BYZANTIUM AND THE TURKS: THE FALL AND RISE OF CIVILIZATIONS

According to their contemporaries, the Kipchaks mostly followed paganism, adhering to their own beliefs brought from the Black Sea steppes. For instance, the French knight, crusader, and historian Geoffrey of Villehardouin reported that the Kipchaks of the Balkans were non-Christians, meaning they were likely pagans. An observation from the renowned Byzantine writer Niketas Choniates suggests that the pagan Cumans conducted human sacrifices. He wrote, ‘Some [Greek] captives who stood out for their beauty were sacrificed to their gods by hanging [them] after being scourged.’ Additionally, the French monk and chronicler Alberic reported that when the Cuman Jonah, an ally of the Latins, died, the Cumans buried him outside Constantinople in a pagan ceremony, burying eight volunteers from his warriors and twenty-six horses with him. This is further evidence that the Cumans were involved in human sacrifices.

Since 1077, the Cumans had made sporadic appearances in Byzantine territory, either as allies of the Pecheneg or of Byzantium itself. After the Pecheneg were defeated by Byzantine and Cuman forces in the Battle of Levounion in April 1091, the Cumans did not remain loyal to their alliance with Byzantium for long and began to ravage the Balkan possessions, much like the Pecheneg.

Emperor Alexios I Komnenos faced a dilemma in deciding how to repel the Cuman invaders. He debated whether to hide in his fortresses and wait for an opportunity to strike or to engage the enemy in open combat. For guidance, Alexios I turned to fortune telling, leaving two notes with these options on an altar during an all-night vigil. In the morning, the patriarch opened the note that ordered a march against the Cumans. However, fate had other plans because as the war unfolded, the Byzantines had to rely on using their fortresses due to a lack of strength for open battle.

Nevertheless, during the wars of the 1090s, Alexios I inflicted significant losses on the Cumans, who ceased their attacks on the empire, fearing the emperor's retaliation, until his death. The balance of power and tactics in the clashes between the Byzantines and the nomads, as well as their approach to warfare, had changed dramatically since Alexios I's campaigns against the Pecheneg in Thrace and Macedonia. The Cumans now avoided large-scale battles in open fields, while the Byzantines actively sought such engagements. This pattern repeated through the twelfth century in the subsequent clashes between the Greeks and the Danubian nomads. Although the Cumans periodically raided Byzantine territories and possessions every five to ten years, these raids generally resulted in little success. The emperors John II and Manuel I Komnenos, successors to Alexios I, confidently maintained this tactic, and pursued open battles, which often led to Greek victories.

The effectiveness of Byzantine weaponry can be attributed to the significant changes made in Byzantine warfare since the reign of Alexios I. The integration of numerous Turkic light cavalry into the Byzantine army, along with the rational and cautious use of traditional Greek infantry units and heavily armed cavalry, played a crucial role.

In the 1160s, the Cumans became heavily engaged in conflicts with the Russian principalities and left the Danube region. Their return to the Danube region occurred as a result of the rebellion of the Vlachs and Bulgars in the Balkan Mountains against the Byzantines. This uprising was led by Peter and Asen at the beginning of Isaac II Angelos' reign (1185–95). Forced beyond the Danube, Peter and Asen sought assistance from the Cumans and soon returned to the Balkans accompanied by a nomadic army. It is worth noting that the name of one of the brothers, Asen, likely derived from the Turkic name ‘Esen’, meaning ‘healthy’ or ‘strong’.

Although it is uncertain whether Peter and Asen themselves were of Cuman origin, they undoubtedly played a decisive role in the Byzantine–Bulgarian war that followed. As a result, the Second Bulgarian Empire emerged in the Balkans in the late 1180s. The close connection between the Bulgarians and the Cumans persisted for many decades, surviving both the Fourth Crusade and the Mongol invasion in the thirteenth century.

In 1204, the crusaders of the Fourth Crusade seized Constantinople, leading to the fragmentation of Byzantium into three states: the Empire of Nicaea in Anatolia, the Empire of Trebizond in Pontus and northeastern Anatolia, and the Despotate of Epirus in the western Balkans. Through the Balkan wars and the Fourth Crusade, the Cumans consistently aligned themselves with the Bulgarians.

During the Balkan wars, the Cumans did not pursue any specific political goals on their own. The primary motive for their raids seemed to be the abundant loot they acquired from these areas. The main centers of their settlements and foreign policy interests extended far northeast of the Danube, and while it is possible that some groups of Cumans settled in the Balkans, their numbers were not significant.

The situation took a dramatic turn with the onset of the Mongol conquests. In 1223, during the Battle of the Kalka River, the Mongols inflicted a heavy defeat on the Cumans and Russians, signaling their intention to continue their conquests. In 1227, the Dominican monks baptized the Cumans and established the Diocese of Cumania, with its seat in Milcov (now known as Milcovul) in historical Moldavia. This marked a significant step towards integrating the Cumans into European civilization, particularly the Western version. However, the Mongol invasion disrupted this progress. In 1236, as the Mongols moved westward across the Kipchak steppes, they defeated Volga Bulgaria and devastated the Kipchak lands.

Fleeing from the steppe, the Cumans embarked on a westward migration. In the summer of 1237, the first wave crossed the Danube and attacked Thrace, leaving behind a path of devastation. In the spring of 1241, another wave of Cuman migrants arrived, this time originating from Hungary. In 1238, after being defeated around the steppes of Astrakhan by the Mongols of Batu Khan, Kipchak Khan Köten, accompanied by 40,000 Cumans, sought refuge in Hungary. King Béla IV of Hungary baptized him and arranged a marriage between their children, Köten’s daughter Elizabeth (aka Elizabeth the Cuman) and his son, the future King Stephen V of Hungary. However, due to the Hungarian nobility's distrust of the Cumans, Khan Köten was treacherously murdered in Pest in 1240. In response, the enraged Cumans ravaged Hungary and turned towards Bulgaria.

In the Balkans, the Cumans gradually integrated into local political life, and the Bulgarians were not the only ones who welcomed them. From 1237 onward, they formed alliances with the Latins of Constantinople, which were solidified through marriage alliances. Cuman allies of the Latins, such as the chiefs Jonah and Saronius, as mentioned in one Latin chronicle, arranged marriages between their daughters and influential knights in the court of the Latin Emperor Baldwin II. Additionally, the Cumans joined the armies of the Empire of Nicaea and later the Palaiologan army. A part of the Kipchak horde accepted Byzantine citizenship and settled in Thrace, Macedonia, and even Anatolia. These Cumans became part of the Byzantine Scythians’s light cavalry.

The Cuman invasions of previous decades had a lasting impact on the ethnic composition of Byzantium. Interestingly, there were few Cumans among the Byzantine nobility, despite their widespread recruitment by the Byzantine army as allies and warriors who accepted Roman citizenship. Niketas Choniates mentioned a Cuman warlord named Alpamysh who accepted Byzantine citizenship in the 1180s.

There is information about a noble Scythian from the fourteenth century, a Cuman who served under Byzantine rule named Sichgan (derived from the Turkic word siçğan meaning ‘mouse’). Sichgan was baptized and given the name Siriannis, which later became a generic name passed down to his descendants. His grandson Syrgiannes Palaiologos Philanthropenos Komnenos Palaiologos was a noble figure in the first half of the fourteenth century and was connected to the ruling Palaiologos dynasty and other aristocratic families.

We also know about the unknown Cumans who settled in Byzantium, and here are a few examples. One of their earliest settlements was in the Moglena (aka Almopia) theme. A document from the end of the twelfth century states that in the village of Foustani (Φούστανη in Greek), a group of sixteen Kipchak warriors owned sixty-two peasant farms as part of the pronoia that was granted to them. Pronoia referred to payment for military service provided by the state, which included taxes collected from peasant households and labor. The documents also indicate that the Kipchaks had houses and cattle pens in Foustani, suggesting that the Cumans likely lived there and practiced sedentary cattle breeding. The holders of such pronoia may have been ethnic Cumans as well as those who served in the Cuman army, including Anatolians and possibly local Slavs and Vlachs.

In the 1260s–1270s, some Kipchaks were settled in Anatolia, particularly in the region of Smyrna. There are some intriguing documents about the Smyrna Cumans that provide a vivid glimpse into everyday life in Byzantium and the Cumans’ position within its hierarchy. One document tells the story of two peasants in the rural district of Smyrna named Kutul and Keramar who had a dispute over land rights. Keramar forcefully took over Kutul's plot, who, in turn, sought the Cumans’ help and, with their support, took a team of oxen from Keramar. Keramar then sent an intermediary to the Cumans for the task of retrieving the oxen. The intermediary managed to accomplish this mission by providing a surprisingly large amount of wine, costing two gold coins, which he shared with the Cumans.

Keramar, having spent two gold coins, regained the oxen and repurchased the plot from the Cumans. According to similar documents, the Cumans easily intervened in less than lawful matters, attacking commoners (albeit offenders) and administering vigilante justice by seizing the property of such wrongdoers.

It is possible that the Cumans in the vicinity of Smyrna were military pronoia holders, but there is no documentation to confirm this. The mention of the Cumans' drunkenness is also noteworthy; the documents explicitly state twice: ‘For this people are drunkards like no other’ and ‘wine, which the Cumans love so much’. Other Byzantine historians also mention nomadic tribes in general (Pecheneg, Anatolian Turks, Cumans) being prone to alcohol addiction.

The Cumans inhabited Byzantine territory until the middle of the fourteenth century, spreading throughout Macedonia, primarily in its northern and western regions. They were mostly part of the lower and the middle class (soldiers). It is rare to find officials, intellectuals, merchants, and clerics among them. In other words, the Cumans demonstrated little ability to adapt to Byzantine civilization, which was initially foreign to them. Historical data from the fourteenth century and the four documents from the twelfth and thirteenth centuries discussed in this lecture portray them as a marginalized group within Byzantine society, prone to antisocial behavior and breaking the law.

We can now summarize the results of our discussion about the relationship between the Byzantines and Scythians, referring to the Turks who came from across the Danube. The steppe raiders from the Danube region typically attacked during winter and spring and spent summer and autumn in their pastures. The raids were primarily aimed at plundering the settled population of Macedonia and Thrace. When the Byzantines had sufficient forces, they sought to confront the nomads in the territories just south of the Balkan Mountains. In cases where their troops were insufficient, the Greeks would retreat into the cities and launch local sorties against scattered groups of enemies. The Komnenos effectively neutralized the nomadic threat in the Balkans, but by the end of the twelfth century, due to the general political crisis in the empire, the nomads once again became a destructive force.

The constant invasions by the ‘northern’ Turks did not result in a significant enough Turkization of the Balkans. Various circumstances prevented the Turks—such as the Pechenegs, Uzes, and Cumans—from aspiring to settle in the Balkans and establish their own state formations. One reason for this is that the Turks from the southern Russian steppes and the Black Sea region, being nomadic peoples, could only maintain their identity and sustain themselves in the steppe, within amorphous proto-state formations.

In the urbanized part of the Balkans, inhabited by a sedentary population, the nomads were unable to establish viable state structures due to their unique economic, social, and political strategies. They viewed the Balkans as an abundant source of easy prey and wealth rather than a place for long-term settlement. Moreover, the less urbanized central part of the Balkans, characterized by mountainous and forested landscapes, was not conducive to mass settlement by nomads.

The second factor that hindered the Turkization of the Balkans by the nomads is closely connected to the first. The Byzantine Empire, for which the Balkans, especially the coastal regions of Thrace and Macedonia, were strategically important extensions of Constantinople, never capitulated to the nomads. Even during the worst of the nomadic raids, the Byzantine Empire firmly held on to critical urban centers in the region. The nomads were unable to destroy these strongholds, making their conquest of the Balkan provinces ephemeral and infeasible in principle.

As a result, the nomads could neither overcome the urbanization of the Balkans, which was foreign to them, nor adapt to the local urban lifestyle. Those nomads who became captives or entered Byzantine service eventually underwent sedentarization, assimilated into the local sedentary population, and dissolved within it.

Interestingly, Byzantine sources vividly reflect the difference between the Pechenegs and the Cumans. The Pechenegs captured the imagination of the Greeks, and Byzantine historians devoted extensive passages to describing their deeds, providing vivid and memorable portraits. Surprisingly, many members of the Pecheneg nobility joined the Constantinople elite, learning and embracing the refined and strictly regulated rules of Byzantine palace life, aristocracy, and officialdom.

In contrast, the Cumans occupied a very modest place in the imagination and lives of the Byzantines. Although they actively settled in the empire and became part of Byzantine society, they rarely achieved social success and remained unaccepted by the Byzantine elite.

The reason for this lies in the civilizational differences between the Pechenegs and the Cumans. Although both groups were nomadic, it did not make them culturally equal. Since they were unwritten peoples at the time of their encounters with the Greeks, it is challenging to provide a detailed assessment of the differences in their levels of civilization. Nevertheless, a comparative reading of Byzantine records allows us to assume a qualitative difference between the Pecheneg and Cuman cultures. The Pechenegs were undoubtedly more culturally developed and refined than the Cumans, more open and receptive to the more advanced and complex civilization of the sedentary world.