Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Interpretation of the Siege

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Avar Siege of Constantinople in 626

Part of the book series: New Approaches to Byzantine History and Culture ((NABHC))

  • 329 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter presents a critical overview of previous historiography dealing with the Avar attack on Constantinople in 626. The chapter initially progresses chronologically in this overview from the oldest syntheses of Byzantine history to the first monothematic reports about this event. The first part mostly focuses on scholars who presented a general view on the Avar attack in 626 and its meaning, in the form of either separate studies or selected syntheses. Then attention shifts towards individual thematic fields concerning this topic. These encompass the military aspects of the siege (including the topography of Constantinople) and report about the liturgical and historical tradition of the Avar siege. The last part of this chapter deals with historical commentaries to selected primary sources.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Among others, cf. Gibbon 1788, 518–521; Le Beau 1830, 119–129; Drapeyron 1869, 220–240; Bury 1889, 239–241; Kulakovskiy 1915, 76–91.

  2. 2.

    Stephenson 2010, 471.

  3. 3.

    Mordtmann 1892, 54–60; 1903, 15–28.

  4. 4.

    Tevyashov 1914, 229–235.

  5. 5.

    Tevyashov 1914, 229.

  6. 6.

    Schlumberger 1917, 1–10.

  7. 7.

    Dirimtekin 1948, 1–24.

  8. 8.

    Pernice 1905, 138–149.

  9. 9.

    Pernice 1905, 146.

  10. 10.

    Kulakovskiy 1915, 76–88.

  11. 11.

    Pernice 1905, 141.

  12. 12.

    Kulakovskiy 1915, 78.

  13. 13.

    Barišić 1954, 371–395.

  14. 14.

    Barišić 1954, 371.

  15. 15.

    Barišić 1954, 390–391.

  16. 16.

    Barišić 1954, 391.

  17. 17.

    Barišić 1954, 392.

  18. 18.

    Stratos 1966, 507–542, and 1968, 173–196 and 373–374.

  19. 19.

    Stratos 1968, 188–189.

  20. 20.

    Stratos 1968, 179, and 1967, 371.

  21. 21.

    Stratos 1968, 194, and 1967, 374–376.

  22. 22.

    Stratos 1967, 376.

  23. 23.

    Lilie 1985, 17–43; Pohl 1988, 255.

  24. 24.

    Waldmüller 1976, 265–283.

  25. 25.

    Kollautz and Miyakawa 1970: 2, 2, 12; Avenarius 1974, 115; Kovačević 1977, 63–66; Szymański and Dąbrowska 1979, 41.

  26. 26.

    Pohl 1988, 248–255 (248), and now 2018, 294–304.

  27. 27.

    Pohl 1988, 249.

  28. 28.

    Pohl 1988, 253 and 428, n. 53.

  29. 29.

    Pohl 1988, 254–255.

  30. 30.

    Kardaras 2010, 121–126, and 2018, 84–87.

  31. 31.

    Havlíková 1979, 126–136.

  32. 32.

    Borovskiy 1988, 114–119.

  33. 33.

    Howard-Johnston 1995, 131–145.

  34. 34.

    Howard-Johnston 1995, 133.

  35. 35.

    Szádeczky-Kardoss 2000, 313–321.

  36. 36.

    Kaegi 2003, 132–139.

  37. 37.

    Soto Chica 2006, 111–134; Kaçar 2017, 171–200.

  38. 38.

    Hurbanič 2006, 52–85; 2009a; 2009b, 129–143; 2010; 2012, 15–24; 2015a, 211–220; 2015b, 75–89; 2016a; 2016b, 271–293; 2017, 81–92.

  39. 39.

    Cf. the recent discussion regarding the topography of the Gate of Saint Romanos: Asutay-Effenberger 2003, 1–4 and 2007, 87–94 and Philippides and Hanak 2011, 335.

  40. 40.

    Paspates 1877, 2–3, 90, Van Millingen 1899, 115–121; Meyer-Plath and Schneider 1943, 100–104; Janin 1964, 265; Müller-Wiener 1977, 301–302; Tsangadas 1980, 22–24.

  41. 41.

    Paspates 1877, 2–3, 92 Asutay-Effenberger 2007, 26.

  42. 42.

    Paspates 1877, 83–98; Van Millingen 1899, 115–121; Meyer-Plath and Schneider 1943, 102–104; Müller-Wiener 1977, 301–302; Tsangadas 1980, 22–32; Asutay-Effenberger 2007, 13–27; Philippides and Hanak 2011, 344–357.

  43. 43.

    Among others, cf. Van Millingen 1899, 164–166; Pernice 1905, 140–141; Kulakovskiy 1915, 78; Pertusi 1959, 217–218; Meyer-Plath and Schneider 1943, 102–104 and 301–302; Müller-Wiener 1977, 301–302; Tsangadas 1980, 24–26, 29–31; Speck 1980, 34–38 (cf. also his map on 37); Paribeni 1988, 215–220 (who proposed a triangular shape of the original fortifications of Blachernai); Mich. Whitby and Mar. Whitby 1989, 180–181, n. 478; Philippides and Hanak 2011, 344.

  44. 44.

    Asutay-Effenberger 2007.

  45. 45.

    Asutay-Effenberger 2007, 22–26.

  46. 46.

    Asutay-Effenberger 2007, 23–25. The conclusions of Asutay-Effenberger were accepted by the Hungarian archaeologist G. Csiky (2012, 165–183).

  47. 47.

    Cf. chapter “The Fortress Constantinople”.

  48. 48.

    Grumel 1964, 217–233; cf. also Mango 2001, 22–25.

  49. 49.

    Stratos 1968, 189–190 and 373–374.

  50. 50.

    Stratos 1968, 190.

  51. 51.

    Stratos 1968, 190.

  52. 52.

    Tsangadas 1980, 80–106.

  53. 53.

