted to it only because he

relied on two sources that have since been shown to be chronologically

worthless. The date of April 838 for John's consecration is supported by
3 See the sources cited in fn. 6 below.

4 Theophanes Continuatus, ed. I. Bekker (Bonn, 1838), pp. 121 -24.

This content downloaded from 193.198.16.210 on Thu, 12 Jan 2017 12:45:43 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

FIRST BYZANTINE CONTACTS WITH THE RUS ' 1 35

the chronicle of Symeon the Logothete, a reliable sourc

between the summer of 837 and July of 838. Further, the p

Martinaces for aspiring to the throne, which followed soon af

secration, was evidently connected with a plan to proclaim a

in late July of 838, when Theophilus was rumored to have die

Therefore when Theophanes Continuatus refers to the yea

John's consecration and Martinaces' punishment, the yea

shortly after the embassy of the Rus'. In that year, Theophan

records, the Khazars sent their own ambassadors to Theophil

Byzantine help in fortifying their base of Sarkel on the Riv

philus granted their request and sent an expedition that for

When the head of this expedition returned to Constantinopl

Theophilus that the Byzantine possessions in the Crimea wer

evidently from the same people against whom Sarkel had bee

Theophilus responded by founding the Theme of the Climata

story is also told, without a specific date but in nearly the s

the De Administrando Imperio of Constantine Porphyrogenit

839 gains further support from the fact that late in that yea

known to have founded five new military provinces, among

mata is evidently to be included.6

What enemy provoked the fortifying of Sarkel and the cr

Theme of the Climata? It was a foe of both the Byzantines a

who threatened the lower Don valley. The only plausible cand
Magyars and the Rus'. Yet the Magyars had been living near
zars and the Byzantines for more than a century, apparently
cable terms. And the evidence of the Annales Bertiniani indicates that at

this time both Magyars and Khazars were hostile to the Rus'; if only one of

the two had been hostile, a route through the other's territory would have
been a much more convenient way for the Rus' ambassadors to return than
a route through Ingelheim. Surely the most likely interpretation is that in
839 the Rus' were trying to sail down the Don to the Black Sea, while the
Khazars were trying to prevent them. Both the Rus' and the Khazars sent
embassies to Constantinople to try to win the support of the Byzantines;
5 See W. Treadgold, "The Chronological Accuracy of the Chronicle of Symeon the
Logothete for the Years 813-845," Dumbarton Oaks Papers 33 (1979): 178-79, supplemented by Treadgold, Byzantine Revival, pp. 297 and 301. The earlier discussions are in A. A.
Vasiliev et al., Byzance et les Arabes (Brussels), 1 (1935): 428-29, and V. Grumei, "Chrono-

logie des patriarches iconoclastes du IXe sicle," chos d'Orient 34 (1935): 162-66.
6 Theophanes Continuatus, pp. 122-24; Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Administrando
Imperio, ed. Gy. Moravcsik (revised ed.; Washington, 1967), eh. 42, pp. 182-84. On the creation of the new military provinces, see Treadgold, Byzantine Revival, pp. 313- 17.

This content downloaded from 193.198.16.210 on Thu, 12 Jan 2017 12:45:43 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

1 36 WARREN TREADGOLD

Theophilus chose to help the Khazars ag

By siding with the Khazars, Theophilu

Byzantine Crimea.

By itself, this reconstruction might see

previously made their way to the Black S

sarily the case. After all, the Rus' had a

zars and Magyars, probably by open war

way to Constantinople. Although the

Theophilus, the emperor soon sided w

because the Byzantine had previously ha

Rus'. Such experiences are in fact rec

Amastris, although this Life shares with

dislike of exact dates.

