1

NOMADS AND BYZANTIUM

PROBLEMATIC ASPECTS OF MAINTAINING DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS

WITH THE PECHENEGS

Marek Meško

* This work was supported by the Program of „Employment of Newly Graduated

Doctors of Science for Scientific Excellence“(grant number CZ.1.07/2.3.00/30.0009)

co-financed from European Social Fund and the state budget of the Czech Republic.

Byzantine Empire could particularly thank its active diplomacy for its millennial

duration, as diplomacy was one of the main tools of the Byzantines to maintain and

protect its territory.1 Byzantine art of diplomacy as such represented legacy of ancient

Rome and its implementation was carried out in the spirit of Roman imperial

traditions until the end of the Byzantine Empire. With a few exceptions (Sasanian

Empire, Arab Caliphate) no other contemporary country could boast with a similar

basis to enforce its influence. As in the present time, the diplomacy represented art to

carry out negotiations between two parties2 mediated by authorized representatives

also in the past, and these negotiations were intended to regulate relations between the

parties. In the case of Byzantium, it was essentially about maintaining the premise

that the supreme Christian ruler designated by God was the Byzantine emperor who

should be for this reason the sole ruler of the whole Christian oikumene.3 If the real

situation was too different from this ideal, another important task of the Byzantine

diplomacy was to ensure peace and validity of this premise, at least on the Byzantine

territory that actually was subject to the emperor residing in Constantinople.

Even though the Byzantines did not have any specifically designated and trained

representatives to conduct negotiations as it is today, there were several high-ranking

officials carrying out diplomacy as part of their duties, who belonged to the highly

sophisticated administrative apparatus in the imperial capital.4 Diplomatic embassies

were regularly sent to countries that were on almost the same level in the spirit of the

Byzantine universalism, as well as to other partners. Regular contact was considered

the basis for successful negotiations, which distinguished Byzantium from most of its

neighbors who sent their own embassies ad hoc. Byzantine envoys travelled in all

directions, especially to areas that were important for the protection of the Byzantine

oikumene. One of these areas was the steppe north of the Black Sea, a place through

which successive waves of nomadic peoples, starting with the Huns, have been

coming to the Byzantine territories in the Balkans (and thus also in the direction of the

capital of Constantinople) since the 4th century.5 For various reasons, it was the task

of the Byzantine diplomacy to master these dangerous neighbors. Problematic aspects

of maintaining diplomatic relations between Byzantium and the nomads are showed

in detail in the case of the Pechenegs, who dominated the aforementioned area from

the end of the 9th century to the first quarter of the 11th century, and due to their

position they played a very important role as the Byzantine allies.

1 Moravcsik (1976:151).

2 Smythe (1992: 305).

3 ODB (1991:634); Ahrweiler (1998: 12).

4 ODB (1991:635).

5 For the information overview of the migration of nomadic peoples since the arrival of the Pechenegs,

see Golden (1987‒1991: 41‒54); Grousset (1965: 226‒238).

2

Geographical distance

One of the factors which greatly complicated the maintaining of regular diplomatic

contacts between the Byzantines and the Pechenegs was the great geographical area

and the distance between their territories which, in addition, were not directly

neighboring. In the 10th century, this area ‒ called quite naturally Patzinakia by the

Byzantines6 ‒ spread from the mouth of the Danube to the Volga (or to the Don)

7 and

covered the steppe belt north of the Black Sea and the Azov Sea several hundred

kilometers wide. It was intersected by the lower reaches of the Siret, Prut, Dniester,

Bug, Dnieper, Donets and the Don rivers (from the west to the east).8 There were no

land communications in the area and no bridges spanned over the reaches of the

aforementioned rivers and their tributaries. In the summer, the Pecheneg steppe

territory turned into an arid, hot and inhospitable area (with the exception of the

territory on the banks of the numerous rivers), which was covered with deep

snowdrifts in winter months.9 Even though the Byzantines had a good overview of the

whole area and its neighboring states, or peoples,10

it still did not alleviate their

difficulty in organizing contacts with these nomads, because in addition to the

mentioned weather changes, it was necessary to cover a relatively long distance, too.

