Luscombe D., Riley-Smith J. The New Cambridge Medieval History, Vol. 4: c. 1024-c. 1198, Part 2
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
Kievan Rus
, the Bulgars and the southern Slavs, c. 1020–c. 1200 261
After Yury’s death the princes of Chernigov reasserted their supremacy for
a short time. Izyaslav, the son of David, occupied Kiev but was overthrown
in 1159 when he attempted to impose his rule over Galicia. The Kievans in-
vited Rostislav of Smolensk, Izyaslav’s brother, to be their prince. During his
reign the Cumans intensified their attacks on trade caravans travelling to Con-
stantinople. Rostislav organized expeditions against the tribesmen but, in the
long term, failed to curb their attacks. Evidently, it was during his rule that
the so-called expanded version of ‘The Russian Law’ (Pravda russkaya) was
completed. After his death in 1167 the unity of the Mstislavichi was broken
when his sons objected to the succession of their cousin Mstislav of Vladimir,
Izyaslav’s son. The balance of power was further disrupted by Yury’s son Andrey
who sided with the Rostislavichi to pursue his expansionist policies. In 1169,
he assembled an enormous army and plundered Kiev.
After that Andrey was recognized as the most powerful prince in the land
but he did not occupy Kiev. Since his father had been murdered there he
evidently considered it expedient to remain in Rostov-Suzdal
.Moreover, had
he moved to Kiev he would have removed himself dangerously far from his
centre of power in the north-east. However, as control of Kiev gave its ruler a
great military advantage, Andrey could not allow it to fall into the hands of a
rival prince. He therefore attempted to control it through an underling. Since
the Rostov-Suzdal
district served as the link for the commerce that passed
from the Baltic to the Caspian Sea through Novgorod, Andrey also sought to
establish his control over that town. In 1170 he failed to capture it by force,
but he finally forced the townsmen to capitulate by laying an embargo on all
grain shipments to Novgorod.
Andrey attempted to establish absolute rule in his domains by undermining
the authority of the citizens in their local assembly (veche), by treating his
boyars as servitors, and by subordinating all the princes to his control. In
order to decrease the influence of the towns – Rostov, Suzdal
and Vladimir
on the Klyaz
ma – he moved his court to the village of Bogolyubovo, after
which he became known as Bogolyubskiy. In an effort to secure greater control
over the affairs of the church, he unsuccessfully attempted to create a new
metropolitan see in Vladimir on the Klyaz
ma. His autocratic policies evoked
much resentment and in 1174 he was assassinated by his boyars.
After that Rostov-Suzdal
was plagued with civil strife until Andrey’s brother
Vsevolod ‘Big Nest’ (Bol
shoe Gnezdo) asserted his rule over the region. Else-
where in Rus
the princes of Chernigov, Volynia and Galicia established a
balance of power. The Ol
govichi, the descendants of Oleg Svyatoslavich who
after the death of Izyaslav Davidovich in 1161 had become the sole rulers
of Chernigov, and the Rostislavichi of Smolensk concluded a pact. In 1176
Svyatoslav of Chernigov, Vsevolod’s son, occupied Kiev and assumed the office
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
262 martin dimnik
of the most senior prince in the land. He acknowledged Rostislav’s son Ryurik
from Ovruch, north-west of Kiev, as co-ruler. In Galicia Jaroslav Osmomysl
,
Vladimirko’s son, reigned until his death in 1187;inVolynia the descendants
of Izyaslav had firm control.
During the last quarter of the twelfth century the princes of Kiev and
Chernigov were primarily concerned with curbing the raids of the Cumans;
they had limited success. In 1184 Svyatoslav and Ryurik successfully repelled
an attack on Kiev. In the following year one of the minor Ol
govichi, Igor
of Novgorod Severskiy, accompanied by a number of other princelings, led
avaliant campaign against the tribesmen. It ended in catastrophe for the princes
but it became the subject of the most famous epic poem of Rus
, the ‘Lay of
Igor
’s Campaign’.