The Life records that after St. George was buried at Amastris, a city on
the coast of Paphlagonia of which he had been bishop:
There was an attack of the barbarians, the Rus', a tribe that as everyone knows is
very savage and cruel and endowed with no shred of humanity - beastly in manners,

inhuman in deeds, showing its bloodthirstiness in its very aspect, delighting in nothing else to which men are inclined so much as in murder. This [tribe], maleficent
in both fact and reputation, beginning its devastation from the Propontis and spread-

ing itself over the rest of the coast, penetrated even to the homeland of the saint
[Amastris], mercilessly smiting every race and every age, neither pitying the old nor
sparing the infants; but, arming its murderous hand against all alike, it hastened to

compass destruction as much as it could. There were ruined churches, defiled sanctuaries, overthrown altars, violent libations and sacrifices, the ancient Tauric practice
of killing strangers now renewed by these, and the slaughter of male and female vir-

gins. No one was lending aid, no one resisting.

That is, no one resisted but the deceased St. George. When some Rus' tried
to break open his tomb, the saint froze them into an immobility from which

they were released only when the other Rus' freed their prisoners. The
chastened raiders then departed.7

I agree with Vasiliev that in this passage the " Propontis" from which
the Rus' began is not the Sea of Marmara, but that other sea leading into the

Pontus, the Sea of Azov. This seems to follow not only from the logic of

geography, but from the author's allusion to the ancient Tauri, which
implies that the raiders had come from the region of the Tauric Chersones.

This is, then, an account of a Rus' raid beginning at the Sea of Azov, turn-

ing southeast along the coast of Georgia, then extending west along the
7 Life of St. George of Amastris, ed. V. G. Vasil'evskij, Trudy, vol. 3 (Petrograd, 1915), pp.
64-68.

This content downloaded from 193.198.16.210 on Thu, 12 Jan 2017 12:45:43 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

FIRST BYZANTINE CONTACTS WITH THE RUS ' 1 37

Black Sea coast of Anatolia from Trebizond to Amastris. Ap

raid ended at Amastris, though not necessarily in the miracu

described in the Life. The author assumes that his readers wil

the Rus' and their murderous reputation. We need not share t

tion, since he also seems to assume, certainly wrongly, that his

recognize his allusion to Euripides' Iphigenia in Tauris. It is

reasonable to suppose that the author was not the only Byzan

heard of the Rus' by the time the Life of George of Amastris w

But who was the author, when did he write, and when was th

The single manuscript that preserves the Life of George of A

not include the author's name. The Life has long been attribu

to Ignatius the Deacon, the author of three other saints' lives

that show striking stylistic similarities with the Life of George

The case has recently been clinched by Ihor Sevcenko, who ha

the Life of George includes borrowings from Gregory of Naz

ogy of St. Basil that are closely paralleled in the other live

indeed, in the borrowed passages the correspondence between

George and the other lives by Ignatius is closer than that betwe

George and Gregory's eulogy. Therefore the author of the Lif

not only used the same source as Ignatius, but used it in the sa

In fact, the attribution of the Life of George to Ignatius is al

able for anyone who reads much of the hagiography of the n

This Life, like those certainly by Ignatius but unlike the others

is a rhetorical exercise far more than it is a hagiographical w

learned allusions and remarkably poor in details about the sain

ple is the Life 's apt reference to Iphigenia in Tauris, alluding

that the Rus' had come from the Crimea, killed foreigners, a

pagan sacrifices, then recalling the sacrifice of Iphigenia by m

sacrifice of virgins immediately afterward. This is what we wo

Ignatius, who wrote a dramatic poem on Adam and Eve that i

rowings from Greek tragedy, but it would not be at all typic

ninth-century writers.

Sevcenko has dated the Life of George of Amastris to the s

of Iconoclasm, and therefore between 815 and 842. He has sho
Life contains some clear iconoclast sentiments, and concluded

written while Ignatius was collaborating with the iconocla

known to have done at this time. Since Ignatius was born arou

was still alive in 845, he could have written at any time betw

8 For the identification of the Propontis, see A. A. Vasiliev, The Goths in t

bridge, Mass., 1936), p. 1 1 1, no. 5.

