Ο θρύλος του Βασιλείου του Βουλγαροκτόνου

by Paul Stephenson, Νίκος Παπαδάκης (Translator), Μαρτίνα Κόφφα (Translator)

Η εποχή της διακυβέρνησης της Βυζαντινής Αυτοκρατορίας από τον Βασιλείο τον Δευτέρο (976-1025), τον μακροβιότερο εξ όλων των Βυζαντινών αυτοκρατόρων, θεωρείται μια "χρυσή εποχή" για την αυτοκρατορία, αφού τότε έγινε η προσάρτηση της Βουλγαρίας. Αυτό, όπως γνωρίζουμε από την παράδοση, έγινε μέσω ενός μακρού και αιματηρού πολέμου κατά τη διάρκεια του οποίου ο Βασίλειος πήρε το προσωνύμιο "Βουλγαροκτόνος".
Σε αυτήν την καινούργια μελέτη, ο Πολ Στήβενσον υποστηρίζει ότι κανένας από τους θρύλους γύρω από το πρόσωπο του Βασιλείου δεν έχει βάσιν αληθείας. Αντιθέτως, ο Βασίλειος πολέμησε μόνον σποραδικά στα Βαλκάνια και θεωρούσε, όπως και οι προκάτοχοί του, την περιοχή αυτή λιγότερο ελκυστική από την Ανατολή. Επιπλέον η φήμη του ως "Βουλγαροκτόνος" δημιουργήθηκε ενάμιση αιώνα αργότερα, ως αποτέλεσμα του πολεμικού οίστρου στον οποίο αναγκαστικά έπρεπε να βρίσκεται μια αυτοκρατορία με τη δομή της Βυζαντινής. Ωστόσο, το προσωνύμιο αυτό έμελλε να γίνει τονωτικό εθνικό στοιχείο για τους Βυζαντινούς. Κατά την διάρκεια της οθωμανικής κυριαρχίας, ο Βασίλειος λησμονήθηκε, αλλά επανήλθε στο προσκήνιο όταν οι Έλληνες αγωνίζονταν να ιδρύσουν ένα σύγχρονο εθνικό κράτος. Καθώς οι Έλληνες λόγιοι και πολιτικοί ενσωμάτωσαν το Βυζάντιο στο ελληνικό τους παρελθόν, ο "Βουλγαροκτόνος" έγινε εικόνισμα στη διάρκεια του Μακεδονικού Αγώνα (1904-8) και των Βαλκανικών Πολέμων (1912-13).

Genres: History, Biography, Medieval

330 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2003

About the author

Paul Stephenson studies the early and middle Byzantine periods (A.D. 300-1204). His published work has focused on middle Byzantine political and cultural history; the history and historiography of Southeastern Europe, medieval to modern; and religious warfare. Currently he is: completing a cultural history of a Byzantine monument, the Serpent Column; researching late antique and Byzantine views of sacred warfare and spiritual combat; editing separate volumes on the desire for Byzantium outside former Byzantine lands, and on the fountains of Byzantion - Constantinople - Istanbul; writing a general history of the Late Roman Empire in the East, c. 400-843, for Harvard Univ. Press and Profile Books. Stephenson has taught in the UK, Republic of Ireland, and the USA, and has held research fellowships from the British Academy (in Oxford), the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation (in Mainz), the Alexander S. Onassis Foundation (in Athens), and the Swedish Collegium for Advanced Study (in Uppsala). Before coming to Nijmegen, he was for five years Professor of Medieval History at Durham University, and for six year before that the Rowe Professor of Byzantine History at Dumbarton Oaks and the University of Wisconsin - Madison. In 2011-12 he was Vassiliadis Visiting Professor of History at the University of California, San Diego. Stephenson is a fellow of the Royal Historical Society (UK).

Stephenson offers instruction across a range of areas in medieval and Byzantine history. Notably, he offers a themacollege (senior seminar) on the transition from late antiquity to Byzantium and a research seminar devoted to medieval Rome and Constantinople for the MA Roma Aeterna. He is a co-convenor of the Duae Romae seminar, and teaches core elements of the HLCS research MA. He offers lectures for the undergraduate surveys of "Medieval History" and "Europa".

Reviews

[José Luís Fernandes · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent piece of revisionist scholarship revealing "reality" and myth around Basil II the Porphyrogenitus' campaigns against the Bulgarian Empire under Samuel II, with a focus on the accounts of Skylitzes and Yahya of Antioch (it's a pity this chronicler's work is not completely preserved, since not only is this a contemporary source, but he was also very well informed on events). It was very enlightening to see how the myth of the Bulgar-Slayer started to rise based on unbased rumours and propaganda by the Angeloi against the new Second Bulgarian Empire.

[Anatolikon · Rating 4 out of 5]

Given the other review, I think it is important to make the point that this book is not a general history of Basil's campaigns or his empire. This book is on the history surrounding Basil's title, that of "Bulgar-slayer". The description says exactly what this book is about, and it also says it on the book itself. There is no good reason to complain if this book is not what you want, since descriptions are easily available.

This is an excellent book. As the description says, Stephenson set out to challenge conventional notions that Basil II was called "Bulgar-slayer" in his lifetime. This exploration is extremely interesting and useful for what it reveals about how Basil represented himself and his conquests, how the Komnenoi used his reputation, how the Palaiologoi recognized, and how modern Greeks exploited it for their propaganda. Stephenson goes further than just arguing that Basil's title dates from a later date. Instead, he argues that while Basil wanted himself represented as a warrior emperor, his campaigns in Bulgaria were only a small part of that and his own propaganda reflected it. He also argues (contentiously, he admits, but certainly not an argument with merit) that the stories some historians have told about Basil's ceaseless campaigning against the Bulgars are unlikely to be true, and that Basil's wars can be divided into two, and neither were initially designed to destroy the Bulgar state. Stephenson also takes a good look at what Basil was doing in Bulgar lands and concludes that "slaying" was the least of his policies. Basil certainly committed appalling violence, but much of his campaigning was done diplomatically. More Bulgars went over to Basil's rule than were "slain" by the supposed Bulgar-slayer.

Stephenson identifies the Bulgaro-Vlach revolt of 1185 and Isaak Angelos' campaigns in the Balkans as the time when the title of "Bulgar-slayer" was applied to Basil, building upon the military propaganda that the Komnenian emperors had built up over the last century. The last part of the book goes into Basil's reputation post-Byzantium, in which he did not have a crucial role to play under the Turkokratia, but took on a much larger role under the Hellenic Republic. The last chapter deals with this, but it is also a very useful general survey of nineteenth and twentieth-century Greek uses and abuses of Byzantine history, as well as some general Byzantine historiography.

This is an excellent book that exposes much of the older scholarship surrounding Basil and his reputation. There are some appallingly bad plates in the paperback version, but I'll forgive that given that this is otherwise a very good book. Given its price and relative length, this is a great read.

[Peter Fox · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Legend of Basil the Bulgar Slayer

I wish I'd paid more attention to the description of this book. The first three chapters are about the deeds of Basil, and these three only. These were great,


The rest of the book however, is about the subsequent development of his reputation and how it has been used and misused. None of this was at all of any interest to me.


If you're looking for an history of Basil, then this book isn't worth your time. If you want to know how he was viewed a few hundred years after his death, then fill your boots.

Personally, I think it should have been made clear in the first line of the advertising that this wasn't really a history of Basil.

[Eileen Iciek · Rating 4 out of 5]

I bought this book thinking it might be a history of Basil II's reign. Well, it did provide some information about that period. However, its main purpose was to explain when and how Basil received the sobriquet of "Bulgar-Slayer", and how that legend about Basil has been used. Interesting as far as that goes, but it doesn't go all that far. For someone fairly knowledgeable about that period in Byzantine history, as I think I am, it was not too difficult to get through. For someone just beginning to learn about Basil II and Byzantine history, it would be impenetrable.

There were a few things I noticed in the book that looked wrong. For example, the author stated once that Basil II was the great-great-grandson of Leo VI; he was the great-grandson of Leo. He also stated that Basil II was the great-great-great-grandson of Basil I, when he was the great-great-grandson. There was also at least one footnote that seemed to have no connection to the sentence being footnoted. I expect these were due to sloppy editing.

Academic Byzantine historians have done a wonderful job of taking the remains of that civilization - whether old books, coins, lead seals, artwork, etc. - and writing about it. However, almost none of their writings is easily accessible by the general public. That is a terrible shame because the Byzantines had a remarkable run through world history and deserve better.

[Alberto Martín de Hijas · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excelente libro sobre Basilio II. No se trata realmente de una biografía, ni tampoco de una crónica sobre las guerras del emperador contra los búlgaros (aunque si que las aborda, especialmente la parte final) Más bien es un análisis de como su figura fue retratada a lo largo de los siglos y como posteriormente fue manipulada por los distintos nacionalismos balcánicos. Aún así tiene bastante información sobre dicho reinado ya que en su primera parte se dedica a analizar las fuentes más cercanas a su vida para sacar un Basilio "histórico" que contraponer al Basilio "mítico" que se formando posteriormente (por ejemplo, el título de "Matador de Búlgaros" no se le adjudicó hasta uno ó dos siglos después de su muerte.

[Thanos Tram · Rating 5 out of 5]

Το βιβλίο αυτό σε κάνει να θαυμάζεις και να καταλάβεις περισσότερο από οποιοδήποτε άλλο τον μεγαλύτερο αυτοκράτορα που έβγαλε η Μακεδονική Δυναστεία.

[Stefanos · Rating 4 out of 5]

A scholarly book with some fine research on the particulars of myth creation. The first chapters are useful to understand the actual situation in the Balkans during the reign of Basil II and establish that there never was a full-on war of nations, or that infamous blinding. The last chapters are equally useful to understand what needs gave birth to the myth and resurfaced it from the pool of resources available to nationalism. The in-between is typical scholarly work which will appeal only to academics with a strong interest in the field and the topic. As such, perhaps they should have been papers, and the read like that, which is not ideal for the average educated reader.

[Phil · Rating 4 out of 5]

I first ran into this book in the summer and noted it because the Byzantine Emperor, Basil II, has interested me since my undergraduate craze for Byzantine history. Reading Ostrogorsky's History of Byzantium will do that to you because Basil emerges as the high point of the middle Byzantine period, both because of his Bulgarian conquests, but also because of Ostrogorsky's view of Basil's social/economic policy. This book takes on not so much trying to understand Basil II's rule, but rather how the legend of Basil the Bulgar-Slayer emerged and developed over the centuries. As such, it is as much about the modern legend as it is about the Byzantines.

Stephenson's argument is that the image of Basil II as the relentless conqueror of the Bulgars doesn't actually match the contemporary historical evidence. That is, for much of his reign, he was interested, as most other Byzantine emperors, in containing Bulgaria and maintaining Byzantine territorial integrity. Given an aggressive Bulgarian Tsar Samuel, he was drawn into war, which culminated in the decisive Battle of Kleidon, where Basil blinded thousands of Bulgarian captives, leaving one in ten with one eye so as to lead the survivors back to their khan. Samuel promptly had a stroke and died, leading to a period of dynastic instability which Basil II exploited to transfer the loyalties of the local leaders to Byzantium. Thus, Stephenson argues, the conquest of Bulgaria was less a relentless conquest, then a diplomatic triumph.

Stephenson also establishes that the term 'Bulgar-Slayer' wasn't actually applied to Basil II for a century or more. The image was even further exploited in the newly independent Greece in the 19th and 20th centuries, as Greece and Bulgarian fought over the status of the region of Macedonia. On the whole, Stephenson makes an interesting case, although I do think we have to recognize it is, in part, an argument from silence. Silence in written texts can mean many things and, God knows, the century after Basil II was dominated by civilian emperors who didn't exactly agree with the military ethos of that particular emperor. Further, it is entirely possible the term had currency orally much earlier than in surviving written texts. Still, it is interesting that Basil himself didn't seem to use it, although our evidence is rather poor for his period.

The reflections on the durability and use of this image in the modern period make for interesting reading and shows the influence of Byzantine history on the Slavic/Hellenic world. The insight into the Balkan politics of leading Byzantinists in the early twentieth century explain many things about scholarship in that age.

In all, this is an interesting book whose importance crosses specialties and historical periods.

[Daniel · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is divided into two sections, one showing how the primary sources for his reign portray a different story than the sources from a few generations later which created an entirely different character for him.

The second section of the book shows how his legend has been used and abused by nearly every Balkan nation for nationalist means, reiterating the dangers of nationalist history.

[Mallory · Rating 5 out of 5]

Basically, I read this for my thesis, and it was invaluable.

[Monique · Rating 3 out of 5]

really neat the way he traces the changing perceptions of this ledgend into the modern era and looks at the way it has shaped nationalist discourses in the Balkans.