    Meyer-Plath and Schneider 1943, 102–104 and 118. In this connection, cf. also Müller-Wiener 1977, 301.

  54. 54.

    Meyer-Plath and Schneider 1943, 102–104; Tsangadas 1980, 97–100.

  55. 55.

    Tsangadas 1980, 100.

  56. 56.

    Tsangadas 1980, 86–87, 94.

  57. 57.

    Tsangadas 1980, 91–93.

  58. 58.

    Tsangadas 1980, 95.

  59. 59.

    Tsangadas 1980, 104–106.

  60. 60.

    Cf. the chapter “Army of Besiegers”.

  61. 61.

    Among others, cf. Labuda 1949, 175 and 190; Grafenauer 1950, 78–79; Barišić 1954, 376, n. 2, 394, n. 2; Waldmüller 1976, 281; Havlíková 1979, 131–133; Borovskiy 1988, 114–11; Ivanov 1995, 80; Litavrin 1995a, 236 n. 5.

  62. 62.

    Nagy 2009, 258–269; Kardaras 2018, 176–181.

  63. 63.

    Dennis 1998, 99–115; Chevedden 2000, 71–114; Kardaras 2005, 53–65; Petersen 2013, 406–429.

  64. 64.

    Petersen 2013, 632–636.

  65. 65.

    Hošek 1974, 101–103; Oračev 1982, 103–109; Strässle 1990, 95; Havlíková 1990, 94–96; Vryonis 2003, 74–75.

  66. 66.

    Hošek 1974, 101–103. The tying of monoxyles together has already been mentioned by Pertusi (1959, 223) and later by Tartaglia (1998, 185, n. 73). Both authors emphasized that this was done for improving the stability of such boats; however, they did not add any further comments on this.

  67. 67.

    Vryonis 2003, 68–75.

  68. 68.

    Pertusi 1959, 216–217; Haldon 1995, 147, n. 16; Speck 1980, 46–47 and 1988, 131–132. Cf. also Van Dieten 1985, 173–175.

  69. 69.

    Hurbanič 2012 15–24; 2015, 211–220; and 2017, 81–92.

  70. 70.

    Szádeczky-Kardoss 1980, 306–312.

  71. 71.

    For the individual hagiographical and liturgical testimonies, cf. the chapter “The Sources”.

  72. 72.

    Recently: Peltomaa 2009, 284–298.

  73. 73.

    Papadopoulos-Kerameus 1903, 5–27; Spadaro 1991, 247–264; Hurbanič 2009b, 129–143; Vorob’yev 2016, 321–337. Cf. also the chapter “The Akathistos”.

  74. 74.

    For the general surveys: Garidis 1977–1984, 99–114. For the frescoes preserved in Macedonia: Kneževič 1966, 254; Grozdanov 1979, 277–287; Velmans 1972, 138; Garidis 1977–1984, 105; Lafontaine-Dosogne 1984, 655, 669, 698; in Romania: Tafrali 1924, 456–461; Grecu 1924, 273–289; Ulea 1963, 29–71; Meinardus 1972, 169–183; Lafontaine-Dosogne 1991, 84, 660, 667–669 and 1991, 455–456. Most recently, Costea 2011, 136–142 and Sullivan 2017, 31–68. For a useful overview of previous research: Ciobanu 2005, 17–32. For the pictorial cycles of Akathistos with the scene of siege of Constantinople in the Russia: Scheffer 1946, 8–10; Meinardus 1976, 113–121; Salikova 1998, 53–68; Kvlividze 2003, 81–85; Kazakevich 2006, 95–96 (and others). For the scenes of the siege of Constantinople as preserved in the pictorial cycle of Archangel Michael, cf. Gabelić 2004, 207–211; Koukiares, 2006 (esp. 155–157).

  75. 75.

    Pertusi 1959, Van Dieten 1972, 15, and 174–178.

  76. 76.

    Van Dieten 1972, 15, and 174–178; Av. Cameron 1979a, 3–25 (esp. 21–24); Pentcheva 2002, 2–41; Speck 2003, 266–271. For more general surveys, cf. Baynes 1955a, 248–260; Alexander 1962, 339–357.

  77. 77.

    Pentcheva 2002, 2–41.

  78. 78.

    Pentcheva 2006.

  79. 79.

    Cf. esp. Ostrogorski and Barišić 1955, 143–172, 217–221, 239–240; Dujčev et al. 1960, 41–67, 78–84, 171–174, 259–260, 293–294; Chichurov 1980, pp. 58–59, 98–99, 102–104, 153, 172–173; Brzóstkowska and Swoboda, 1995, 8–29, 51–52, 120–121, 257; Ivanov, Litavrin and Ronin 1995, 65–90; 226–227, 272–273, and 310–311; Szádeczky-Kardoss 1998, 171–207.

  80. 80.

    Quercius and Fogginius 1777, 55–65.

  81. 81.

    Pertusi 1959, 201–224.

  82. 82.

    Pertusi 1959 (1) 215; (2) 215–216; (3) 217–218; (4) 222; (5) 223–224; (6) 224.

  83. 83.

    Speck 1980.

  84. 84.

    Speck 1980, 27–29 and 2003, 267–268.

  85. 85.

    Speck 1980, 34–41.

  86. 86.

    Van Dieten 1985, 149–178.

  87. 87.

    Van Dieten 1985, 164–165.

  88. 88.

    Van Dieten 1985, 171.

  89. 89.

    Tartaglia 1998, 156–191.

  90. 90.

    Tartaglia 1998, 174, n. 50; 187, No. 77; 189, n. 84.

  91. 91.

    Speck (1980, 42–43 1987, 377–378) accepted Saturday 5 June as preserved in the Paschal Chronicle, but not the given year (623). He therefore accepted the solution of N. Baynes (1912, 122–125), who looked for the nearest year when the day of the week and month would coincide (617). Cf. also Stratos 1981, 115–118; Mich. Whitby and Mar. Whitby 1989, 203–204.

  92. 92.

    Van Dieten 1985, 149–177.

  93. 93.

    Van Dieten 1985, 171–172.

  94. 94.

    Mich. Whitby and Mar. Whitby 1989.

  95. 95.

    Mich. Whitby and Mar. Whitby 1989, 169–181.

  96. 96.

    Speck 1987, 371–402.

  97. 97.

    Speck 1987, 393–394.

  98. 98.

    Sternbach 1900, 333–334.

  99. 99.

    Szádeczky-Kardoss 1976, 173–184; 1978a, 87–95; 1982–1984 (1988), 443–450; cf. also 1990–1992, 169–175.

  100. 100.

    Szádeczky-Kardoss and Olajos 1990, 147–182.

  101. 101.

    Makk 1975, 5.

  102. 102.

    Olster 1994, 73–78.

  103. 103.

    Speck 1988, 131–133 (Theophanes) and 298–317 (Nikephoros). For Speck’s analysis of the intercepted letter and the subsequent story of Shahrbaraz’s treason, cf. 144–152 (Theophanes) and 292–298 (Nikephoros).

  104. 104.

    Speck 1988, 131–132; cf. also Speck 1980, 46–47.

  105. 105.

    Speck 1988, 314.

Bibliography

Secondary Sources

  • Alexander, Paul J. 1962. The Strength of Empire and Capital as Seen Through Byzantine Eyes. Speculum 37: 339–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asutay-Effenberger, Neslihan. 2003. Die Entdeckung des Romanos-Tors an den Landmauern von Konstantinopel. Byzantinische Zeitschrift 96: 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2007. Die Landmauer von Konstantinopel-İstanbul. Historisch-topographische und baugeschichtliche Untersuchungen. Berlin – New York: De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Avenarius, Alexander. 1974. Die Awaren in Europa. Bratislava: Veda; Amsterdam: Hakkert.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barišić, Franjo. 1954. Le siège de Constantinople par les Avares et les Slaves. Byzantion 24: 371–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baynes, Norman H. 1912. The Date of Avar Surprise. Byzantinische Zeitschrift 21: 110–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1955. The Supernatural Defenders of Constantinople. In Byzantine Studies and Other Essays. 248–260. London: Athlone Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borovskiy, Jaroslav Evgenevich. 1988. Византийские, старославянские и старогрузинские источники о походе русов в VII в. на Царьград. In Древности славян и Руси, 114–119. Москва: Наука.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brzóstkowska, Alina and Swoboda, Wincenty. Testimonia najdawniejszych dziejów Słowian, z. 3: Pisarze z VII–X wieku. Warszawa: Slawistyczny Ośrodek Wydawniczy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bury, John Bagnell. 1899. A History of the Eastern Roman Empire from the Fall of Irene to the Accession of Basil I (802–867). London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, Averil. 1979. Images of Authority: Elites and Icons in Late Sixth-Century Byzantium. Past and Present 84: 3–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chevedden, Paul E. 2000. The Invention of the Counterweight Trebuchet: A Study in Cultural Diffusion. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 54: 71–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chichurov, Igor S. 1980. Византийские исторические сочинения: “Хронография” Феофана, “Бревиарий” Никифора. Тексты, перевод, комментарий. Москва: Наука.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ciobanu, Constantin, I. 2005. Sursele literare ale programelor iconografice din picture muralǎ medievalǎ Moldavǎ. Chișinǎu.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costea, Constanţa. 2011. Constantinopolitan Echoes in the Akathistos Illustrations from XVI Century Moldova. Scrinium 7: 141–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Croke, Brian. 1981. Two Byzantine Earthquakes and Their Liturgical Commemoration. Byzantion 51: 122–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Csiky, Gergely. 2012. Konstantinápoly városfalai és a 626. évi avar ostrom In Középkortörténeti tanulmányok 7, ed. Attila P. Kiss, and Ferenc Piti, 165–183. Szeged: Gy. Szabados.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennis, Georgios T. 1998. Byzantine Heavy Artillery: The Helepolis. Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 39: 99–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dirimtekin, Feridun 1948. Le Siège de Byzance par les Turcs–Avars au VIe siècle. Revue du Touring et Automobile Clube de Turquie (= Türkiye Turing ve Otomobil Kurumu belleteni) 79: 20–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drapeyron, Ludovic. 1869. L’empereur Héraclius et l’empire byzantin au VIIe siècle. Paris: E. Thorin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dujčev, Ivan et al. 1960. Гръцки извори за българската история. III. София: Българската Академия на Науките.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabelić, Smiljka. 2004. Византијски и поствизантијски циклуси Арханђела (XI–XVIII век). Преглед споменика (Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Cycles of the Archangels [11th to 18th Century]. Corpus). Beograd: Институт за Историjу уметности.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garidis, Miltos. 1977–1984. Notes sur l’iconographie des sièges de Constantinople. Byzantinisch-Neugriechische Jährbücher 22: 99–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbon, Edward. 1788. The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Volume the Fourth. London: Strahan and Cadell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grafenauer, Bogo 1950. Nekaj vprašanj iz dobe naseljevanja južnih Slovanov. Zgodovinski časopis 4: 23–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grecu, Vasile. 1924. Eine Belagerung Konstantinopels in der rumänischen Kirchenmalerei. Byzantion 1: 273–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grozdanov, Cvetan. 1979. Композиција Опсаде Цариграда у цркви Светог Петра на Преспи. Zbornik za likovne umetnosti 15: 277–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grumel, Venance. 1964. La défense martime de Constantinople du côté de la Corne d’Or et le siėge des Avars. Byzantinoslavica 25: 217–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haldon, John F. 1995. Strategies of Defence, Problems of Security: The Garrisons of Constantinople in the Middle Byzantine Period. In Constantinople and its Hinterland. Papers from the Twenty-Seventh Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Oxford, April 1993, ed. Cyril Mango and Gilbert Dagron. 143–155. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Havlíková, Lubomíra. 1979. Obléhání Konstantinopole roku 626 ve světle byzantsko-íránských vztahů. Časopis Matice Moravské 98: 126–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1990. Slavic Ships in 5th–12th Centuries Byzantine Historiography. Byzantinoslavica 51: 89–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hošek, Radislav. 1974. Slawische Schiffe bei Konstantinopolis i. J. 626. In Les études balkaniques tchécoslovaques V, 97–106. Prague: Univerzita Karlova.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard-Johnston, James. 1995. The Siege of Constantinople in 626. In Constantinople and its Hinterland. Papers from the Twenty-Seventh Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Oxford, April 1993, eds. Cyril Mango, and Gilbert Dagron. 131–142. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurbanič, Martin. 2006. Obliehanie Konštantínopolu roku 626 v byzantskej historiografii I. História a legenda avarského útoku na Konštantínopol roku 626 v Chronografii Theofana Homologéta. In Byzantinoslovaca 1, eds. Miroslav Daniš, Martin Hurbanič, and Vratislav Zervan, 52–85. Bratislava: Stimul.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2009a. Posledná vojna antiky. Avarský útok na Konštantínopol roku 626 v historických súvislostiach. Prešov: Michal Vaško.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2009b. Sviatok Akathistu a tradícia avarského obliehania z roku 626. Epea pteroenta. Růženě Dostálové k narozeninám, ed. Markéta Kulhánková, Kateřina Loudová. 129–143. Brno: Host.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2010. História a mýtus. Avarský útok na Konštantínopol v roku 626 v legendách. Prešov: Michal Vaško.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2012. A topographical Note Concerning the Avar siege of Constantinople: the Question of the Localization of St. Callinicus Bridge. Byzantinoslavica 70: 15–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2015a. A Neglected Note to the Naval Defense of Constantinople during the Avar Siege: the Position of σκαφοκάραβοι in the Golden Horn. In Byzanz und das Abendland / Byzance et l’Occident III, ed. Erika Juhász, 211–220. Budapest: Elte.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2015b. The Nomads at the Gates: Some Notes on the use of Siege Artillery by the Avars. (From the First Attack on Sirmium to the Siege of Constantinople). In The Cultural and Historical Heritage of Vojvodina in the Context of Classical and Medieval Studies, ed. Đura Hardi, 75–89. Novi Sad: Faculty of Philosophy, Department of History 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2016a. Konstantinopol 626. Historie a legenda. Praha: Academia.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2016b. Adversus Iudaeos in the Sermon Written by Theodore Syncellus on the Avar Siege of AD 626. Studia Ceranea 6: 271–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2017. A Conscious Stratagem or Garbled Memory? A Few Notes to the Anonymous Report on the Avar Siege of Constantinople Preserved in the Historia Syntomos of Patriarch Nikephoros. Graeco-Latina Brunensia 22: 81–92.

  • ———. 2019. The Topography of the 14th Region of Constantinople: A Critical Re-examination. In Byzantinus. Festschrift in Honour of Professor Maciej Salamon. Kraków 2019, forthcoming.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ivanov, Sergey. A. 1995. Пасхальная хроника. In Свод древнейших письменных известий о славянах. Том 2. (7–9 вв.), eds. Геннадий Г. Литаврин, Сергей A. Иванов, Владимир K. Ронин, 75–82. Москва: Восточная литература.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ivanov Sergey, A., Litavrin, Gennadiy G., and Ronin Vladimir, K. 1995. Свод древнейших письменных известий о славянах. Том 2. (7–9 вв). Москва: Восточная литература.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janin, Raymond. 1964. Constantinople byzantine. Développement urbain et répertoire topographique. Paris: Institut français d’études byzantines.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaegi, Walter. 2003. Heraclius – Emperor of Byzantium. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaçar, Turhan. 2017. Constantinopolis Önlerinde Avarlar ve Sâsâniler, MS 626. In Byzantion’dan Constantinopolis’e İstanbul Kuşatmaları, eds. Murat Arslan and Turhan Kaçar. 171–200. İstanbul: İstanbul Araştırmaları Enstitüsü.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kardaras, Georgios. 2005. The Episode of Bousas (586/7) and the Use of Siege Engines by the Avars. Byzantinoslavica 63: 53–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2010. Το Βυζάντιο και οι Άβαροι (Στ΄-Θ΄ αι.). Πολιτικές, διπλωματικές και πολιτισμικές σχέσεις. Αθήνα: Εθνικό Ίδρυμα Ερευνών, Ινστιτούτο Βυζαντινών Ερευνών.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2018. Byzantium and the Avars, 6th–9th Century AD. Political, Diplomatic and Cultural Relations. Leiden – Boston: Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kazakevich, Tatyana E. 2006. Стенопись Успенского собора Кирилло-Белозерского монастыря. In Ферапонтовский сборник 7: 79–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knežević, Branka. 1966. Црква Светог Петра у Преспи. Zbornik za likovne umetnosti 2: 245–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kollautz, Arnulf and Miyakawa, Hisayuki. 1970. Geschichte und Kultur eines Völkerwanderungszeitlichen Nomadenvolkes. Die Jou-Jan der Mongolei und die Awaren in Mitteleuropa I–II. Klagenfurt Geschichtsverein für Kärnten.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koukiares, Silas. 2006. Τα θαύματα-εμφανίσεις των αγγέλων και αρχαγγέλων στη μεταβυζαντινή τέχνη. Αθηνα: Ακρίτας.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kovačević, Jovan. 1977. Аварски каганат. Београд: Српска књижевна задруга.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kulakovskiy, Yulian A. 1915. История Византии. Т. 3. (602–717.). Киев: Типолитогр. С.В. Кульженко.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kvlividze, Nina Valerievna. 2003. Символические образы Московского государства и иконографическая программа росписи собора Новодевичьего монастыря. In Древнерусское искусство. Русское искусство позднего средневековья: XVI век, ed. А. Л. Баталов, 222–236. Санкт-Петербург: Дмитрий Буланин.

    Google Scholar 

  • Labuda, Gerard. 1949. Pierwsze państwo sŀowiańskie. Państwo Samona. Poznań: Księgarnia Akademicka.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lafontaine-Dosogne, Jacqueline. 1984. Lʼillustration de la première partie de lʼHymne Akathiste et sa relation avec les mosaïques de lʼenfance de la Karye Djami. Byzantion 54: 648– 702.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1991. Nouvelles remarques sur lʼillustration du prooimion de lʼhymne Akathiste. Byzantion 61: 448–457.

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Beau, Charles. 1830. Histoire du Bas-Empire, en commençant à Constantin le Grand, XI. Paris: Ledoux et Tenré.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lilie, Ralph-Johannes. 1985. Kaiser Herakleios und die Ansiedlung der Serben. Überlegungen zum Kapitel 22 des De administrando imperio. Südost-Forschungen 44, 1985, 17–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Litavrin, Gennadiy G. 1995. Патриарх Никифор. In Свод древнейших письменных известий о славянах. Том 2. (7–9 вв.), eds. Геннадий Г. Литаврин, Сергей A. Иванов, Владимир K. Ронин, 221–247. Москва: Восточная литература.

    Google Scholar 

  • Makk, Ferenc. 1975. Traduction et commentaire de l’ homilie écrite probablement Théodore le Syncelle sur le siège de Constantinople en 626. (Opuscula Byzantina III. Acta antiqua et archeologica XIX). Szeged: Jözsef Attila Tudomäny–egyetem.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mango, Cyril. 2001. The Shoreline of Constantinople in the Fourth Century. In Byzantine Constantinople: Monuments, Topography and Everyday Life. (The Medieval Mediterranean. Peoples, Economies and Cultures, 400–1453. Vol. 33), ed. Nevra Necipoğlu, 17–28. Leiden, Boston, and Köln: Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meinardus, Otto F. A. 1972. Interpretations of the Wall-Paintings of the Siege of Constantinople. Oriens Christianus 56: 169–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1976. Zwei Moskauer Wandmalereien: Die Belagerung von Konstantinopel. Oriens Christianus 60: 113–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer-Plath, Bruno and Schneider, Alfons Maria. 1943. Die Landmauer von Konstantinopel. Berlin: De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mordtmann, Andreas. 1892. Οι Άβαρης και οι Πέρσαι προ της Κωνσταντινουπόλεως. Ο εν Κωνσταντινουπόλει Ελληνικός Φιλολογικός Σύλλογος: Αρχαιολογική Επιτροπή. Παράρτημα του Κ΄-ΚΒ΄ τομου 20–22: 54–60 = 1903. Die Avaren und Perser vor Konstantinopel. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Exkursions–Klub in Konstantinopel 5: 15–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller-Wiener, Wolfgang. 1977. Bildlexikon zur Topographie Istanbuls. Byzantion, Konstantinupolis, Istanbul bis zum Beginn des 17. Jahrhundert. Tübingen: Wasmuth

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagy, Katalin. 2009 Siege Techniques Employed by the Avar Army. In Proceedings of the Ninth Conference of the European Society for Central Asian Studies, eds. Tomasz Gacek, Jadwiga Pstrusińska, 258–269. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olster, David. 1994. Roman Defeat. Christian Response, and the Literary Construction of the Jew. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Oračev, Аtanas. 1982. Морското бойно майсторство на славяни и прабългари. Paleobulgarica/Старобългаристика 6: 101–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrogorski, Georgij and Barišić, Franjo. 1955. Византијски извори за историју народа Југославије. том 1 Бeoгрaд: Научна књига.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Athanasios. 1903. Ο Ακάθιστος Ύμνος, οι Ρως και ο πατριάρχης Φώτιος. Εν Αθήναις: Τύποις Π. Δ. Σακελλαρίου.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paribeni, Andrea. 1988. Il quartiere delle Blacherne a Costantinopoli. In Milion 1. Atti della giornata di studio del Gruppo Nazionale di Coordinamento C. NR. Storia dellʼArte e della Cultura Artistica Bizantina, Roma, 4 dicembre 1986, eds. Claudia Barsanti, Giulia A. Guidobaldi, Antonio Iacobini, 215–229. Rome: Biblioteca di storia patria.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paspates, Alexandros. 1877. Βυζαντιναι Μελεται, τοπογραφικαι και ἱστορικαι, μετα πλειστων εἰκονων. Κωνσταντινούπολη: Τυπογραφείο Αντωνίου Κορομηλά.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peltomaa, Leena Mary. 2009. Role of the Virgin Mary at the Siege of Constantinople in 626. Scrinium 5: 284–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pentcheva, Bissera. 2002. The Supernatural Protector of Constantinople: The Virgin and her Icons in the Tradition of the Avar Siege. Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 26: 2–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2006. Icons and Power. The Mother of God in Byzantium. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pernice, Angelo. 1905. L’imperatore Eraclio. Saggio di storia bizantina. Firenze: Tip. Galletti e Cocci.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pertusi, Agostino. 1959. Giorgio di Pisidia: Poemi I (Studia patristica et byzantina VII). Ettal: Buch-Kunstverlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersen, Leif I. 2013. Siege Warfare and Military Organization in the Successor States (400–800 AD): Byzantium, the West, and Islam. Leiden: Brill.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeilschifter, Rene. 2013. Der Kaiser und Konstantinopel. Kommunikation und Konfliktaustrag in einer spätantiken Metropole (Millenium Studien 44). Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Philippides, Marios and Hanak, Walter K. 2011. The Siege and the Fall of Constantinople in 1453: Historiography, Topography, and Military Studies. Farnham; Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pohl, Walter. 1988. Die Awaren. Ein Steppenvolk in Mitteleuropa 567–822. München: C. H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2018. The Avars: A Steppe Empire in Central Europe, 567–822. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Quercius, Josephus M. and Nicolaus Fogginius. 1777. Opera Georgii Pisidae, Theodosii Diaconi et Corippi Africani Grammatici (Corporis Historiae Byzantinae Nova Appendix). Rome: apud Benedictum Francesium.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salikova, Élvira P. 1998. Сложение иконографии “Похвала Богоматери” в русском искусстве XV–XVI веков. In Государственные музеи Московского Кремля. Материалы и исследования. Вып. 11: Русская художественная культура XV–XVI веков. 69–80. Москва: Гос. историко-культурный музей-заповедник “Московский Кремль.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheffer, Nathalie. 1946. The Akathistos of the Holy Virgin in Russian Art. Gazette des Beaux Arts 29: 5–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlumberger, Gustave L. 1917. Le siège de Constantinople par le souverain ou khagan des Avares sous le règne de l’empereur Héraclius, au septième siècle. In Récits de Byzance et des Croisades, 1–10. Paris: Plon-Nourrit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soto Chica, José. 2006. Constantinopla ciudad sitiada. A.D. 626. In Constantinopla. 550 años de su caída/ Κωνσταντινούπολη. 550 χρόνια από την άλωση, eds. Encarnación Motos Guirao and Moschos Morfakidis Filactós, 1: 111–134. Granada: Centro de Estudios Bizantinos, Neogriegos y Chipriotas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spadaro, Maria Dora. 1991. Sulla Liturgia dell’ inno „Akathistos. “Quaestiones chronologicae. In La Mariologia nella catechesi dei Padri (età postnicena), ed. S. Felici. 247–264. Rome: Libreria Ateneo Salesiano.