In 1194 Svyatoslav died in Kiev and was succeeded, evidently according to
aprevious agreement, by Ryurik. Then, in 1199,Roman of Volynia seized the
throne of Galicia with the help of the Poles. He therewith became one of the
most powerful princes in the land. In 1202 Roman evicted Ryurik from Kiev
but Vsevolod ‘Big Nest’ of Rostov-Suzdal
came to Ryurik’s aid. The following
year a coalition of princes and Cumans headed by Ryurik attacked Kiev and
plundered it even more mercilessly, according to the chronicler, than Andrey’s
army had done. Roman and Vsevolod ‘Big Nest’ reached a compromise and
appointed a minor prince to Kiev. In 1205 Roman was killed in battle; his
untimely death created a political vacuum in south-western Rus
because his
sons, Daniil and Vasil
ko, were still minors. The balance of power now shifted to
Rostov-Suzdal
where Vsevolod ‘Big Nest’ became the most powerful prince in
the land. As he was primarily concerned in strengthening his own principality,
Vsevolod interfered little in the affairs of the southern princes.
In summary, we have seen that at the beginning of the eleventh century
Jaroslav ‘the Wise’ consolidated his rule over most of Rus
and before his
death divided up his realm into patrimonies for his sons. He hoped to ensure a
peaceful transition of power to Kiev by instituting a system of lateral succession
according to genealogical seniority. It had considerable success until Vladimir
Monomakh attempted to secure Kiev as the patrimony for his descendants.
In 1139 Vsevolod Ol
govich of Chernigov challenged the Monomashichi and
sought to secure Kiev for the Svyatoslavichi. After that, the capital of Rus
became the main object of rivalry between members of the two families as they
fought for supremacy in the land.
bulgaria, 1018–1207
During most of the eleventh and twelfth centuries Bulgaria experienced the
so-called period of Byzantine rule. In 1014 Tsar Samuel died after seeing his
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Kievan Rus
, the Bulgars and the southern Slavs, c. 1020–c. 1200 263
defeated troops return home blinded at the command of Basil II ‘Bulgar-slayer’.
Four years later the emperor completed the subjugation of the Bulgarians when
he captured Ohrid. He divided up their state into three military themes or
provinces: the theme of Bulgaria proper which included most of Macedonia was
centred around Skoplje; Silistria was the main town in the theme of Paristrion
(Paradunavon) located between the Balkan mountains and the lower Danube;
the third theme, situated on the middle Danube and the lower Sava, had
Sirmium as its capital. Each was administered by a military governor (strategos)
who had imperial troops under his command.
To obviate insurrections Basil II transferred the surviving members of the
royal family and of the old Bulgarian aristocracy to military outposts in Asia
Minor. Whereas he had treated Samuel’s defeated soldiers most cruelly, the
civil policy he imposed on the vanquished Bulgarians was accommodating: he
permitted them to keep the administrative system used by Tsar Samuel. Since
they had no coinage he decreed that they would continue to pay their taxes
in kind unlike his other subjects who paid in money. He also preserved the
Bulgarian Orthodox church but in a weakened form. Although he demoted
the patriarch to the status of archbishop, he appointed a Bulgarian, John of
Debar, to that post. In the future the archbishop of Ohrid would be named
directly by the emperor and thereby kept outside the jurisdiction of the patri-
arch of Constantinople. The archbishop also retained jurisdiction over all the
bishoprics which had belonged to Samuel’s kingdom. This and other privileges
gave the archbishop a special status within the ecclesiastical structure of the
Byzantine church. Basil therewith demonstrated that he was prepared to grant
a measure of ecclesiastical autonomy to his new subjects.
After 1025 the successors of Basil II abandoned his reasonable policies in
Bulgaria owing, in large part, to the serious military, economic and social crisis
which pervaded the empire for the next fifty years. In the 1030sBulgaria was
hit by a series of famines which killed off many of its inhabitants who were,
in the main, Slavic peasants. The military units in the themes deteriorated,
leaving the Bulgarian themes prey to foreign invaders. The latter pillaged the
lands of the peasants inflicting additional hardships on them. The emperor’s
practice of granting immunities to landowners led to administrative abuses
and further weakened the effectiveness of the theme system. What is more,
Byzantine tax collectors ruthlessly employed extortionist tactics. Then, in 1040,
Emperor Michael IV (1034–41) abrogated the tax system introduced by Basil
II and forced the Bulgarians to pay their taxes in cash.
The last measure provoked a major revolt. In the same year Peter Deljan,
who claimed to be a grandson of Tsar Samuel, was proclaimed tsar of Bulgaria
in Belgrade. Soon after he was joined by a certain Alusianus and the revolt
spread over the greater part of the Balkans. Deljan led his troops south and,
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
264 martin dimnik
after capturing the towns of Ni
ˇ
s, Skoplje and Durazzo, advanced into northern
Greece; but the insurgents failed to take Thessalonica. In 1041 the uprising was
suppressed owing to the lack of unity among its leaders. Its temporary success,
however, had weakened the structure Basil II had created. It also demonstrated
the seriousness of the disaffection which existed not only among the Bulgarians
but also among the Serbs, Albanians and Greeks who joined them. Even so,
Byzantium’s response was merely to tighten its control over the malcontents
by replacing whatever Bulgarian officials still remained in administrative posts
with Greeks. After that the oppression became even worse.
Other developments were also undermining Byzantine control over
Bulgaria. After 1034 the Petcheneks raided the Balkans with increased fre-
quency. In 1064 the Uzes, also of Turkic origin, crossed the Danube into
Bulgaria, Thrace and Macedonia. The suffering they inflicted on the Bulgarians
nearly forced the latter to emigrate, but an outbreak of plague decimated the
invaders. In 1071 the empire appeared to be on the verge of collapse after it had
experienced disastrous defeats at Manzikert and Bari.
In the following year the Byzantine government nearly lost the Balkans,
the very heart of the empire. The Bulgarians and Serbs rose up in arms and
declared Constantine Bodin, the son of King Michael of Duklja (Zeta), tsar of
Bulgaria. However, the Byzantines crushed the revolt and took Bodin captive.
At the same time the theme of Paristrion, angry at Constantinople’s decision
to make the corn trade a state monopoly, asserted its autonomy.
It is difficult to determine what role the Bogomils, the dualist heretics named
after the priest Bogomil who lived at the time of Tsar Peter (927–69), played
in the revolts of the eleventh century. Since the religious dissenters became
more active during this period, it is generally believed that they participated
in the insurrections and supported the Petcheneks. Although they preached
a doctrine of civil disobedience, their social anarchism reflected their moral
convictions and not a political programme; shedding blood was contrary to
their beliefs. Consequently, even though the Bogomils opposed the established
Orthodox church and the Byzantine political structure, it is doubtful that, as
arule, they participated in armed revolts.
During the second half of the eleventh century an economic and political
system closely resembling feudalism in the west arose in Bulgaria. It was based
on a method of tenure (pronoia) according to which the government usually
gave land to secular magnates in return for military service. It is difficult to
determine how this development influenced the attitude of the Bulgarians
towards the Greeks. However, in the light of the peasants’ growing distress, the
landlords, who were in the main foreigners, were undoubtedly looked upon as
imperial exploiters.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Kievan Rus
, the Bulgars and the southern Slavs, c. 1020–c. 1200 265
The Greeks adopted a policy of cultural assimilation in Bulgaria. John of
Debar died in 1037 and after that the archbishop of Ohrid was always a Greek.
As an agent of the emperor he had to implement the policy by introducing such
changes as the use of Greek in the Bulgarian church. The Greeks also destroyed
Slavonic books, but there is little documentation to show the success of this
policy. The survival of a number of Old Church Slavonic manuscripts, allegedly
copied in the eleventh century by Bulgarian and Macedonian scribes, suggests
that the archbishops also condoned the use of such texts. The best evidence that
the primate of Ohrid did not attempt to stifle Slavonic traditions is provided
by Theophylact (c. 1090 – c. 1109). For a Greek who allegedly abhorred living
in Bulgaria, it is remarkable that he wrote a biography of St Clement of Ohrid
which he based on a Slavonic life of the saint. In it he also praised the work of
SS. Cyril and Methodius.
In 1185 the Byzantine empire was in serious disarray. The Normans of Sicily
had captured Durazzo and Thessalonica. Meanwhile Isaac II Angelus (1185–95)
assumed power and imposed a highly unpopular tax to pay for his marriage
expenses. In the themes the imperial armies continued to deteriorate and the
land fell increasingly into the hands of unscrupulous local boyars. Two such
magnates were the brothers Peter (Theodore) and Asen of Trnovo. They were
evidently Vlakhs (these were for the most part shepherds descended from
the semi-Romanized Dacians who sought refuge in the mountains during
the period of Slav invasions) who requested a pronoia from the emperor but
were rudely dismissed. The insult, in addition to the high taxes, sparked off
another insurrection among the Bulgarians and Vlakhs.
In 1187 Isaac II drove the brothers beyond the Danube. But after he returned
to Constantinople they regrouped, recruited reinforcements from the nomadic
Cumans and seized control of Bulgaria. On this occasion the emperor failed
to defeat the upstarts and was forced to conclude a settlement: Peter and Asen
agreed to hand over their younger brother Kalojan as hostage – he was to escape
from Constantinople two years later – and Isaac II released Byzantium’s hold on
the territory between the Balkan mountains and the Danube, acknowledging
the existence of a new independent Bulgarian state.
The second Bulgarian empire, as it is generally known, was called Bulgarian
even though the brothers were Vlakhs. Asen was crowned as ruler and made
Trnovo his political capital; Peter governed from Preslav. Spurning the arch-
bishopric of Ohrid with its Byzantine loyalties, Asen created an independent
one in Trnovo. Most of the boyars in their service no longer came from the old
Bulgarian families; many were Cumans who served the brothers as comrades
in arms. None the less, the brothers found it useful to retain the Greek ad-
ministrative practices that had been introduced during the so-called Byzantine
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
266 martin dimnik
period. After securing their authority Asen and Peter launched new attacks
into Byzantine territories; in 1193 they captured Arcadiopolis and with it much
of central Thrace.
In 1196 Asen was murdered; Peter occupied Trnovo but suffered a similar
fate in the following year. After that Kalojan, their youngest brother, assumed
power and intensified Bulgarian attacks against Byzantium. Meanwhile the
princes of Kievan Rus
launched a major campaign against the Cumans in
the steppes north of the Black Sea. Many Cumans in Kalojan’s service (he
himself was married to a Cuman princess) sallied forth to the defence of their
compatriots. Their exodus seriously weakened his military resources and in
1201 he was forced to conclude a treaty with the empire and cede control of
Thrace. Despite this setback Kalojan successfully expanded his domains to the
confluence of the rivers Morava and Danube.
In 1199, wishing to obtain ecclesiastical recognition for his rule, Kalojan
began negotiating with Pope Innocent III for a crown. After the Fourth Crusade
captured Constantinople, a papal legate arrived at his court, crowned him king
and recognized Archbishop Basil of Trnovo as primate of Bulgaria. Kalojan
pledged his loyalty to Rome but acted as if the pope had granted him an imperial
title and had accorded patriarchal status to his archbishop. The ecclesiastical
union with the Holy See was a purely political act and evidently had no
doctrinal or administrative consequences for the inner life of the Bulgarian
church. Kalojan’s state lacked strong central institutions. It was a federation of
local lords who supported him because they hoped to profit from his raids or
because they feared reprisals if they refused to support him.
In summary, we have seen that after Basil II imposed Byzantine rule over
Bulgaria his successors failed to absorb it into the empire’s political structure.
The oppression the Bulgarian peasants suffered at the hands of local Byzantine
magnates, the extortionist practices of tax collectors, the rapacious taxation
policies and devastating foreign invasions all alienated the Bulgarians from
their Byzantine overlords. In 1187, after a number of unsuccessful attempts,
they won their independence and created the second Bulgarian empire.
the southern slavs
The Serbs (1018–1196)
In 1018 when Basil II conquered Bulgaria a number of Serbian principalities
also fell under Byzantine rule. These included Ra
ˇ
ska, or Rascia, located be-
tween the rivers Lim and Ibar, Duklja, or Dioclea, later known as Zeta, located
around Lake Skadar (Scutari) and the Gulf of Kotor, Trebinje, or Travunia,
located between Kotor (Cotarro) and Ragusa (Dubrovnik), Zahumlje, later
known as Hum, located between Ragusa and the River Neretva, and Bosnia,
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Kievan Rus
, the Bulgars and the southern Slavs, c. 1020–c. 1200 267
located between the upper Neretva, the Drina and the Sava. Basil II evidently
allowed the local county lords (
ˇ
zupans)toremain in power after they submit-
ted to Byzantine suzerainty. The Serbs were the empire’s most important but
insubordinate subjects in the western Balkans.
The sources tell us nothing about Byzantine Serbia until the 1030s when
a certain Stephen Vojislav rebelled against Constantinople. Imperial troops
attacked him, took him captive and placed his domain of Duklja under the ju-
risdiction of the military governor (strategos)ofDurazzo. Around 1039 Vojislav
regained control of Duklja and, three years later, inflicted a crushing defeat
on the strategos and his client
ˇ
zupans of Ra
ˇ
ska, Bosnia and Zahumlje. Vojislav
therewith secured the independence of his domain and control over the neigh-
bouring territories of Trebinje and Zahumlje. Duklja, the first of the South Slav
territories to break away from imperial rule, became the leading Serbian state
until the twelfth century. Vojislav died around 1043 and bequeathed his lands
to his five sons. The empire, however, attempted to regain its influence over
Duklja by fomenting dissension among them and the nobles of the Serbian
territories annexed by Vojislav tried to secede. In the end, the brothers joined
forces against their common enemies and, around 1046,Michael assumed the
title of king.
Byzantium remained Duklja’s most powerful enemy. To obviate any attack
from that quarter and to deny his brothers the opportunity of using such a
crisis to rebel against him, Michael made peace with Emperor Constantine
IX Monomachos. The latter recognized the king’s independence and Michael
returned to Byzantium some of the territories his father Vojislav had seized from
Durazzo. After that Michael set out to consolidate his control over the Serbian
lands by strengthening the power of his sons. He increased their territorial
holdings by granting them newly conquered territories or lands appropriated
from his own brothers.
In 1072 George Vojteh of Skoplje rebelled against Constantinople and asked
the king of Duklja to send troops. Ignoring his peace treaty with the Greeks,
Michael dispatched an army under the command of his son Constantine Bodin.
The insurgents crowned Bodin tsar of the Bulgarians but Bodin’s aspirations
came to naught when the Byzantines suppressed the revolt. Bodin was captured
and remained a prisoner for some six years.
Michael also attempted to undermine the empire’s ecclesiastical influence
on the south Adriatic coast. As the Orthodox metropolitanate of Durazzo
had helped to Christianize Duklja, it vied with the archdioceses of Ohrid
and Split to assert its jurisdiction over the Serbian churches. Around 1066,at
Michael’s request, Pope Alexander II purportedly created the Latin metropoli-
tan archdiocese of Duklja at Bar (Antibari). Its jurisdiction was to extend over
Tr ebinje, Bosnia and Ra
ˇ
ska, in addition to the churches formerly subordinate
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
268 martin dimnik
to Byzantine Durazzo and Latin Split. In practice, Ra
ˇ
ska and Bosnia retained
their Orthodox affiliations and, even on the littoral, Latin and Byzantine prac-
tices continued to overlap. Nevertheless, the creation of the archbishopric in
Bar bound Duklja closer to Rome; in 1077 Pope Gregory VII sent a royal crown
to Michael and he, in return, pledged loyalty to the Holy See.
ButMichael had not renounced his affiliation to the empire completely.
In 1081, when the Normans attacked Durazzo he sent an army under Bodin’s
command to help defend the town. Bodin, for his part, approached the conflict
with divided loyalties because, it appears, he had married a Norman woman
from Bari a year earlier. He withdrew his troops from battle at a critical mo-
ment and thereby helped the Normans capture Durazzo. His betrayal would
inevitably bring retribution from Byzantium.
Around 1082 Michael died. Bodin succeeded him and soon faced revolts
in the
ˇ
zupanijas his father had annexed to Duklja. Zahumlje seceded. Bodin
crushed the revolt in Zeta where his uncle Radoslav ruled and when Ra
ˇ
ska
attempted to break away he asserted his control over it and part of Bosnia.
He allowed each region to keep its local nobility but appointed a member of
the royal family of Duklja to rule it. Thus, around 1084 he appointed Vukan
(Vlkan) and Marko, perhaps the sons of his brother Petrislav to whom Michael
had given Ra
ˇ
ska, as
ˇ
zupans of Ra
ˇ
ska. Bodin also maintained close relations with
the Latin church. In 1089 the antipope Clement III evidently reaffirmed the
metropolitan status of Bar and placed all the churches in Bodin’s realm under its
control. In the main, the churches on the littoral remained loyal to Rome while
those located inland continued to acknowledge the jurisdiction of Orthodox
bishops.
In 1085,Emperor Alexios I Komnenos defeated the Norman invaders at
Durazzo and reasserted the empire’s rule over the south Adriatic region. Soon
after Byzantine troops captured Bodin and restored imperial rule over Duklja.
This gave rise to a period of anarchy and the state disintegrated as local
ˇ
zupans
fought for the right of succession. Bosnia broke away from Duklja, drew closer
to Croatia, and with it became part of the Hungarian state. Ra
ˇ
ska successfully
asserted its independence under Vukan’s leadership and became the leading
Serbian opponent of Byzantium. Indeed, during the twelfth century Ra
ˇ
ska
and Serbia became synonymous.
Vukan assumed the title grand
ˇ
zupan and established his capital at the
fortress of Ras after which Ra
ˇ
ska was named. In the early 1090sheinitiated an
expansionist policy against the empire by marching eastward towards Ni
ˇ
s and
south-eastward into Macedonia. In 1095 the Byzantines retaliated and forced
him to send his son Uro
ˇ
stoConstantinople as a hostage. But this did not
deter Vukan. He renewed his incursions into Macedonia. The Greeks finally
brought him to heel in 1106, but he had set the example for his successors. They
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Kievan Rus
, the Bulgars and the southern Slavs, c. 1020–c. 1200 269
would advance steadily into Macedonia for the next 200 years and establish
ever closer contacts with Byzantine administration and culture.
The rulers of Ra
ˇ
ska were appointed and deposed from Constantinople.
Their revolts were looked upon as treason and reprisals were severe. Around
1126 Uro
ˇ
sI,who succeeded his father Vukan as grand
ˇ
zupan, asserted his
independence. The Byzantines defeated him and deported many Serbs to the
region of Nicomedia in Asia Minor. Four years later, in order to strengthen
his position against the empire, Uro
ˇ
sIformed an alliance with Hungary: he
gave his daughter Jelena in marriage to King B
´
ela II, the Blind (1131–41). The
latter relied heavily on his wife and her brother Belo
ˇ
stohelp him administer
his realm. B
´
ela was succeeded by his son G
´
eza II (1141–62), a minor, for whom
Belo
ˇ
s became regent.
In 1149, when Emperor Manuel I Komnenus was preparing to launch an at-
tack against the Normans in Italy, the Serbs, Normans and Hungarians formed
a pact and the Serbs revolted. Uro
ˇ
s II, who had succeeded his father as grand
ˇ
zupan of Ra
ˇ
ska, threatened the emperor’s supply base near Durazzo. He also
captured much of Duklja and Trebinje. An imperial force was sent against
him which devastated much of Ra
ˇ
ska and again transferred many Serbs to
Byzantine territories. Except for a short interval in 1155, the Greeks allowed
Uro
ˇ
sIItoremain grand
ˇ
zupan until 1161,atwhich time his brother Desa was
reappointed.
Manuel I crushed many revolts in Ra
ˇ
ska but he could not put an end to
them even by replacing disloyal
ˇ
zupans. This remained the case even after
the dynasty of Nemanja, a new line of princes which ruled Serbia until the
second half of the fourteenth century, assumed power. Around 1166, after
subduing yet another Serbian revolt, Manuel appointed a certain Tihomir as
grand
ˇ
zupan.Heshared authority with his younger brothers Stephen Nemanja,
Miroslav and Stracimir. Around 1171 Nemanja deposed Tihomir, who was later
killed in battle, and the three remaining brothers divided up Ra
ˇ
ska among
them. In the long term, Nemanja’s usurpation inaugurated two centuries of
greatness; in the short term, it was the newest Serbian challenge to Byzantine
overlordship. In 1172 Manuel defeated Nemanja who was brought before the
emperor barefooted, with a rope tied round his neck, and forced to throw
himself in submission at Manuel’s feet. Later, he was degraded further by
being exhibited as a conquered rebel in the emperor’s triumphal entry into
Constantinople. After the humiliation Nemanja was reinstated in Ra
ˇ
ska; he
remained a loyal vassal until 1180, the year of the emperor’s death when he
repudiated imperial rule once again. Taking advantage of Byzantium’s conflicts
with the Normans and the Hungarians he initiated a policy of expansion: he
appropriated territories in northern Macedonia and the Kosovo region; he
seized Zeta (the name usually given to Duklja after this time) and pressed
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
270 martin dimnik
on to the Dalmatian coast to capture the towns of Ulcinj (Dulcigno), Bar
and Kotor; he annexed territories to the east as far as Serdica (modern Sofia).
Nemanja also supported the Bulgarian rebels Peter and Asen when they declared
their independence. In 1189 he expressed an interest in occupying the imperial
throne itself when he met the western Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa in Ni
ˇ
s
and unsuccessfully attempted to form a coalition with him against Byzantium.
In 1190, after Frederick I had crossed the Bosphorus, Emperor Isaac II
Angelus marched against Nemanja, defeated him on the River Morava, and
forced him to make peace. The terms of the agreement suggest that the
Byzantine victory had been indecisive: the emperor acknowledged Ra
ˇ
ska’s in-
dependence and allowed Nemanja to keep many of the Serbian and Bulgarian
lands he had seized. Isaac also concluded a marriage alliance with the Serbs:
Nemanja’s son Stephen married Eudoxia, the niece of Isaac and daughter of the
future Emperor Alexios III Angelus. A few years later the latter conferred on
Stephen the title of sebastokrator. The marriage alliance and the title, it could
be argued, were Byzantium’s recognition of the fact that Ra
ˇ
ska had come of
age as an autonomous state in the Balkans.
Serbian ties with Byzantium were strengthened through the bishopric in
Ras. After the conquest of Basil II the Serbians had been placed under the ec-
clesiastical jurisdiction of the Bulgarian archbishopric of Ohrid which supplied
them with Slavonic Orthodox texts and Byzantine spirituality. Nevertheless,
during the twelfth century Rome continued to exert a strong influence over
the churches of Ra
ˇ
ska through the Latin bishoprics on the Adriatic coast such
as Bar, Ragusa and Kotor. The ecclesiastical dualism of Serbia was exempli-
fied in the case of Nemanja himself who was allegedly baptized first in his
native Zeta by a Latin priest and later by an Orthodox bishop in Ras. Nemanja
was not only tolerant of Latin Christians but also patronized churches under
Rome’s jurisdiction. However, by the end of the twelfth century he had com-
mitted himself to the Orthodox church. His youngest son Rastko followed his
example. Impressed by the life and teaching of the monks of Mount Athos
who frequented his father’s court, Rastko ran away to the Holy Mountain,
became a monk in the Greek monastery of Vatopedi and adopted the name
Sava.
Nemanja’s religious inclinations were fortified by his son’s example. In 1196
he abdicated in favour of his second son the sebastokrator Stephen, the son-
in-law of Emperor Alexios III. Earlier, he had given his eldest son Vukan,
whose wife was a relative of Pope Innocent III and who probably espoused
the Latin rite, control of the less important regions of Zeta and Trebinje.
Nemanja entered the monastery of Studenica which he had built and took
the monastic name Symeon. Soon afterwards he followed Sava to the Holy
Mountain. Alexios III granted him the derelict monastery of Chilandar where
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008