There were two ways for the Byzantine delegations to reach the Pechenegs. The first

one was that the imperial envoy used the Byzantine port of Kherson in the Crimea,11

which due to its location was directly neighboring with the Pecheneg territory, as the

starting point of his journey and, therefore, the whole journey was considerably

shorter.12

The other way of travelling to the Pechenegs used the Byzantine capital

Constantinople as the starting point, where the envoy boarded a warship, which then

took him across the Black Sea to the mouth of one of the rivers flowing through

Patzinakia.13

The ambassador and his entourage disembarked there and sent

delegations to the Pechenegs, who in turn sent guides to meet him. Accompanied by

the guides, he then headed inland to a place where negotiations were to take place.14

It

is obvious that the latter was rather time consuming. The situation “streamlined” after

1018, when the Byzantines annexed the Bulgarian territory after the wars of the

emperor Basileos II against the Bulgarians, and the northern Byzantine border again

followed the course of the lower Danube.15

Since then the Byzantine Empire and

Patzinakia were direct neighbors, which made the travelling considerably easier.

Even greater geographical “rapproachment” occurred after the massive Pecheneg

migration in the winter of 1046/47 to the south of the Danube. As a result of this

migration, part of the Pechenegs settled down right in the territory of the Byzantine

6 De adm. imp. (1967: 166).

7 Grousset (1965: 238).

8 Толочко (2003: 46).

9 Sinor (1990: 34‒36). See also Плетнева (1958: 187).

10 De adm. imp. (1967: 166, 185‒187).

11 Besides the fact that Kherson was an important port and trade center, it also represented an

invaluable center for the Byzantines for collecting information from neighboring areas of the north

Black Sea area; Shepard (1992: 45); Malamut (1995: 112‒113). There were several other such

locations, e.g. Sugdaia (later Sudak) or Tmutorokan, but Kherson was by far the most important. 12

De adm. imp. (1967: 54). 13

De adm. imp. (1967: 54‒56). 14

De adm. imp. (1967: 57). 15

Stephenson (1999: 89).

3

province of Paradounavon (Paristrion). These Pechenegs were later granted a status of

allies (symmachoi).16

Decentralized state organization

Another factor preventing effective implementation of the Byzantine diplomacy with

the Pechenegs was the free, or decentralized political system of the Pecheneg society.

The fundamental social and economic unit of any nomadic group is a nuclear family

and its home and property in the form of a herd, which provides it with livelihood and

all the basic needs.17

In terms of territory, it is an area where the family leads a

nomadic way of life. All other higher units of a nomadic society (families, clans,

tribes, etc.) simply represent only a sum of individual families, which usually connect

largely due to joint political, economic, and military interests on the basis of blood

kinship unions, whether real or imaginary established often ex post, to legitimize the

existing political reality.18

The emergence of a charismatic leader/family/clan, who

could ensure the survival and prosperity to all his followers and subjects thanks to the

divine favor, or luck (qut) sent from heaven,19

was a very important, but not the only

impetus for the establishment of higher social units in nomadic peoples (tribal unions

and nomadic empires).20

The appearance of similar charismatic leaders led to the emergence of vast nomadic

empires in the steppe in a relatively short time span. Since the empire of the Hsiung-

nu (Asian Huns), these states were led by a ruler called kagan, whose importance is

similar to the title emperor.21

States created this way were not very politically stable.

As soon as the favorable conditions supporting the growth and existence of a nomadic

empire ceased to exist (e.g. inflow of the spoils of war from the conquest campaigns,

supply of the tribute, extinction of a charismatic clan, or inability of the descendants

of the founder of the empire), centrifugal political forces started to dominate in such a

state organization and the nomadic empire disintegrated as quickly as it emerged.22

The Pechenegs represented one of the branches of the West Turkish kaghanate which

existed between 552 and 659, when it disintegrated.23

The imperial tradition then

passed over to the Karluk tribal union, from which Bulgars and Khazars later

separated. Both these nations then established their own steppe empires in the

northern Black Sea area during the 7th century and acquired and used the title kagan

for their paramount ruler, as well as the lower titles (yabgu, šad, čur/čor, tudun,

tarqan, gyula, etc.).24

In the following century, also other nomadic ethnicities

emerged, including the Pechenegs, who won hegemony at the end of the 9th century

in the aforementioned area and thus replaced the Khazars. However, from a political

point of view, they did not acquire the whole structure of the previous empires. Their

grouping can be rather characterized as a tribal union.25

According to the testimony of

16

Meško (2012: 54); Malamut (1995: 127‒128). 17

Sinor (1977: 174); Golden (1987‒1991: 69). 18

See Lindner (1982: 696‒697, 699). 19

Golden (1982: 45‒46). 20

Lindner (1982: 700). In other words, it is the so-called sacred kingdom in the nomadic context. 21

Golden (1987‒1991: 46). 22

Lindner (1982: 700‒701); Golden (1982: 51‒52). According to the typology of E. Sagan, nomadic

societies corresponded to his definitions of primitive and complex society, see: Sagan (1985: xvi‒xxi);

Golden (1987‒1991: 43‒44). 23

Grousset (1965: 124‒142); Golden (1982: 57). 24

Golden (1982: 57‒60); Golden (1987‒1991: 50). 25

Golden (1990: 273); Golden (2001: 40).

4

the text De administrando imperio by Constantine VII Porfyrogennetos from the mid-

10th century, it was headed by the supreme ruler who did not use the title kagan.26

The whole of Patzinakia was divided into eight provinces (themata) led by

chieftains/rulers/princes (archontai); each province consisted of five districts (meroi)

led by lower chieftains (elattonai archontai).27

All chieftains28

were independent and

conducted their own policies. The first four provinces west of the Dnieper River

formed the right wing and the other four east of this river the left one.29

In addition to

this relatively loose political structure, there probably also was an assembly of all free

warriors (komenton).30

It is not clear from the mentioned description of the Byzantine emperor, who uses

contemporary Byzantine terms of the state administration to talk about a structure he

is not very familiar with, whether the mentioned provinces were the seats of

individual Pecheneg tribes and districts of lower social units, i.e. clans, or families.

Yet, it is highly probable. It also seems that the report about the three most important

provinces as the center of the political power in Patzinakia corresponds to the reality,

as concentration of the Pecheneg settlements was confirmed by archeological finds in

the basin of the Ros river (right tributary of the Dnieper) south of Kiev.31

In the first

third of the 11th century, the Pechenegs lost their territory east of the Dnieper thanks

to the pressure of the Uzes and the number of districts, or clans was reduced from 40

to 13,32

but they kept their supreme ruler (archegos) Tyrach and the individual

chieftains retained their freedom in decision-making.33

The same principle also

applies to the Pechenegs inhabiting the Byzantine area in the Balkans in the second

half of the 11th century.

It is apparent that the loose structure of the Pecheneg tribal union had to be rather

confusing for the Byzantines. There was no absolute ruler with whom they could

negotiate and with whom they would be able to conclude agreements binding upon all

the Pechenegs. On the contrary, agreements concluded with one of the Pecheneg

chieftains were typically valid only for his immediate subjects, but were not binding

upon other clans, or tribes because of their independence. The Byzantines then

repeatedly found themselves in a situation when they virtually had to negotiate with

each and every chieftain to reach desired agreement.34

Similar negotiations had

practical limitations, whether in term of time or the number of available material

resources.

Cultural differences

Besides these practical aspects, which made the activity of the Byzantine ambassadors

among the Pechenegs more difficult, there were also significant cultural differences

between the Byzantines and the nomads. Byzantine civilization was based on three

26

The title kagan is documented only in the later Arabic sources from the 13th century. Pritsak (1981a:

15); Golden (1990: 273). 27

De adm. imp. (1967: 166); Spinei (2003: 105). 28

They could also hold lower titles čur/gyula adopted from the aforementioned Turkish kaganate,

occassionaly documented in historical sources. Golden (1987‒1991: 53). 29

De adm. imp. (1967: 166‒168); Golden (1990: 272‒273); Spinei (2003: 105). 30

Scyl. (1979: 460); Baсильевскій (1872: 128); Pritsak (1981a: 16). 31

Pritsak (1981a: 16, 28). 32

Spinei (2003: 106). 33

Scyl. (1979: 455); Spinei (2003: 106). 34

For example, Emperor Issac I Komnenos managed to conclude peace in 1059 with almost all the

Pecheneg leaders of the Paristrion, except for a chieftain named Selte. Scyl. con. (1968: 107).

5

main pillars ‒ the first one consisted in the Christian religion, the second one in the

Roman law and the third one in Greek classical knowledge and culture. The

Byzantines also inherited Roman imperial ideology, which then lasted enshrouded in

the Christian veil for the whole duration of the Byzantine Empire. Within this

worldview, only the so-called just war (dikaios polemos) to protect the Roman

(Byzantine) oikoumene and the Christian citizens living there was recognized as

justifiable and also the Byzantine foreign policy conformed to it.35

The war was

perceived as a necessary evil.36

Nomadic peoples, including the Pechenegs, who were based on totally differing

cultural traditions, perceived war as a natural part of life and did not see any

significant difference between achieving various goals by means of peace or war.37

Although the Pechenegs knew and practiced the conclusion of peace agreements, their

frequent breach did not bother them too much if there was possibility to obtain

benefits, and therefore, the Pechenegs got the reputation among the Byzantines as

dangerous and unpredictable oath-breakers.38

The surprise and indignation of

Byzantine elites was often all the greater that the nomads let the Byzantines give them

gifts for the conclusion of peace (they required the so-called tribute). Thus, besides

their reputation of oath-breakers, the Pechenegs also gained the reputation of greedy

people longing for material wealth.39

Different Pecheneg and Byzantine goals

Different cultural approaches of the Byzantines and the nomads also resulted in their

different political or power objectives. As any similar state, the Byzantine Empire

sought to ensure the protection of its territory and vested interests. In the case of the

Pechenegs, the Byzantines tried to ensure stability in the northern Black Sea area,

which thus became a kind of a buffer zone between the Byzantine territories on the

lower Danube and the strip of steppes east of the Volga. The control of this zone

through befriended nomads was significant for several reasons. Peace with the

Pechenegs concluded at the end of the 9th century ensured primarily direct security of

the Byzantine border on the lower Danube. Another benefit of the alliance with these

nomads was the fact that this pact had a deterrent effect on the neighboring countries

and nations (Hungary, Bulgaria, Kievan Rus), for whom the attack on the Byzantine

territories in the Balkans became a dangerous and risky act.40

In addition, the trade

routes passing through this area became safer, which helped the Byzantine trade with

the neighboring nations and states to thrive. And, last but not least, the strong

hegemon represented by the Pechenegs on the western end of the Euro-Asian steppe

created a barrier for other nomadic peoples settled further to the east when moving in

the western direction.

It is very difficult, perhaps even impossible, to formulate the Pecheneg goals, since, as

mentioned above, their fragmented and decentralized state organization more or less

excluded any joint pursuit of a uniform policy. Nevertheless, it is evident that it was

in the interest of the nomads to have control over the long-distance trade routes which

passed through their area as well as over the trade centers which were located thereon.

35

Stouraitis (2009: 267ff.). 36

Stouraitis (2009: 207). 37

Golden (1987‒1991: 71). 38

Gautier (1962: 113); Golden (1987‒1991: 54); Ahrweiler (1998: 13). 39

De adm. imp. (1967: 54); Malamut (1995: 114). 40

It is clearly documented in relevant passages of De administrando imperio. See: De adm. imp. (1967:

48‒52, 57); Malamut (1995: 113).

6

The Pechenegs did not represent an exception.41

Peace relations in the steppe enabled

them to benefit from the long-distance trade in the form of collected charges and

duties,42

and they also gained access to goods which would not be accessible in the

steppe under different circumstances (corn, precious metals, and various other types

of luxury goods).43

However, if there was a situation when it was easier for the Pechenegs to satisfy their

need for unusual or inaccessible types of goods by war means, their support of peace

would immediately end. All previous agreements ceased to apply and the Pechenegs

attacked either by themselves or in connection with other attackers. This was the main

reasons why the objectives of the Byzantines and the Pechenegs in the 10th and the

11th centuries ceased to coincide in some cases, leading to abrupt military clashes

between the allies.44

Combined with threat of Byzantine weapons, Byzantine

diplomacy always could prevent the worst to some extent, although during the 11th

century the effectiveness of the Byzantine countermeasures gradually decreased.

However, it was a result of the altered situation in the Euro-Asian steppe where mass

movements of steppe peoples in the western direction started at the beginning of the

11th century.45

As a result, the Pechenegs were pushed to the Byzantine Balkans in

1046/47 and the Byzantines were forced to look for a new ally in this area. They

found this ally at the end of the 11th century in the Cuman tribal union.46

Byzantine countermeasures – strategy in dealing with the nomads

Byzantine diplomacy tried to address the above-mentioned troubles by a set of

strategies and practices examined over centuries. The first measure was a regular

(annual) sending of diplomatic delegations to the Pechenegs.47

Within these

delegations, the Byzantine ambassadors could repeatedly gain information about the

current situation in the northern Black Sea area; they also had opportunity to reward

the “loyalty” of their clients among the nomads by luxurious material gifts.48

Another

traditional measure included the organization of pompous receptions for nomadic

chieftains connected with giving expensive gifts.49

Similar receptions also provided

good opportunity for secret negotiations with particular Pecheneg chieftain(s).50

Considering the decentralized character of the Pecheneg society, the Byzantines

mostly managed to crown their attempts with success.51

Upon completion of

negotiations, the Byzantines secured themselves by taking hostages from circles

41

Golden (1987‒1991: 57); Spinei (2003: 115). 42

Muslim sources from the 10th century (Gardízí) mention great personal wealth of the Pecheneg

chieftains, which was apperantly from the mentioned levying of charges. Golden (1987‒1991: 54). 43

De adm. imp. (1967: 52); Golden (1987‒1991: 71). 44

For example, in 917 and 934 they joined the Bulgars against the Byzantines, or in 944 and 970‒972

they cooperated with the Russians. Malamut (1995: 112‒113, 116‒117); Spinei (2003: 117‒118,

122‒123). During the 11th century, the mutual Byzantine-Pecheneg relations further escalated and

since 1027 the Pechenegs almost annually invaded the Byzantine territories in the Balkans. Malamut

(1995: 117‒118); Spinei (2003: 131); Meško (2012: 50‒51). 45

Pritsak (1981b: 162‒163). 46

Spinei (2003: 132‒145); Meško (2012: 50‒56, 184, 212). 47

De adm. imp. (1967: 49). 48

De adm. imp. (1967: 54); Alexias (2001: 243); Chon. (1975: 14); Malamut (1995: 112). 49

Chon. (1975: 14). 50

Before the decisive battle against the Pechenegs during the winter of 1121/1122, John II Komnenos

held a series of receptions for the Pecheneg leaders where he secretly tried to win some over. Cin.

(1836: 7); Chon. (1975: 14). Several chieftains actually accepted his offers. Chon. (1975: 14). 51

An example of the failure may be secret messages to the Pecheneg chieftains in the summer of 1087,

which did not reach this goal despite the intense efforts of Alexius I Komnenos. Alexias (2001: 205).

7

related to the Pecheneg elites, who were to guarantee the just concluded peace

agreement.52

In some cases, also the Byzantines had to provide their own hostages.53

When the arsenal of these above-mentioned “purely” diplomatic measures did not

provide any guarantee of successful achievement of their goal, the Byzantines liked to

apply military intimidation of Pecheneg ambassadors by a thoroughly directed

exhibition of military force.54

Negotiations with nomads were conducted along with

the knowledge of the opponent’s weak points, which were gained by the Byzantine

informers and spies. Only scarce direct evidence of their employment has survived,

but it is clear that the Byzantines excelled in this technique.55

And finally, healthy

skepticism and caution of Byzantine ambassadors and negotiators worked as a

preventer at the negotiations with the Pechenegs, constantly requesting convincing

assurance and evidence from the nomads of their amicable intentions in order to

minimize the risk of breaching agreements on their part as much as possible.56

Abbreviations

AEMAe Archivum Eurasiæ Medii Aevi

Alexias Annæ Comnenæ Alexias. Ed. D. Reinsch – A. Kambylis (2001),

CFHB. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Byz. Zeitschr. Byzantinische Zeitschrift

CFHB Corpus Fontium Historiæ Byzantinæ

Chon. Nicetæ Choniatæ Historia. Ed. I. A. van Dieten (1975), CFHB.

Berlin: de Gruyter.

Cin. Ioannis Cinnami Epitome. Ed. A. Meineke (1836), CSHB.

Bonn: Weber.

CSFB Corpus Scriptorum Historiæ Byzantinæ

De adm. imp. Constantine Porphyrogenitus: De administrando imperio. Ed.

Gy. Moravcsik, transl. R. J. H. Jenkins (1967). Washington:

Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies.

ODB The Oxford Dictionnary of Byzantium

REB Révue des Etudes Byzantines

52

De adm. imp. (1967: 54). 53

In 1087, the Byzantine envoy Synesios, who led peace negotiations with the Pechenegs, became their

hostage. After concluding a contract, he had to stay in Paristrion and live with the nomads. Alexias

(2001: 218‒219). 54

In the summer of 1087, Emperor Alexios I Komnenos started to gather his troops in the city of

Lardea where they camped, and provided them with additional training, while he demonstratively sent

a Byzantine fleet squadron to the lower Danube to intimidate the Pechenegs in Paristrion. Alexias

(2001: 205‒206). 55

This fact is evidenced in a written report (apparently from spies) about the upcoming alliance of the

Pechenegs and Bulgarian Krakras, which was received by a Byzantine strategos of Dristra Tzotzikos.

On the basis of this report, he could act and prevent the alliance before it was formed. Scyl. (1979:

355‒356). 56

Alexios Komnenos was cautious before the battle of Lebounion when he negotiated the alliance with

the Cumans led by their supreme khans Togortag and Boniak. Alexias (2001: 243‒244); Baсильевскій

(1872: 280); Meško (2012: 212‒214, 216).

8

Scyl. Ioannis Scylitzæ Synopsis historiarum. Ed. I. Thurn (1973),

CFHB. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Scyl. con. He synecheia tes chronographias tou Ioannou Skylitse. Ed. E.

Th. Tsolakes (1968). Thessaloniké: Hetaireia Makedonikon

Spoudon.

МИА СССР Материали и исследования по археологии СССР

ЖМНП Журналь Министерства народного просвђщенія

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary texts

Anna Comnena, Annæ Comnenæ Alexias. Ed. D. Reinsch – A. Kambylis (2001),

CFHB. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio. Ed. Gy. Moravcsik, transl.

R. J. H. Jenkins (1967). Washington: Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies.

Kinnamos, Ioannes, Ioannis Cinnami Epitome. Ed. A. Meineke (1836), CSHB. Bonn:

Weber.

Nicetas Choniates, Nicetæ Choniatæ Historia. Ed. I. A. van Dieten (1975), CFHB.

Berlin: de Gruyter.

Scylitzes, Ioannes, Ioannis Scylitzæ Synopsis historiarum. Ed. I. Thurn (1973),

CFHB. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Scylitzes, Ioannes continuatus, He synecheia tes chronographias tou Ioannou

Skylitse. Ed. E. Th. Tsolakes (1968). Thessaloniké: Hetaireia Makedonikon Spoudon.

Theophylact of Ohrid, Le discours de Théophylacte de Bulgarie à l’autocrator Alexis

Ier

Comnène (6 janvier 1088). Ed. P. Gautier (1962). REB, 20, 93‒130.

Secondary texts

Ahrweiler, H. (1998). Byzantine Concept of the Foreigner: The Case of the Nomads.

In H. Ahrweiler – A. Laiou, (Eds.), Studies on the Internal Diaspora of the Byzantine

Empire. Washington: Dumbarton Oaks, 1‒15.

Golden, P. (1982). Imperial Ideology and the Sources of Political Unity amongst the

Pre-Činggisid Nomads of Western Eurasia. AEMAe, 2, 37‒76.

Golden, P. (1987‒1991). Nomads and their Sedentary Neighbors in Pre-Činggisid

Eurasia. AEMAe, 7, 41‒54.

Golden, P. (1990). The people of the south Russian steppes. In D. Sinor (Ed.), The

Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

229‒284.

Golden, P. (2001). Nomads in the Sedentary World: The Case of Pre-Chinggisid Rus’

and Georgia. In A. Khazanov – A. Wink, (Eds.), Nomads in the Sedentary World.

Richmond: Curzon, 24‒75.

Grousset, R. (1965). L’empire des steppes. Paris: Payot.

Kazhdan, A. & Talbot, A.-M. (Eds.) (1991). The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. (3

vols.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

9

Lindner, R. (1985). What was a nomadic tribe? Comparative Studies in Society and

History, 24/4, 689‒711.

Malamut, E. (1995). L’image Byzantine des Petschénègues. Byz. Zeitschr., 88,

105‒147.

Meško, M. (2012). Obnova byzantskej moci na Balkáne za vlády Alexia I. Komnéna.

Druhá byzantsko-pečenežská vojna (1083‒1091). Nitra: Univerzita Konštantína

Filozofa v Nitre.

Moravcsik, Gy. (1976). Einführung in die Byzantinologie. Darmstadt:

Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

Pritsak, O. (1981a). The Pečenegs. A Case of Social and Economic Transformation.

In O. Pritsak, Studies in Medieval Eurasian History. London: Variorum Reprints,

4‒29.

Pritsak, O. (1981b). Two Migratory Movements in Eurasian Steppe in the 9th‒11th

Centuries. In O. Pritsak, Studies in Medieval Eurasian History. London: Variorum

Reprints, 157‒163.

Sagan, E. (1985). At the Dawn of Tyranny. The Origins of Individualism, Political

Oppression and the State. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Shepard, J. (1992). Byzantine Diplomacy, 800‒1204. In S. Franklin – J. Shepard,

(Eds.), Byzantine Diplomacy. Papers of the Twenty-fourth Spring Symposium of

Byzantine Studies, Cambridge, March 1990. Aldershot: Variorum, 41‒71.

Sinor, D. (1977). Horse and Pasture in Inner Asian History. In D. Sinor, Inner Asia

and its Contacts with Medieval Europe. London: Variorum Reprints, 171‒183.

Sinor, D. (Ed.) (1990). The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Smythe, D. (1992). Why do barbarians stand round the emperor at diplomatic

receptions? In S. Franklin – J. Shepard, (Eds.), Byzantine Diplomacy. Papers of the

Twenty-fourth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Cambridge, March 1990.

Aldershot: Variorum, 305‒312.

Spinei, V. (2003). The Great Migrations in the East and South East of Europe from

the Ninth to the Thirteenth Century. Cluj-Napoca: Romanian Cultural Institute.

Stephenson, P. (1999). The Byzantine Frontier at the Lower Danube in the Late Tenth

and Eleventh Centuries. In D. Power – N. Standen, (Eds.), Frontiers in Question.

Eurasian Borderlands, 700‒1700. Houndmills: Macmillan, 80‒104.

Stouraitis, I. (2009). Krieg und Frieden in der politischen und ideologischen

Wahrnehmung in Byzanz (7.‒11. Jahrhundert). Wien: Fassbaender.

Baсильевскій, B. (1872). Византія и Печенеги. ЖМНП, 164, 116‒165, 243‒332.

Плетнева, С. (1958). Печенеги, Торки и Половцы в южнорусских степях. Миа

СССР, 62, 152‒226.

Tолочко, П. (2003). Кочевые народы степей и Киевская Русь. St. Peterburg:

Aleteija.