    Google Scholar 

  • Speck, Paul. 1980. Zufälliges zum Bellum avaricum des Georgios Pisides (= Miscellanea Byzantina Monacensia XXIV). Institut für Byzantinistik, Neugriechische Philologie und Byzantinische Kunstgeschichte der Universität, München: Institut für Byzantinistik, Neugriechische Philologie und Byzantinische Kunstgeschichte der Universität.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1987. Die Interpretation des Bellum Avaricum und der Kater Mechlempé. In Varia 2 (Poikila Byzantina 6), 371–402. Bonn: Habelt.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1988. Das geteilte Dossier: Beobachtungen zu d. Nachrichten über d. Regierung d. Kaisers Herakleios u. d. seiner Sohne bei Theophanes und Nikephoros. (Poikila Byzantina 9). Berlin: Habelt.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2003. The Virgin’s Help for Constantinople. Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 27: 266–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephenson, Paul. 2010. Pioneers of Popular Byzantine History. Freeman, Gregorovius, Schlumberger. In The Byzantine World, ed. Paul Stephenson. 462–480. London: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sternbach, Leo. 1900. Analecta Avarica (Rozprawy Akademii Umiejętności, Wydział Filologiczny, series 2, 15. Kraków: Sumptibus Academiae litterarum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stratos, Andreas N. 1966. Τὸ Βυζάντιον στὸν Ζ΄ αἰῶνα (626–634). Ἀθῆναι: Βιβλιοπωλείον της Εστίας.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1967. The Avarsʼ Attack on Byzantium in the Year 626. In Polychordia. Festschrift Franz Dölger zum 75. Geburtstag, BF 2, ed. Peter Wirth, 370–376. Amsterdam: Hakkert.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1968. Byzantium in the Seventh Century. Volume I. Amsterdam: Hakkert.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1981. Le guet-apens des Avars. Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik 30: 113–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strässle, Paul M. 1990. „To monoxylon“ in Konstantin VII. Porphyrogennetos’ Werk „De administrando Imperio.“ Études byzantines 26: 93–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, Alice I. Visions of Byzantium: The Siege of Constantinople in Sixteenth-Century Moldavia. The Art Bulletin 99: 31–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szádeczky-Kardoss, Samuel. 1976. Zur Textübelieferung der Homilia de obsidione Avarica Constantinopolis auctor ut videtur Theodoro Syncello. Acta antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 24: 297–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1978. Eine unkollationierte Handschrift der Homilie über die persisch-awarische Belagerung von Konstantinopel (Codex Athous Batopedi 84, fol. 63r–68r). Acta antiqua Academiae scientiarum Hungaricae 26: 87–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1980. Der Awarensturm im historischen Bewusstsein der Byzantiner der 11.–13. Jahrhunderte. In Actes du XVe Congrès international d’études byzantines, Athènes, septembre 1976, vol. 4, 305–314. Athènes: Comité d’organisation du congrès.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1982–1984 (1988). Textkritische Bemerkungen “zur Homilia De obsidione avarica Constantinopolis auctore ut videtur Theodoro Syncello”. Acta antiqua Academiae scientiarum Hungaricae 30: 443–450.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1990. Symeon Magistros Logothetes und die russische Belagerung von Konstantinopel im Jahre 860. In Acta Universitatis Szegediensis. Dissertationes Slavicae. Sectio Linguistica 21, 35–41. Szeged: Universitas Szegediensis.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1990–1992. Kirchliche und profane Elemente im Sprachgebrauch und Stil eines frühbyzantinischen Kanzlerredners (Theodore Synkellos). Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae. 33: 169–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1998. Az avar történelem forrásai 557-től 806-ig. Budapest: Balassi Kiadó.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2000. Persisch-awarische Beziehungen und Zusammenwirken vor und während der Belagerung von Byzanz im Jahre 626. In Kontakte zwischen Iran, Byzanz und der Steppe in 6.–7. Jh. (Varia Archaelogica Hungarica IX), ed. Csanád Bálint. 313–321. Budapest: Archäologisches Institut der UAW.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szádeczky-Kardoss, Samuel and Olajos, Thérèse. 1990. Breviarum Homiliae Theodori Syncelli de obsidione avarica Constantonopolis (BHG 1078m). Anallecta Bolandiana 108: 147–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szymański, Wojciech and Dąbrowska, Elżbieta. 1979. Awarzy – Węgrzy. Wroclaw: Ossolineum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tafrali, Oreste. 1924. Le siège de Constantinople dans les fresques des églises de Bucovine. In Mélanges offerts à M. Gustave Schlumberger II. 456–461. Paris: Geuthner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tartaglia, Luigi. 1998. Carmi di Giorgio di Pisidia. Torino: Utet.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tevyashov, E. E. 1914. Осада Константинополя аварами и славянами в 626 г. Žurnal Ministerstva narodnogo prosveshcheniya 52: 229–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trypanis, Constantine A. 1968. Fourteen Early Byzantine Cantica (Wiener byzantinistische Studien V). Wien: Böhlau.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsangadas, Byron C. P. 1980. Fortifications and Defense of Constantinople (= East European Monographs no. LXXI), New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsiaples, Georgios Β. 2015. Το παλίμψηστο της ιστορικής μνήμης: Η πρόσληψη της αβαροπερσικής πολιορκίας της Κωνσταντινούπολης (626) στις σύγχρονες και μεταγενέστερες ρητορικές και αγιολογικές πηγές. Βyzantiaka 32: 79–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulea, Sorin. 1963. L’origine et la signification ideologique de la peinture exterieure moldave. Revue Roumaine d’Histoire 2: 29–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Dieten, Jean Luis. 1972. Geschichte der Patriarchen von Sergios I. bis Johannes VI. (620–715) (Geschichte der griechischen Patriarchen von Konstantinopel IV). Amsterdam: Hakkert.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1985. Zum Bellum avaricum des Georgios Pisides. Bemerkungen zu einer Studie von Paul Speck. Byzantinische Forschungen 9: 149–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Millingen, Alexander. 1899. Byzantine Constantinople. The Walls of the City and Adjoining Historical Sites. London: J. Murray.

    Google Scholar 

  • Velmans, Тania. 1972. Une illustration inédite de lʼAcathiste et lʼiconographie des hymnes liturgiques à Byzance. Cahiers Archeologiques 22: 131–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vorob’yev, K. V. 2016. Богослужение Субботы акафиста история изучения. Bogoslovskij vestnik 22–23: 321–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vryonis, Speros. 2003. Byzantium, its Slavic Elements and their Culture (Sixth to Ninth Centuries). Byzantina Symmeikta 16: 63–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waldmüller, Lothar. 1976. Die ersten Begegnungen der Slawen mit dem Christentum und den christlichen Völkern vom VI. bis VIII. Jahrhundert. Amsterdam: Hakkert.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitby, Michael and Whitby, Mary. 1989. Chronicon Paschale. 284–628 A.D. (Translated Texts for Historians, 7). Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of History, Comenius University, Bratislava, Slovakia

    Martin Hurbanič

Authors
  1. Martin Hurbanič
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin Hurbanič .

Appendix

Appendix

Finally, an additional group of important material on the Avar siege should be briefly examined. This one includes various historical commentaries on individual motifs preserved in primary and later sources. Such material is usually present in various general anthologies to the history of the early Slavs and Avars in the form of short but valuable notices.Footnote 79 The following overview will cover only the more detailed ones which are related to the primary sources to the Avar siege.

Bellum Avaricum

The first detailed commentary on this historical poem of George of Pisidia appeared already by J. M. Quercius.Footnote 80 Another one was produced in 1959 by the Italian classical philologist and Byzantinist A. Pertusi in his critical edition of the historical poems of George of Pisidia.Footnote 81 In his extensive comments, Pertusi briefly outlined the background of the Avar siege by using the Italian translation of the relevant pages from Barišić’s study and adding further notes on individual verses of the Bellum Avaricum. His most important remarks are as follows: (1) regarding the strength of the Avar army, he accepted the total number of 80,000 as mentioned in the Bellum Avaricum; (2) the otherwise unknown Philoxenon Gate referred to at the beginning of the Avar siege must have stood in the central section of the Theodosian Walls; (3) George of Pisidia’s term “teichos neos” (new wall) is identical with the so-called Monoteichos of Blachernai, the transverse land wall stretching from the Anemas prison to the Golden Horn whose construction began, according to Pertusi, before the beginning of the Avar siege; (4) verses 404–407 were considered to be proof of the sacking of Blachernai along with its Marian church at the beginning of the decisive day of the siege on 7 August; (5) he assessed the mention of a storm which was supposed to have destroyed the Slavic boats as metaphorical, as this natural phenomenon was not backed up by any contemporary source but only by later hagiographic tradition; and (6) he was also sceptical of the possibility that verses 502–508 had proclaimed that the most well-known Marian hymn, the Akathistos, had been sung after the end of the siege.Footnote 82

The selected passages from the Bellum Avaricum were commented on by the German Byzantinist P. Speck in his short but provocative monography released in 1980. Speck touches upon several issues dealing with the siege which go beyond the scope of commentary on the Bellum Avaricum.Footnote 83 These specific conclusions will be addressed at appropriate places in this book. Speck only discussed selected verses of the Bellum Avaricum. He rightly concluded that George of Pisidia poetically compared the procession of the patriarch Sergios with an image of Christ to a court trial of the Avars.Footnote 84 With regard to the other sources, Speck tried to prove that the Avars did not enter the Blachernai quarter on the final day of the siege. Speck considered the statement in the Bellum Avaricum that the barbarians had occupied the places of the Invincible Mother only as proof of the Avars’ presence in the wider area of Blachernai. He concluded that access to the Church of the Theotokos had already been blocked by the new Wall of Herakleios.Footnote 85

In 1985, another German Byzantinist, L. Van Dieten, reacted to Speck’s most controversial statements.Footnote 86 He rejected that the term “teichos neos” referred to a completely new fortified structure. He also argued that Herakleios’s letter ordering such an erection came to Constantinople no sooner than at the beginning of July 626, so there was practically no time to finish it before the start of the siege. According to Van Dieten, the expression “teichos neos” needs to be explained within other orders by Emperor Herakleios to strengthen the city defences on the eve of the Avar attack. George of Pisidia had in mind the previously mentioned wooden palisade and not a wall in the proper sense of the word.Footnote 87 Although Van Dieten disagrees with Speck’s arguments regarding the earlier construction of the Wall of Herakleios, he rejected the thesis of Pernice, Stratos, and Barišić that the Avars had taken Blachernai along with the Church of the Theotokos on the final day of the siege; he accepted Speck’s conclusion that Pisides had in mind the wider region of Blachernai, which the Avars made their base of operations.Footnote 88

Short historical notes on the Bellum Avaricum can be found in another edition of George of Pisidia’s poems by L. Tartaglia.Footnote 89 Among his other comments, Tartaglia does not identify the mention of a “new wall” with the construction of the “Monoteichos” of Blachernai. Like Pertusi, Tartaglia believed that the references to the storm during the final attack were a poetic metaphor and not a real act of nature, as other contemporary sources did not appear to document it. He also doubts another problematic reference which is considered by some scholars to be proof of the singing of the Akathistos after the end of the Avar siege.Footnote 90

The Paschal Chronicle

The official report on the Avar siege in the Paschal Chronicle is indisputably the most important historical source regarding this event. This sober and well-informed text has unfortunately been preserved in a bad condition. The missing folio covering two and a half days of the siege and the poor state of the primary manuscript (Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1941) led P. Speck to the conclusion that the closing remarks of this report did not concern the Avar siege but actually an earlier Avar surprise attack, which he incorrectly dated to 617.Footnote 91 In 1985, Van Dieten convincingly questioned this hypothesis and refuted most of Speck’s arguments.Footnote 92 In addition, he accepted the information in the Paschal Chronicle that the Avars entered the Church of the Theotokos at Blachernai; however, according to him, this was not on the final day of the siege but rather during its course.Footnote 93

The most expansive historical commentary on this report can be found in the English-language translation of the Paschal Chronicle by Mary and Michael Whitby.Footnote 94 In addition to the explanatory notes, these authors present their own interpretation of important moments during the siege: (1) in contrast to Barišić, they acknowledge the possibility of a coordinated attack by the Avars and Persians; (2) they see Nikephoros’s report of the siege as additional evidence of the textual lacuna of the Paschal Chronicle; (3) the Church of the Theotokos at Blachernai was unprotected during the siege; and (4) they reject Speck’s thesis regarding the textual transposition of the concluding passages of the report.Footnote 95 These conclusions go beyond the scope of this summary and will be treated in the relevant parts of the book.

In 1987, Speck published another paper, which focused on the first and second embassy of the patrician Athanasios to the khagan before the beginning of the Avar siege.Footnote 96 Here Speck drew attention to numerous problematic areas in the Paschal Chronicle, which he again attributed to the poor state of the primary manuscript of the chronicle. It is important to mention that Speck logically reconstructed the series of diplomatic negotiations between the khagan, the patrician Athanasios, and the council of regents led by magister Bonos and the patriarch Sergios. However, Speck did not examine the reasons behind the violation of the treaty by the Avars in greater detail. Speck was also critical of Van Dieten’s evaluation of the report of the incursion of the Avars into the Blachernai church, while still maintaining that this part of the Paschal Chronicle did not refer to the siege of 626 but rather to the previous Avar attack, which he himself dated to 617.Footnote 97

A Homily Attributed to Theodore Synkellos

The first historical commentary on the third contemporary source of the Avar siege—a homily attributed to Theodore Synkellos—appeared in a critical edition by the Polish philologist L. Sternbach.Footnote 98 The main scholarly authority which dealt with the textual tradition of this source in the second half of the twentieth century was S. Szádeczky-Kardoss. In several works, he focused on various versions of this text.Footnote 99 In 1990, alongside his life partner, the philologist and Byzantinist T. Olajos, he published an abridged version of this sermon, which had been preserved in the codex of the Pantokrator Monastery on Athos (BHG 1078m).Footnote 100 His colleague F. Makk republished Sternbach’s edition of this text with nine suggested conjectures and a French translation.Footnote 101 This edition included a short commentary which was primarily of an explanatory nature. The most expansive commentary on this sermon appeared in a book by D. Olster, who primarily paid attention to its anti-Judaic tone through which Synkellos and other Christian authors redefined their empire and their enemies to affirm God’s love for his “errant people”.Footnote 102

Comments on Later Sources

Theophanes and the Patriarch Nikephoros

The Historia Syntomos of the Constantinopolitan patriarch Nikephoros and the Chronographia of Theophanes are considered as an addition to the primary sources of the Avar siege. In addition to the already quoted selected source anthologies, the most detailed commentary on both accounts was once again written by P. Speck.Footnote 103 He did not analyse Theophanes’s report of the siege in great detail, but he did question some of its motifs, such as the division of Herakleios’s forces into three parts and the information regarding the transportation of the Slavic dug-out boats from Danube to Constantinople.Footnote 104 Speck gave much more space to the anonymous source on the Avar siege preserved by the patriarch Nikephoros. Here he directed attention to its main part, which discussed the final attack by the Avars and Slavs. In a detailed analysis, he emphasized the sober character of this report, while also pointing out several problematic and contradictory places in it. Contrary to previous authors, he did not consider it to be an addition to primary sources but rather a later attempt to rationally clarify the reasons for the final victory in the Golden Horn.Footnote 105

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Hurbanič, M. (2019). The Interpretation of the Siege. In: The Avar Siege of Constantinople in 626. New Approaches to Byzantine History and Culture. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16684-7_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16684-7_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-16683-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-16684-7

  • eBook Packages: HistoryHistory (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation