The value of empire: tenth-century Bulgaria between Magyars,Pechenegs and Byzantium

The article seeks to explain the connection between the migration of the Magyars and Pechenegs in central and south-east Europe, in the late ninth and early tenth century, and the conflict between Byzantium and Bulgaria during the same period. Through reference to anthropologists discussing the relations between nomadic and sedentary societies (Khazanov, Barfield), and historians studying medieval rituals (Buc, Althoff, Koziol), the article interprets the aggressive policy of the Bulgarian tsar Symeon as a consistent effort to displace Byzantium as major partner of the nomadic polities in the area. By subverting the principles of Byzantine diplomacy and political culture, Symeon turned his own kingdom into a society-structuring factor in the nomadic world. The article evaluates the very meaning of imperial claims not so much in legal terms, as an effort to guarantee Bulgaria’s sovereignty in a Byzantium-centred world, but in the real-time capacity of a ruler to make use of imperial symbols and act upon the dynamically changing conjuncture.     

The value of empire: tenth-century Bulgaria between Magyars,Pechenegs and Byzantium

The article seeks to explain the connection between the migration of the Magyars and Pechenegs in central and south-east Europe, in the late ninth and early tenth century, and the conflict between Byzantium and Bulgaria during the same period. Through reference to anthropologists discussing the relations between nomadic and sedentary societies (Khazanov, Barfield), and historians studying medieval rituals (Buc, Althoff, Koziol), the article interprets the aggressive policy of the Bulgarian tsar Symeon as a consistent effort to displace Byzantium as major partner of the nomadic polities in the area. By subverting the principles of Byzantine diplomacy and political culture, Symeon turned his own kingdom into a society-structuring factor in the nomadic world. The article evaluates the very meaning of imperial claims not so much in legal terms, as an effort to guarantee Bulgaria’s sovereignty in a Byzantium-centred world, but in the real-time capacity of a ruler to make use of imperial symbols and act upon the dynamically changing conjuncture.     

The Concept of Total War: National Effort and Taxation in Britain and France During the First World War

Abstract

The failure … to appreciate that such bellicist views, or variants of them, were still widespread in other areas of the world, those dominated by Fascism or Marxism-Leninism, were to cause embarrassing misunderstandings, and possibly still do.     

On the origins of the name for the ‘Black Sea’

The name ‘Black Sea’ is widely attributed to the Anatolian Turks, due to their habit of referring to the South as ‘white’ and North as ‘black’. However, the appellation first appeared in a Hungarian document and later in sources originating further to the North, including Icelandic sagas and other Nordic narratives. The Turks themselves have a small and secondary role in using and spreading the name. Some scholars have suggested that the Cumans, a Turkic people once occupying regions to the North of the Black Sea, are the likely source. However, in medieval times Khazarian traditions seem to have used the term ‘Black Sea’ as well as ‘Great Sea’, though the relationships between the two terms require clarification. This essay seeks to reconcile these two traditions, and offers a conjectural Bulgar source for the Black Sea denomination.