This content downloaded from 193.198.16.210 on Thu, 12 Jan 2017 12:45:43 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

1 38 WARREN TREADGOLD

842. Otherwise the only evidence for the d

last event to which it refers, which as it h

some scholars have argued that the accoun

because the Rus' are not attested this far so

circular. Sevcenko has assembled convin

passage is entirely typical of the rest of th

show that the passage is in the style of Ph

that they merely demonstrate the cogency

This Rus' raid obviously occurred after th

Amastris - but when was that? Ignatius, as

giving dates. The Life 's last datable eve

accession of the emperor Nicephorus I, i

seems to have died not very long after thi

says that after George's death the "empero

their respects to his corpse. Since the Life

Nicephorus I, who according to the Life ha

adviser, it is reasonable to think that the e

this occasion were Nicephorus I and his

been crowned emperor at the end of 803.

Since Amastris is not very far from Con

route to anywhere else of importance, to try

the known campaigns of Nicephorus in A

the attempt has been made for a campaign

mer, too long after February to be very c

Life implies, the emperors visited Amastri

honor the saint, which passed unrecord

merely that George died not before Febru

9 Ihor Sevcenko, ' 'Hagiography of the Iconoclast Pe

Herrin (Birmingham, 1977), pp. 120-25, reprinted in
in the Byzantine World (London, 1982). For the attem
George is in Photius's style, see A. Markopoulos, "La
tius," Jahrbuch der sterreichischen Byzantinistik 28

takable parallels cited by Sevcenko, "Hagiography,"

cited by Markopoulos in his table. The table merely

wrote in a highly rhetorical style - and that Photius w

one can find passages in his works that vaguely rese

Ignatius, see Treadgold, Byzantine Revival, pp. 33

knowledge of tragedy see Robert Browning, "Ign
Byzance," Revue des tudes Grecques 81 (1968): 401

This content downloaded from 193.198.16.210 on Thu, 12 Jan 2017 12:45:43 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

FIRST BYZANTINE CONTACTS WITH THE RUS ' 1 39

Stauracius had been crowned, and not after February of 81 1, t

Nicephorus ' s reign. 10

In any case, it seems highly probable that George died b

that he escaped involvement in the reintroduction of Icono

Ignatius never explicitly mentions. To this one might possibly

after 842 the Life of George could have been purged of explic

to Iconoclasm. But if George had been known as an iconoc

could scarcely have hoped to succeed in whitewashing him wh

were still fresh. On the other hand, if Ignatius had left the L

that showed George had been an iconoclast, no later editor wo

an interest in concealing the fact. Of course, if George had d

icons, Ignatius could not credibly have chosen him as the

iconoclast saint's life. The only remaining possibility appe

George died before Iconoclasm became an issue again, and so b

Therefore, to judge from the Life of George, the Rus' raid

taken place some time after 804 and before 842. Although usu
ment from silence is not of much use for such matters, this ra
come close enough to Constantinople to excite anxiety there,

a good chronicle for the time it would probably have mention

813 we have the detailed and contemporary chronicle of Theo

fessor, and as late as 816 we have the equally detailed chronic

called Scriptor Incertus, who is probably to be identified with

porary, Sergius Confessor. After 829 we have the detailed

Symeon the Logothete, which is based on a contemporary sou

816 and 829, however, we lack good chronicles, though we do

tain amount of imperfectly preserved historical material in th

cles of Genesius and Theophanes Continuatus. The years betwe

829, where detailed contemporary sources fail, would therefo

most probable period into which to fit the Rus' raid.11

At this point let us recall that according to the Life of Georg

met with no organized military resistance whatever. If true,

first glance seem rather strange. The Byzantines had many th

troops stationed in Anatolia. These should have been able to or

defense against this raid, which cannot have been a complete

it had progressed along most of the Byzantines' northern seab

10 See Life of George ofAmastris, pp. 61 (on George's death and the imperi
51-56 (on George's previous association with Nicephorus). For the proposed
G. da Costa-Louillet, "Saints de Constantinople aux VIIIe, IXe et Xe sicles,
(1954): 490. On Stauracius's coronation and Nicephorus's campaign in 806
Byzantine Revival, pp. 133-34 and 144-45.
1 1 For a discussion of these chronicles, see Treadgold, Byzantine Revival, pp

This content downloaded from 193.198.16.210 on Thu, 12 Jan 2017 12:45:43 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

140 WARREN TREADGOLD

the year 819, however, there were o

Minor, only two of which included par

on the Black Sea were the Bucellarian and Armeniac themes. Both of these

had their headquarters well inland, at Ancyra and Amasia, and their troops
had never fought a seagoing enemy, being almost entirely occupied with
defense against the land raids of the Arabs. Neither theme seems to have
had any ships assigned to it or any officers in charge of naval defense.

This military system would have rendered the Anatolian army nearly
useless against a naval raid, because the armies of Byzantine themes functioned only when they were mustered on orders from headquarters. Byzan-

tine thematic soldiers were normally settled all over the countryside,
supporting themselves from land grants that they held in return for their

military service. When they were needed, their commander sent

messengers all over the theme to summon them to staging areas. Only after

the troops were thus mustered could they be led into battle. Without com-

manders specifically in charge of naval defense, the soldiers of Anatolia

could probably not have been called up before a naval raid was over; even
if they were called up, without ships they would have moved more slowly

than seagoing raiders and could not have pursued them. As long as the
Rus' moved fairly quickly, they could have raided by sea virtually unopposed as long as this system prevailed.12

We know that it prevailed until 819 because a letter of St. Theodore the
Studite mentions that in late May or early June of that year, all five themes

of Anatolia were under the command of a single military governor - a

monostrategus, as he was called. A comparison with another source shows

that this monostrategus was probably Manuel the Armenian, one of the
leading generals of the time. Thus up to 819 Anatolia was divided into just
five themes, which were doubtless the same five themes that had been
known for the previous seventy years or so.13

Within two years, however, we know that there were two more military

provinces in Anatolia, the Theme of Paphlagonia and the Ducate of Chaldia. Both had previously been parts of the Armeniac Theme, and included

most of that theme's coast on the Black Sea. Paphlagonia took over the
western section of the coast, including Amastris. It is first called a theme in

the Life of Theodore the Studite by Michael the Studite. Michael's reference belongs before Theodore's death in 826, and it is specifically dated to

12 For a description of the army as it was before 819, see Treadgold, Byzantine Revival, pp.
26-36.

13 Theodore the Studite, Letters 2.63, ed. in Migne, Patrologia Graeca 99, col. 1284A-B;
see also Treadgold, Byzantine Revival, p. 222.

This content downloaded from 193.198.16.210 on Thu, 12 Jan 2017 12:45:43 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

FIRST BYZANTINE CONTACTS WITH THE RUS' 141

' 'the times of the iconoclast tidal wave," if I may so tr

xpiKDjiia, which means both a powerful wave and a di

word is too strong to apply to the tolerant Iconoclasm of M

rather refer to the iconoclast persecutions under Leo V, w

end with Leo's death in December 820. Consequently P

have become a theme at some time between early 819 and l

The Ducate of Chaldia comprised the eastern part o

Theme's seaboard and had its headquarters at Trebizond

called a ducate in a contemporary letter of Michael II

fighting that took place there in early 821 between his ow

forces of Thomas the Slav, a rival claimant to the Byzanti

dia must have been made a ducate not only before early 821

end of 820, when Leo V was assassinated. After Leo's as

successor Michael had no time to make administrative cha

civil war with Thomas the Slav broke out.15

Given that Paphlagonia and Chaldia were both created be

820 from the territory of the same theme, it seems highly

were created at the same time, as part of a single reorgan

is most likely that Manuel the Armenian was appointed m

Asia Minor (he was only the second man known to ha

office) in order to prepare for this reorganization. Existing

seldom been divided before - only twice in the preceding

and then only for good reasons. The Opsician Theme h

soon after it had supported a rebellion that was put down i

was presumably intended to reduce its power so as to preve

lions. The Theme of Thrace had been divided soon after its commander

had been ambushed by the Bulgars in 788; its division was presumably
intended to add flexibility to Byzantine defenses so as to prevent future
defeats by the Bulgars.16

14 For a demonstration that Paphlagonia and Chaldia had previously belonged to the
Armeniac Theme, see Treadgold, "Notes on the Numbers and Organization of the NinthCentury Byzantine Army," Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 21 (1980): 286-87. For the
reference to the Theme of Paphlagonia, see Michael of Studius, Life of Theodore the Studite,
ed. in Migne, Patrologia Graeca 99, col. 309C.
15 Michael II, Letter to Louis the Pious, ed. in Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et Amplissima Collectio 14, cols. 417E-418A.

16 The only previous monostrategus of all the themes of Anatolia who is attested was Bardanes Turcus, appointed in 802; see Treadgold, Byzantine Revival, p. 129. On the division of
the Opsician Theme, see J. Haldon, Byzantine Praetorians: An Administrative, Institutional,

and Social Survey of the Opsikion and Tagmata, c. 580-900 (Bonn, 1984), pp. 205-209; on
the division of the Theme of Thrace, see Treadgold, Byzantine Revival, p. 91 -93.

This content downloaded from 193.198.16.210 on Thu, 12 Jan 2017 12:45:43 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

142 WARREN TREADGOLD

Why would Leo V have separated Pa

Armeniac Theme in 819 or 820? Our rather miserable sources do record

that about this time Leo was punishing suspected plotters against him; his

suspicions appear to have been in some measure justified, since Leo was
assassinated soon thereafter as the result of a plot. In the ensuing civil war

the remainder of the Armeniac Theme supported Michael II, who had
headed the conspiracy that murdered Leo. It may be, therefore, that Leo,
suspecting that some in the army of the Armeniac Theme wished him ill,
divided up the theme in order to reduce its power if it should rebel. The

theme's soldiers did not, however, actually rebel against Leo; the conspiracy that killed him was based in Constantinople.17

But even supposing that suspected disloyalty was one of Leo's motives
for the division, we should still ask why Leo chose to divide the Armeniac

Theme in the way he did. He did not divide it down the middle, as had

been done after the Opsician Theme had rebelled. Instead Leo left the
Armeniac Theme with four of its six original turmae (as subdivisions of
themes were called), and made the other two turmae not one theme, but two

independent provinces. And the two turmae that Leo made independent
were those on the Black Sea coast. More than this, Leo evidently gave the
new provinces a role in naval defense. The title of duke given to the com-

mander of Chaldia was otherwise used only for coastal commands with
fleets; and the Theme of Paphlagonia had on its staff a catepan, a naval
official. It seems nearly certain, therefore, that Leo intended for these new

provinces to defend the Black Sea coast against some seagoing enemy.18
Who can this seagoing enemy have been if not the Rus'? Except for the
Byzantines, none of the peoples who were established on the shores of the

Black Sea were naval powers. The Bulgars, Magyars, and Khazars seem to
have had no knowledge of seafaring to speak of, and even if the Abasgians
had a few ships they had never presented the least threat to the Byzantines.

It is also interesting that Leo V created his new coastal provinces in the
very area that was raided by the Rus' in the account in the Life of George of

Amastris: that is, the coast as far west as Amastris, which is near the
western end of the Paphlagonian seaboard. Leo's reorganization for the
first time made independent commanders responsible for the two main sec-

tions of the Black Sea coast, and evidently endowed the commanders with
fleets of at least modest proportions.

17 On Leo's suspicions of plots, and on the plot that actually overthrew him, see Treadgold,
Byzantine Revival, pp. 222-25.
1 8 See Treadgold, Byzantine Revival, p. 223 .

This content downloaded from 193.198.16.210 on Thu, 12 Jan 2017 12:45:43 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

FIRST BYZANTINE CONTACTS WITH THE RUS' 143

It therefore seems likely that Leo's reorganization of the t

tolia was a response to the raid mentioned in the Life of Geo

occurred either in early 819 or shortly before. The Byzantin

us scarcely anything about the years between 816 and 820 -

they say nothing about a campaign of Leo against the Arabs

is known only from a letter of Theodore of Studius and an A

icle. Therefore the chroniclers' silence means nothing w

other hand, with the start of the civil war in 821, the chro

considerably and an argument from silence begins to have s

ticularly for a raid as important as the one described in the

seems to have been. Furthermore, after the creation of the

mands of Paphlagonia and Chaldia the lack of organized B

tance to the raid would be quite puzzling. Although it rema

the raid recorded in the Life of George came either earlier o

raid which provoked the creation of these new provinces abo

ans, as a rule, should try to avoid postulating two events w

do better. It would follow that the Life of George was prob

after 819.19

These conclusions may be briefly recapitulated in chronological order.

The first raid of the Rus' on the coast of Byzantine Asia Minor probably
occurred in 818 or 819, and is probably that recounted in the Life of George
of Amastris. It took the Byzantines by surprise and met with no significant

resistance. The emperor Leo V took this raid seriously enough to create
two new military provinces, Paphlagonia and Chaldia, as defenses against
possible future raids. After this, there may well have been some minor Rus'

raids, but none that the somewhat better Byzantine sources of the subsequent period saw fit to record. Probably the new provinces performed their

defensive functions successfully and soon deterred further raids on the

empire, though the Rus' may still have fought the Magyars and Khazars.

Eventually the Khazars largely succeeded in bottling up the Rus' to the

north of the Black Sea. In late 838 or early 839, the Rus', who had not
raided Byzantine territory recently, presumed to send an embassy to Constantinople professing friendship. This embassy the emperor Theophilus
treated with courtesy but probably granted no practical concessions, except
for trying to help the ambassadors return home. Later in 839, with Rus'
pressure on the Khazars increasing on the Don as the Rus' tried to reach the

Black Sea again, the Khazars appealed to Theophilus for aid. After assisting the Khazars in fortifying Sarkel, Theophilus found that his own hold-

19 On the overlooked campaign against the Arabs of 817, see Treadgold, "The Bulgars'
Treaty with the Byzantines in 816," Rivista di Studi Bizantini e Slavi 4 (1986): 219-20.

This content downloaded from 193.198.16.210 on Thu, 12 Jan 2017 12:45:43 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

144 WARREN TREADGOLD

ings in the Crimea needed additional d

through and attack them. At the end

the Theme of the Climata to defend th

In this reconstruction I have avoide

scholarly controversies about the Rus'

expertise. I concede that my inference

the Rus' are not absolutely conclusive;

Rus' generally admit, neither are the in

from other sources, most of which

Byzantine ones cited here. Obviously

think that the Rus' appeared in the

Byzantium relatively early; but this gr

with the use of quite independent e

most comfortably with a Normanist p

interpretation of them might also be

to put these conclusions into a wider c

await responses of those with more sp

Florida International

20 For a recent argument for the early appear

dence, see T. S. Noonan, "Why the Vikings Firs

Osteuropas, n.s. 34 (1986): 321 -48, concluding

tion, ca. 800 -ca. 840, to discover how to trave

routes of eastern Europe." For an argument th

not necessarily mean that the Rus' were Vikin

838 Revisited: Some Comments in Connection

History," Jahrbcher fr Geschichte Osteurop

of the Rus' sea raiders described in the Life of G
Vikings than of Slavs at the time.

This content downloaded from 193.198.16.210 on Thu, 12 Jan 2017 12:45:43 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms