Acta Ant. Hung.

51, 2011, 315328

DOI: 10.1556/AAnt.51.2011.34.7
MARTIN HURBANI

THE EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE AND THE AVAR

KHAGANATE IN THE YEARS 622624 AD*

Summary: About 620 the Emperor Heraclius succeeded in concluding a temporary peace with the Avars
and concentrating his forces exclusively on the struggle with Persia. In 622, during the first great offensive, the tactical and military maturity of the Eastern Roman army was demonstrated for the first time.
However, Heraclius still could not use the strategic initiative enough in this period. The complicated relations with the Khagantae forced the Emperor to return to Constantinople and begin negotiations for a new
peace treaty. The planned meeting with the Khagan of the Avars almost ended in a personal catastrophe
for the Emperor. Regardless of this incident, both sides had an interest in concluding peace. While the
Romans needed to continue the war with Persia, the Avars had to devote attention to stabilizing the situation in the Khaganate after the outbreak of Samos revolt. The agreement reached at the turn of the years
623/624 lasted until the Avar siege of Constantinople in 626.
Key words: Eastern Roman Empire, Avars, Emperor Heraclius, last war of the Antiquity

In the beginning of the third decade of the 7th cent., the last RomanPersian war was
entering its final stage. In 622 AD, after what had been almost ten years of afflictions
and defeats, emperor Heraclius resolved to launch a new offensive against the Persians.1 The concentration of all the available military forces of the empire was a reac*
This paper was written with the support of Slovak Research and Development Agency (Agentra na podporu vskumu a vvoja), project number SK-SRB-0017-09.
1
On the first expedition of emperor Heraclius against the Persians see GERLAND, A.: Die persischen Feldzge des Kaisers Herakleios. Byzantinische Zeitschrift 3 (1894) 330373, esp. 340348;
BAYNES, N.: The First Campaign of Heraclius against Persia. English Historical Review 19 (1904) 694
702; STRATOS, A. N.: Byzantium in the Seventh Century. Vol. I. Amsterdam 1968, 135144; OIKONOMIDS, N.: A Chronological Note on the First Persian Campaign of Heraclius (622). Byzantine and Modern
Greek Studies 1 (1975) 19; SPECK, P.: Das geteilte Dossier. Beobachtungen zu den Nachrichten ber
die Regierung des Kaisers Herakleios und die seiner Shne bei Theophanes und Nikephoros [Poikila Byzantina 9]. Berlin 1988, 107124; HOWARD-JOHNSTON, J.: Heraclius Persian Campaigns and the Revival
of the East Roman Empire, 622630. War in History 6 (1999) 34; GREATREX, G. LIEU, S.: The Roman
Eastern Frontier and the Persian Wars. AD 363628. London New York 2002, 198199; KAEGI, W.:

0044-5975 / $ 20.00 2011 Akadmiai Kiad, Budapest

316

MARTIN HURBANI

tion to the Persian invasion into the north-eastern part of Asia Minor, which probably
took place around the turn of the years 621 and 622 AD.2 According to a rather vague
but still valuable fact mentioned by George of Pisidia, both armies met in a battle in
the late autumn or early winter of 622 AD. The battle ended with the surprising victory of emperor Heraclius.3 In this situation, he unexpectedly interrupted the expedition and left his forces stationed in the Pontic region near the Armenian border.4n The
expedition fulfilled its goals only partially. Although Heraclius pushed the Persians
out of the north-eastern part of Anatolia and defeated them in an open battle, he did
not achieve a major turn in the war. It goes without saying that the emperors achievements, as they were described by George of Pisidia, are exaggerated.5 However, the
idea that the only aim of the military expedition was to improve the organization and
mobility of the Roman army is highly disputable. If the emperor had not been obliged
to return to the capital, he would most probably have continued the military campaign during the following year. Such an assumption is supported by the fact that
Heraclius had left the army stationed in the Pontic region, near the Caucasus, i.e. in a
region of the highest strategic importance for any future operations against Persia.
The reason why Heraclius had to return to Constantinople was that he received
disturbing news from his capital. George of Pisidia acknowledges that although the
emperor intended to stay with his army and continue with the campaign, he had to return because of the fear that spread in Constantinople, caused by the western nations
that were as usually suspecting they had been left with no treaty.6 Therefore, despite

Heraclius Emperor of Byzantium. Cambridge 2003, 112118; HURBANI, M.: Byzancia a Avarsk
kagant v rokoch 622624 [Byzantium and the Avar Khaganate in the years 623624]. Historick asopis
55 (2007) 229248; POLEK, J.: Heraclius and the Persians in 622. Bizantinistica 10 (2008) 105124;
HURBANI, M.: Posledn vojna antiky. Avarsk tok na Kontantnopol roku 626 v historickch svislostiach [The Last War of the Antiquity. The Avar attack on Constantinople in 626 and its historical consequences]. Preov 2009, 98100.
2
Georgios Pisides, De expeditione Persica II 256260. In PERTUSI, A. (ed.): Giorgio di Pisidia.
Poemi. I. Panegirici epici [Studia patristica et Byzantina 7]. Ettal 1959, 109. This fact suggests that the
Persians actually occupied the north-eastern part of Asia Minor. See BRANDES, W.: Die Stdte Kleinasiens im 7. und 8. Jahrhundert. Berlin 1989, 51.
3
Previous historians tried to suggest a more exact chronological setting of the battle. They looked
for a point of reference in Pisides mention (De expeditione Persica 361375) of the lunar eclipse after
the sudden attack by the Persians, several days before the crucial confrontation with Heraclius army.
This event is thus supposed to have happened either on 23rd January 623 AD (see BAYNES [n. 1] 701,
STRATOS [n. 1] 141) or 28th July 622 AD (OIKONOMIDS [n. 1] 5). In accordance with C. ZUCKERMAN
(Heraclius in 625. Revue des tudes byzantines 60 [2002] 206210) and SPECK ([n. 1] 114), we consider
that mentioning Pisides record of the lunar eclipse is an incorrect interpretation of the original text of
Pisides. However, this removes the possibilities to specify the chronological setting of the battle.
HOWARD-JOHNSTON ([n. 1] 4) is mistaken in dating the emperors return to the summer of 622 AD.
According to a vague but still valuable fact mentioned by George of Pisidia (De expeditione Persica II
256) both armies met in battle sometime on the turn of the autumn and winter of 622 AD. The emperors
return to the capital can be dated only after this period. The time and the place of the battle are still
subject of disputes. For the most recent data on this topic cf. in particular ZUCKERMAN 206210.
4
KAEGI (n. 1) 116.
5
In this regard see OIKONOMIDS (n. 1) 19.
6
Georgios Pisides, De expeditione Persica III 311312. See also translations of the passage mentioned in PERTUSI (n. 2) 129 and TARTAGLIA, L.: Carmi di Giorgio di Pisidia. Torino 1998, 129131.
Acta Ant. Hung. 51, 2011

THE EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE AND THE AVAR KHAGANATE

317

the insistence of the army on the contrary, Heraclius decided to temporarily interrupt
the expedition.7 The situation obviously must have been serious, given the fact that it
required the emperors presence in the capital. The term western nations undoubtedly refers to the Avars and other nations that had acknowledged their hegemony.
However, the authors reference to the actual relations of the Avars with the Eastern
Roman Empire is not so easy to explain. More precisely, it is not clear whether the
Avars had really broken the peace treaty, concluded between both parties back in 620
AD. James Howard-Johnston considers in this regard that Heraclius was forced to return to Constantinople because of a concrete military action of the Avars that culminated in the thirty-day siege of Thessaloniki, described in the Miracula Sancti Demetrii.8 Regardless of the existing doubts about the time frame of this attack, we do
not think that Heraclius would have considered returning from the campaign against
Persia in reaction to the news about the siege of Thessaloniki. The city surely was an
attractive target for raids and attacks, but from the strategic and tactical point of view
it was of secondary importance.9 The unclear formulation by George of Pisidia does
not prove the assumption that the Avars broke the peace treaty by any concrete military operation. Instead, the poet mentions a threat resulting from the further application of the treaty. He only articulates a suspicion that the treaty might have expired,
but he does not give account of a real breach of the peace treaty. According to his
words, it was the citizens of Constantinople who asked the emperor to return to the
capital and not the remote Thessaloniki, at the time probably only accessible by sea.
This would suggest that the very centre of the empire was under Avar threat. However, a real military action did not take place earlier than the summer of the following
year, when the Avars invaded the suburbs of Constantinople.
Why did the Avars threaten the empire with a new invasion? The reason could
have been their traditional tendency to augment the pressure upon their neighbours, as
well as the intention to negotiate a higher tribute than they used to receive. The leaders
7
Georgios Pisides (n. 6) III 339340; Theophanes Confessor, Chronographia. In DE BOOR, C.
(ed.): Theophanis chronographia. Vol. 1. Leipzig 1883, 306. 78. Theophanes obviously took this information over from George of Pisidia. In contrast to Pisides version, he does not include any reasons why
the expedition had been interrupted, merely stating that the emperor had returned to the capital. In Norman
Baynes opinion, the emperor decided to return to Constantinople in order to organize the citys defence
due to a new threat, the Avars. BAYNES, N.: The Date of the Avar Surprise. Byzantinische Zeitschrift 21
(1912) 126. However, such a hypothesis is not supported by any contemporary source. The Avars did not
attack Constantinople sooner than the summer of 626 AD, i.e. in the time when the emperor was fully occupied with a new strategic offensive against Persia. For the problems regarding the chronology of these
events, see summarily HURBANI: Byzancia (n. 1) 231 (with an overview of opinions from older historiography).
8
HOWARD-JOHNSTON (n. 1) 15. Although without any direct evidence, the majority of researchers date the Avaro-Slavic attack on Thessaloniki back to 618 AD. Among others, see BARII, F.:
uda Dimitrija Solunskog kao istoriski izvor [The Miracles of St. Demetrius as an Historical Source].
Beograd 1953, 100; DITTEN, H.: Zur Bedeutung der Einwandlung der Slaven in Byzanz im 7. Jahrhundert. In WINKELMANN, H. et al. (ed.): Untersuchungen zur Herausbildung des Feudalismus. Berlin 1978,
98; LEMERLE, P.: Les plus anciens recueils des Miracles de Saint Dmtrius et la pntration des Slaves
dans les Balkans. II: Commentaire. Paris 1981, 9194, 99103; CURTA, F.: The Making of the Slavs. History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region, c. 500700. Cambridge 2001, 108.
9
HURBANI: Posledn vojna antiky (n. 1) 101.

Acta Ant. Hung. 51, 2011

318

MARTIN HURBANI

of the khaganate were well aware of the difficult situation of the Eastern Roman Empire and almost certainly knew about the emperors prepared military campaign. The
issue of the increase of the tribute was probably raised by the last known descendant
of the khagan Bayan. According to a source from that period, it was the khagans
younger son who took power in that time after his older brother. This deceptive and
malevolent fox as he was labelled by Theodore Synkellos threatened to invade
the empire.10
As soon as the emperor returned to the capital, he attempted to negotiate the
conditions under which the Avars would be willing to abide by the peace treaty.
Unfortunately, we do not know when the actual negotiations started since the key
source the chronicle of the patriarch Nikephoros does not mention any specific
dates in this respect. Both versions of the chronicle, the London one and the Vatican
one, seem to describe only the final stage of the negotiations.
In the spring of 623 AD, the Avars broke the peace treaty and invaded Thracia.
The accounts of this invasion can only be found in the chronicle by Theophanes, who
mistakenly sets this incident into 617/618 AD. However, this inaccuracy by no means
decreases the predicative value of the original text that was the source of Theophanes
record. This older material suggests a connection between the Avar invasion into
Thracia and the accelerating pace of negotiations with the emperor that resulted in an
agreement to meet later on in Heracleia.11 Although the patriarch Nikephoros records
that the Avar leader had sent the emperor a personal message because he wanted to
come to an agreement, it was actually Heraclius who really needed a new agreement.
Therefore we can assume that the entire negotiation process started upon his initiative.
Nikephoros accounts that the emperor welcomed the khagans cooperative approach
and sent his envoys the patrikios Athanasios and the quaestor Cosmas equipped
with abundant gifts to visit the Avar leader.12 We do not know the exact matter of the
negotiations but we can assume that the main topic was the increase of the tribute.
Cosmas and Athanasios made themselves familiar with the khagans conditions and
returned to the capital.13 Thus Heraclius learned that the khagan was willing to close
a new peace treaty. Although all previous agreements between the khaganate and the
empire had used to be closed solely by envoys, this time a meeting on the highest
level was looming. Under the pressure of a desperate situation, Heraclius agreed that
the upcoming negotiation would not take place in Constantinople. The Roman army
was stationed hundreds of kilometres away and could not be counted on in need of
10

Theodoros Synkellos, De obsidione Constantinopolis homilia. In STERNBACH, L. (ed.): Analecta

Avarica [Rozprawy akademii umiejtnoci. Wydzia filologiczny. Serya II. Tom XV]. Cracoviae 1900, 301.
11
Theophanes Confessor (n. 7) 301. 25.
12
Nikephoros, Breviarium (the older London version, L) in OROSZ, L. (ed.): The London Manuscript of Nikephoros Breviarium. Budapest 1948, c. 20. 176179; Nikephoros, Breviarium (Vatican
version, V) in MANGO, C. (ed.): Nikephoros, Patriarch of Constantinople. Short History [Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 13]. Washington D. C. 1990, c. 10. 26. Theophanes mentions only the envoys
having been sent to the khagan without any further specification. Theophanes Confessor (n. 7) 301. 27.
13
Nikephoros, Breviarium (n. 12) (L) 20. 179180; (V) c. 10. 911. The multitude of gifts and
promises is mentioned, without any specification, also by other contemporary sources: Theodoros Synkellos
(n. 10) 301. 3234; Georgios Pisides, Bellum avaricum in PERTUSI (n. 2) vv. 94109.
Acta Ant. Hung. 51, 2011

THE EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE AND THE AVAR KHAGANATE

319

help. The emperor therefore made use of a traditional imperial trick, aimed to convince the enemy that the weakened empire was by no means brought down to its
knees. Instead of showing off military power, Heraclius chose to impress the Avars
with a pompous ceremony full of spectacularly dressed up court dignitaries.14 It was
probably himself who decided that the meeting should take place in Heracleia.
The agreed date of the meeting was Sunday, 5th of June.15 The Roman diplomats had provisionally agreed to the new demands from the Avar side and now nothing was left to be done but to seal the new agreement. Heraclius planned to organize
a festive reception with chariot races and other spectacular performances. Therefore
he sent theatrical equipment to Heracleia and had ceremonial robes for the khagan
and his entourage prepared.16 Then he sent Athanasios and Cosmas to meet the Avars
again with a message that he had just left Constantinople and headed for the venue of
their meeting.17 Upon receiving this message, the khagan headed for Heracleia with his
army as well.18
The emperor, accompanied by his imperial guard, set out to Heracleia sometime
in the beginning of June. His closest entourage included senators, clerics, various
members of the nobility and prominent representatives of craftsman corporations.19
There were also prominent members of the green and blue demes, whose ritual exclamations and dances formed a vital part of the imperial ceremony.20 The rumour about
the grandiose meeting soon spread in the capital and many inhabitants of Constantin14
On the Byzantine descriptions of barbarians LECHNER, K.: Hellenen und Barbaren im Weltbild
der Byzantiner. Mnchen 1954, 73128.
15
Historiography traditionally calls this incident the Avar surprise. See BAYNES (n. 7) 110128.
Summaries of this event in recent literature: STRATOS (n. 1) 154160; POHL, W.: Die Awaren. Ein Steppenvolk in Mitteleuropa 567 822. Mnchen 1988, 245248.
16
Nikephoros, Breviarium (n. 12) (L) 20. 181184; (V) c. 10.1314.
17
Nikephoros, Breviarium (n. 12) (L) 20. 184186. The mention of the envoys being repeatedly
sent to the khagan is found only in the older London version of the chronicle. As far as the language and
content are concerned, this version is closer to the one that Nikephoros drew information from. For
unknown reasons, Nikephoros did not include this information in his later re-written version. See also
SPECK (n. 1) 263.
18
The khagan arrived in the vicinity of Heracleia three days after the emperors arrival in Selymbria. Nikephoros, Breviarium (n. 12) (L) 20.187189.
19
Chronicon Paschale in DINDORF, L. (ed.): Chronicon paschale. Vol. 1 [Corpus Scriptorum
Historiae Byzantinae]. Bonn 1832, 712.1415.
20
CAMERON, A.: Circus Factions. Blues and Greens in Rome and Byzantium. Oxford 1976, 257.
Older researchers perceived the presence of the demes as a form of militia that in this case adopted the
role of the emperors guard unit. In this regard in particular see MANOJLOVI, S.: Le peuple du Constantinople de 400 800 aprs J. C. Byzantion 11 (1936) 632; similarly also STRATOS (n. 1) 147. However,
this hypothesis is to be rejected in view of the thorough analysis carried out by Alan Cameron. Other
researchers also support the sport function of the demes, see FINE, J.: Two Contributions on the Demes
and Factions in Byzantium in the Sixth and Seventh Centuries. Zbornik radova vizantolokog instituta 10
(1967) 3536. On the other hand, this does not mean that the emperor would have set out to meet the
Avars unarmed and unprotected. Despite the lack of sources, it is highly probable that he was guided by
his special bodyguard unit the excubitores. This relatively small but elite military unit was in that time
the primary force responsible for the emperors personal security. See HALDON, J.: Byzantine Praetorians: An Administrative, Institutional and Social Survey of the Opsikion and Tagmata, c. 580900 [Poikila
Byzantina III]. Bonn 1984, 136139. There is no reason to think that it would be missing at the prepared
meeting with the Avars.

Acta Ant. Hung. 51, 2011

320

MARTIN HURBANI

ople and nearby areas joined the emperors passage.21 They were not deterred by the
considerable distance from the capital who would miss the opportunity to witness
such a spectacular parade? Many common people had never seen the Avars before,
except for their envoys who came to Constantinople each year. It was the first time
such a meeting on the highest level took place and the first time that the emperor held
games before the eyes of the armoured Avar elite.
Heraclius decided to accommodate in Selymbria, 40 kilometres westwards
from Constantinople. Although the city was only several kilometres from Heraclia, it
was a better place to stay since it was protected by the Long Walls. Meanwhile, the
Avar khagan encamped in the vicinity of Heraclia where he had arrived three days
after the emperors arrival in Selymbria. The Avar military units were positioned on
high grounds on the outer side of the Long Walls.22
On 5th of June, in the early morning, the emperor set out from Selymbria to
Heraclia. The Eastern Roman delegation was approaching the agreed meeting place,
when the emperor received shocking news the Avar horsemen were waiting for
him in ambush in the wooded knolls around Heraclia.23 The khagan had probably
ordered his selected troops to scatter in the difficult terrain and cut the escape corridor for the emperor. Heraclius was overwhelmed, but he managed to avoid panic and
started to gallop away to the capital.24
Around 10 a.m., the khagan gave a sign with his whip, after which the major
part of the Avar cavalry moved towards the Long Wall and crossed it without any significant resistance.25 Avars then proceeded in swift gallop along the Via Egnatia to
Constantinople. However, the khagan himself did not participate in this raid and
stayed with the rest of his troops near Heracleia.26 Although the Avar raiders did not
manage to seize the emperor, they captured numerous members of his entourage, as
well as ceremonial robes and theatrical equipment.27
Towards the end of the day, the Avar vanguard reached the plateau on the outskirts of Constantinople, known as Hebdomon. The attackers spread all along the land
walls of Constantinople up to the Golden Horn.28 It was the first time the Avars man-

21

Chronicon Paschale (n. 19) 712. 20.

Nikephoros, Breviarium (n. 12) (L) 20. 188190; (V) c. 10. 1920.
23
STRATOS (n. 1) 148.
24
Nikephoros, Breviarium (n. 12) (L) 20. 192195. In his re-written Vatican version, Nikephoros
even goes so far as to talk about the emperors shameful escape. See (V) c. 10. 2429. See also Theophanes Confessor (n. 7) 301. 31 302. 1.
25
Chronicon Paschale (n. 19) 712. 21. The anonymous chronicler obviously describes the final
episode of this dramatic incident, reflecting the public concepts and rumours that were in that time predominant in Constantinople. Judging from the overall character of his reports, it is evident that he lacked
access to any official documents that could have disclosed the diplomatic backgrounds of the prepared
meeting in Heracleia.
26
Chronicon Paschale (n. 19) 713. 23.
27
Nikephoros, Breviarium (n. 12) (L) 20. 198200; (V) c. 10. 3537.
28
Chronicon Paschale (n. 19) 713. 67; According to Nikephoros, the attackers reached the
bridge across the river Barbysses, that flows to the Golden Horn. Nikephoros, Breviarium (n. 12) (L) 20.
197198; (V) c. 10. 3032.
22

Acta Ant. Hung. 51, 2011

THE EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE AND THE AVAR KHAGANATE

321

aged to penetrate the Long Walls and approach the very capital, as well as the first
time since the great Kutrigur attack in 559 AD that any hostile force got within the
range of the archers, positioned on the citys mighty walls.
Heraclius managed to escape to safety, but the carefully planned peace process
was in shambles. Not only did he not reach an agreement, but from then on he also
had to count with the devastating psychological effect that the attack must have had
on the capitals population, which for the first time had to bear the direct implications
of the Avar expansion.29 In the general panic, the capitals defenders tried to hide or
carry away all the silver and golden parts of the decoration of the Church of the Holy
Mother of God in Blachernes.30 This church had also treasured one of the most valuable relics of the capital the Virgins Robe. The Patriarch of Constantinople, Sergios,
decided to have it sealed and relocated to the Hagia Sophia Cathedral.31
After the arrival of the attackers, Heraclius was left with no other remedy but
prayers. He left his palace in an ordinary robe and went to the Church of the Holy
Mother of God, situated near the southern part of the city walls by the Golden Gate.32
The emperor was accompanied in his prayers and pleas by Sergios, the Patriarch of
Constantinople and litanies for deliverance from the unexpected attack were held in
all other churches.33
For the rest of the day and during the following night, the inhabitants of Constantinople witnessed the cruel pillaging and destruction of the citys suburbs. A part
of the Avar invaders managed to reach the area of the Golden Horn, where they pillaged the Church of Saint Cosmas and Damian in the vicinity of the northern part of
the land walls. Another unit penetrated even further, to the area of the Bosporus,
where they pillaged St. Michaels Church in the Promotos quarter.34 From both
churches, the Avars stole ciboria and other valuables. To make the pillaging even
worse, they also damaged the main altar in St. Michaels Church.35
The emperor most probably tried to persuade the raiders to withdraw from the
suburbs offering them money, since asking for ransom was their traditional habit.36
This is directly confirmed by an anonymous Latin chronicler from the 7th cent. According to his record, the Avars crossed the Long Walls and approached Constantinople,
29

In depositionem pretiosae vestis in LOPAREV, CH. (ed.): Staroje svidetelstvo o poloenii rizy
Bogorodicy primenitelno k naestviju russkich na Vizantiju v 860 g [The Deposition of the Virgins Robe
Testimony and its Relation to the Russian Attack on Byzantium in 860]. Vizantijskij vremennik 1895 T. II.
Vyp. 4, 595596.
30
In depositionem pretiosae vestis (n. 29) 596.
31
In depositionem pretiosae vestis (n. 29) 598.
32
In depositionem pretiosae vestis (n. 29) 594.
33
In depositionem pretiosae vestis (n. 29) 595.
34
On the location of this church, see JANIN, R.: La gographie ecclsiastique de lEmpire byzantin. I: Le sige de Constantinople et le patriarcat cumnique. 3: Les glises et les monastres. Paris
1969, 344345.
35
Chronicon Paschale (n. 19) 713. 913.
36
Theodoros Synkellos (n. 10) 301. 3839. The Avar habit to require financial damages in return
for their departure is confirmed by various Greek sources. On this topic, see MCCOTTER, S. E. J.: The
Strategy and Tactic of Siege Warfare in the Early Byzantine Period: from Constantine to Heraclius. PhD
Diss. Queens University, Belfast 1996, 206207 with examples.
Acta Ant. Hung. 51, 2011

322

MARTIN HURBANI

where they negotiated with the emperor standing on the city walls. After the price of
peace had been agreed upon, the raiders withdrew.37
Although the exact time of their withdrawal cannot be stated, we can at least
assume with respect to the type of the attack that the nomadic cavalry, burdened
by the loot and a multitude of captives, tried to withdraw as soon as possible to the
safe territory of Thracia.38 The number of enslaved people was undoubtedly considerable, judging from the slightly exaggerated reports of those who managed to escape
from the captivity.39
Constantinople, and especially its suburbs, needed a long period of time to recover from the destruction they had suffered during the raid. It took a month before
the emperor ordered to have the Virgins Robe ceremoniously relocated back to the
temple in Blachernes.40
Although the peace negotiations with the Avars were ruined, Heraclius had to
make every effort to restore them. Meanwhile, the Roman army was eagerly awaiting
the return of its supreme commander. It was really high time he returned, because the
Persians had noticed his trouble in the west and resumed military operations against
the Eastern Roman Empire. It was sometime in that period that they conquered Ancyra, gaining control over the most important route connecting Constantinople with
the East.41 Another unfortunate event was the loss of the island of Rhode.42 If the Persians really attacked it, they obviously must have had sufficient sea power to pose a
threat to the coasts of Asia Minor or even Constantinople.43

37

Continuatio Havniensis Prosperi. Ed. TH. MOMMSEN in Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores antiquissimi XI (Berlin 1892) 490.
38
According to Jean Luis Van Dieten (Zum Bellum avaricum des Georgios Pisides. Bemerkungen zu einer Studie von Paul Speck. Byzantinische Forschungen 9 [1985] 162), the Avars must have been
out of reach of the capital as early as the 6th June, otherwise the miraculous rescue of the city would not
have been celebrated on the previous day.
39
Nikephoros, Breviarium (n. 12) (L) 2021. 201205; (V) c. 10. 3841; Theodoros Synkellos (n.
10) 301. 3437; Theophanes Confessor (n. 7) 302. 34. Nikephoros entry is doubted by the majority of
researchers. Among others, see e.g. LEMERLE, P.: Quelques remarques sur le regne d Heraclius. Studii
medievale 3 (1960) 1, 348, n. 3. However, some accept the numbers given by a more recent chronicler,
Georgios Monachos, even though he evidently drew information from the Nikephoros Breviarium. See
e.g. KAEGI (n. 1) 119.
40
In depositionem pretiosae vestis (n. 30) 599608.
41
Various chronicles that describe this event again draw from a single source. See Chronicon
1234 in PIGULEVSKAJA, N. (ed.): Sirijskaja strednevekovaja istoriografija [Medieval Syrian Historiography]. St. Petersburg 2000, c. 96; Michael le Syrien, Chronique. Vol. II. Ed. and transl. by J.-B. CHABOT.
Paris 1901, XI. 3 (dating up to 622 AD). Theophanes dates the conquering of Ancyra in 618/619 AD.
Theophanes Confessor (n. 7) 302. 2223; Agapios, Kitb al-unwn. Ed. and transl. by A. VASILIEV. PO 8,
Paris 1912, 451. Summarily on these events, see FOSS, C.: The Persians in Asia Minor and the End of Antiquity. English Historical Review 95 (1975) 725.
42
Chronicon AD 724. Transl. by PALMER, A.: The Seventh Century in the West Syrian Chronicles. Liverpool 1993, 18. The chronicler dates this event into the year 934 of the Seleucian era, which
corresponds to 623 AD. According to BAYNES ([n. 7] 116) the Island was attacked sometime in 621625
AD. More recent sources describe the conquering of Ancyra and several islands. See Theophanes Confessor (n. 7) 302; Agapios (n. 41) 451; Michael le Syrien (n. 41) XI. 2. All chronicles date this event into
622 AD.
43
FOSS (n. 41) 725.
Acta Ant. Hung. 51, 2011

THE EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE AND THE AVAR KHAGANATE

323

Heraclius had no time to lose. By the end of 623 AD at the latest, he sent his
envoys to the Avar Khaganate with a plea for peace.44 The Avar leader demanded that
the tribute be increased to 200 000 solidi.45 Such an enormous sum was much higher
than any previously agreed payments to the Avars. It was even more than the Hun
leader Attila had received for refraining from attacking the Roman Empire in his
time.46
Besides that, Heraclius had to hand over several valuable hostages to the Avars
to guarantee the fulfilment of the agreed terms of the peace treaty.47 The new treaty
entered into force by the end of 623 AD at the latest.48 The emperor once again entrusted the military council, led by the patrikios Bonos and patriarch Sergios, with
the administration of the capital. Then he symbolically confirmed the peace treaty
with the Avars in a letter, in which he called upon the khagan to become the protector of his children.49 The situation in the west was settled for the time being. There
was nothing else that would hinder Heraclius from preparing a new offensive against
the Persians, planned for the spring of the following year.
THE AFTERMATH OF A DIPLOMATIC INCIDENT
The unexpected Avar raid did not become a mere memory of an unfortunate event
for the empire. Echoes of it can be found in various Byzantine chronicles, as well as
in their later Slavic translations.50 Even the primary Russian chronicle Povest vre-

44

Theodoros Synkellos (n. 10) 302. 45. The author of the sermon states that the agreement was
concluded by the khagans prominent men in compliance with patriarchal habits.
45
Nikephoros, Breviarium (n. 12) (V) 13. 19.
46
The largest single payment that the Later Roman Empire ever submitted to a foreign power was
the sum of 792 000 solidi, paid by the emperor Justinian after signing the agreement of eternal peace with
Persia. For the overview of the sums paid see TREADGOLD, W.: Byzantium and its Army 2841071. Stanford 1995, 193. See also POHL, W.: The Role of the Steppe Peoples in Eastern and Central Europe in the
First Millennium AD. In URBACZYK, P. (ed.): Origins of Central Europe. Warsaw 1997, 71. Most recently on the way of payment HARDT, M.: The Nomads greed for gold: from the fall of the Burgundians
to the Avar treasure. In CORRADINI, R. REIMITZ, H. DIESENBERGER, M. (eds.): The Construction of
Communities in the Early Middle Ages: Texts, Resources, Artefacts. Leiden 2002, 95107, esp. 104105.
Tax was not always paid in gold, but as the historian Theophylact Simocatta already explicitly stated, in
the form of merchandise of silver and of embroidered cloth. See Theophylaktos Simokattes, Historiae I.
3 in DE BOOR, C. (ed.): Theophylacti Simocattae historiae. Leipzig 1887.
47
Nikephoros, Breviarium (n. 12) (V) 13.19.
48
GERLAND (n. 1) 348. KAEGI ([n. 1] 121) dates this event to the turn of the years 623/624 AD.
49
Theodoros Synkellos (n. 10) 302. 1315.
50
From amongst the most important see in particular Georgius Monachus, Chronicon. Ed. C. DE
BOOR. Leipzig 1904, II. 669.720; Georgius Cedrenus, Compendium historiarum. In BEKKER, I.
(ed.): Georgius Cedrenus Ioannis Scylitzae ope. 2 vols. [Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae]. Bonn
1838/1839, 716; Ioannes Zonaras, Epitome historiarum XIV (lib. 1318). Ed. T. BTTNER-WOBST [Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae]. Bonn 1897, 205206. Among the Slavic translations of Byzantine
chronicles, see e.g. Kronika Georgija Amartola [Chronicle of Georgios Hamartolos]. Ed. V. M. ISTRIN.
St. Petersburg 1920, I 434.
Acta Ant. Hung. 51, 2011

324

MARTIN HURBANI

mennykh let mentions giants (Avars) who attacked the tsar Iraklij and almost captured him.51
The Orthodox Church had for a long time afterwards maintained the habit of
the pious commemoration of the Avar raid. Each year on 5th June, the terrible suffering inflicted upon us by the barbarian attack was commemorated.52 The inhabitants attributed the averting of the attack to an unexpected mercy that God and the
most blessed Mother of God sent down upon the city, therefore an annual ceremonial
procession would take place on this day.53 The procession, lead by the patriarch, used
to start at the Hagia Sofia Cathedral and proceed through the city towards the plateau
of Hebdomon the place where the Avars had gathered before they started rampaging the suburbs of Constantinople. From there the procession would continue to the
nearby Church of St. John the Baptist, where a liturgy would be held.54
The Orthodox Church also commemorated the return of the Virgins Robe to
the temple in Blachernes after the Avars had withdrawn. Each year on 2nd of July, a procession was held, starting in the Church of St. Lawrence, to the Church of the Holy
Mother of God, where, again, a mass would be served.55
The Avar incident lingered in the memory of the empires inhabitants. The unsuccessful effort to organize a meeting raises many questions even today. All the
information we have comes from the Greek sources, which in accord report of a premeditated act of perfidiousness against the peace-loving emperor Heraclius by the
untrustworthy Avars. The account of George of Pisidia is typical in this respect.56 By
cutting the escape route for the emperors entourage, the khagan may have wanted to
enforce better negotiating conditions.57 After his scheme was suddenly discovered,
he must have known that no peace treaty would be concluded. In the given situation,
he tried to gain at least some profit by pillaging the suburbs of Constantinople. In that
time, the Avars had not been planning to siege the capital, but they might have intended to surprise the defenders and occupy it. However, the understaffed garrison
was soon alarmed, Heraclius managed to return to the city and the attackers had to
content themselves with the loot from the suburbs and with the money that the emperor had probably offered them for their withdrawal. Of course, we cannot rule out
the possibility that the khagan wanted to seize the emperor and ask for a high ransom,

51

Povest vremennych let [The Russian Primary Chronicle]. Ed. D. LICHAEV. Moskva 1996, 10.
This mention probably comes from the Slavic translation of the Byzantine chronicle by Georgios Monachos (Hamartolos) from the 9th cent.
52
Patmos 266. In DMITRIEVSKIJ, A. (ed.): Opisanie liturgieskich knig I [The Description of Liturgical Books]. Kiev 1895, 7879.
53
Synaxarium ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae. Propylaeum ad ASS. Nov. ed. H. DELEHAYE.
Bruxelles 1902, col. 729731.
54
Hagios Stauros 40 and Patmos 266, both of them mention 5th June as the commemorative day:
Hagios Stauros 40. In MATEOS, J. (ed.): Le Typicon de la Grand glise I [Orientalia Christiana Analecta
165]. Rome 1962, 306. 34; Patmos 266 (n. 52) 7879.
55
Hagios Stauros 40 (n. 54) 328331.
56
Georgios Pisides, Bellum Avaricum (n. 13) vv. 110121.
57
POHL (n. 15) 246. Pohl does not decline such a possibility, although he considers the hypothesis
of a preconceived plan to capture the emperor more probable.
Acta Ant. Hung. 51, 2011

THE EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE AND THE AVAR KHAGANATE

325

or even to kill him. All in all, the entire incident can by no means be referred to as a
dirty barbarian trick, as it was interpreted by the chroniclers.58
SAMOS UPRISING
Whatever the khagans plans had been, his risky operation gained him a better position in further negotiations. The Avars must have known about Heraclius difficult
situation. Although an agreement with the empire would have ensured a stable income
in valuables for the khaganate, it was unsure for how long. The empire was on the
brink of collapse. Why did the Avars accept peace so suddenly when only a year before that they had largely contributed to its end?
According to a contemporary chronicle, the Avars returned after a successful
raid to Pannonia with rich loot. On their way, they met with no resistance at all.59
However, the reasons for their return might have been different. According to the
Chronicle of Fredegar, in the fortieth year of the reign of Chlothar, the king of the
Franks, i.e. sometime around 623 and 624 AD, a major uprising broke out.60
The uprising could hardly have taken place if the core of the Avar army had
been stationed in Pannonia, therefore it must have broken out when the Avar troops
were still in Thracia, i.e. probably during the summer of 623 AD.61 After they returned,
58
A very good illustration of this fact can be found in a trick by which the emperor Leo V tried to
dispose of the Bulgar khan Krum during the siege of Constantinople in 813 AD. Theophanes Confessor
(n. 8) 785; Theophanes Continuatus, Chronographia (lib. 16). In BEKKER, I. (ed.): Theophanes Continuatus: Ioannes Cameniata, Symeon Magister, Georgius Monachus [CSHB]. Bonn 1838, 61218. See also
BEEVLIEV, V.: Die protobulgarische Periode der bulgarischen Geschichte. Amsterdam 1981, 254256.
59
Chronicon Paschale (n. 19) 713.
60
Fredegar, Chronicon IV. c. 48. In KUSTERING, A. (ed.): Ausgewhlte Quellen zur deutschen
Geschichte des Mittelalters [FSGA Bd. 4a]. Darmstadt 1982. The chroniclers dating of the mentioned
event received heavy criticism from various researchers. According to B. Krusch, the chronicler included
this report accidentally in the 40th year of the reign of the Frank king Dagobert, despite the fact that the
mentioned report obviously reflects a longer period of time. In this regard, Krusch pointed out various
chronological problems in this part of the chronicle. See KRUSCH, B.: Die Chronicae des sogenannten
Fredegar. Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft fr ltere deutsche Geschichtskunde 7 (188) 434435. These
arguments were further developed by Gustav Schnrer, who discusses the report of the eastern Roman
envoys to the Longobard king Adloald (Fredegar, IV. c. 49), dated again to the 40th year of the reign of
king Dagobert by the chronicler, who moreover mentions Maurikios (582602 AD) as the ruling emperor,
instead of Heraclius (610641 AD). See SCHNRER, G.: Die Verfasser der sogenannten Fredegar-Chronik. Commissionsverl. der Universitaetsbuchhandl. Freiburg 1900, 111115. However, a Polish researcher,
Gerard Labuda, pointed out that in contrast with Fredegars report of Samo, the account of the Roman
embassy shows obvious features of a folk tale, which would explain the wrong chronology and confusion
in the names of the emperors. See LABUDA, G.: Pierwsze pastwo sowiaskie: pastwo Samona [The
first Slavic State: Samos State] Pozna 1949, 5293, in this regard esp. 8993.
61
According to Alexander Avenarius, the reason of Samos uprising was the Avar expansion into
the territories north of the middle Danube, inhabited by Slavs. (AVENARIUS, A.: Slovania v severozpadnom pomedz Avarskho kagantu [The Slavs on the north-western border of the Avar Khaganate].
In Zbornk prc udmile Kraskovskej k ivotnmu jubileu. Bratislava 1984, 154). In this regard we tend
to assume that the mentioned Avar expansion was a reaction to the uprising that was later joined by
Samo. This uprising probably had not originated in central Pannonia, but in its north-western periphery,
i.e. in the area of the Devn Gate near present-day Bratislava and the nearby areas on both banks of the

Acta Ant. Hung. 51, 2011

326

MARTIN HURBANI

the Avars had to concentrate their forces to fight the rebels; therefore it was also in
their interest to sign a new peace agreement with the Eastern Roman Empire. Meanwhile in the remote areas of the khaganate, the rebelling Slavs created new political
formations, their centre being represented by Samos Empire. This new constellation
of power came into being relatively swiftly, by 625 AD at the latest.62 The defeats
that the rebels inflicted upon the Avars have relatively shaken the khagans position.
If he wanted to maintain the prestige, he had to come up with a new spectacular
action that brought him before the walls of Constantinople in the summer of 626 AD.
As we know from the Chronicle of Fredegar, the riot was lead by the descendants of Avar men and Slavic women, whom the chronicler calls sons of the Huns,
i.e. the Avars. However, many current authors refuse such reports, considering them
a mere legend, spread in various countries.63 A similar story is mentioned by the
Greek historian Herodotos.64 However, Fredegar could not have been inspired by
him, since he spoke no Greek and was not familiar with the contemporary imperial,
let alone the classical Greek historiography. The existence of various ethnic groups
in Pannonia and in its outskirts can (despite a certain level of scepticism) be
identified according to archaeological criteria, while their mutual coexistence is
confirmed by certain Byzantine sources.65

Danube. Similarly in KUERA, M.: Vek Morava a zaiatky naich nrodnch dejn [Great Moravia and
the Beginnings of Our National History]. In Historick asopis 33 (1985) 181; LUTOVSK, M. PROFANTOV, N.: Smova e [Samos Empire]. Praha 1995, 5455. In this regard, also see POLEK, K.:
Frankowie a ziemie nad rodkowym Dunajem. Przemiany polityczne i etniczne w okresie merowiskim i
wczesnokaroliskim (do pocztku IX. w.) [The Franks and the Lands on the Middle Danube. Political
Changes during the Merovingian and Early Carolingian Period up to the Beginning of the 9th Century].
Krakow 2007, 183187. Other nuclei of the uprising may have been located in the area of Lower Austria.
Summarily on this topic also see FRITZE, W.: Zur Bedeutung der Awaren fr die slawische Ausdehnungsbewegung im frhen Mittelalter. In Zeitschrift fr Ostforschung 28 (1979) 519. After several defeats, the
Avars eventually augmented their military presence in the north-western territories of the khaganate,
which is confirmed by predominantly military graves of the Avar warriors found in these areas, dating
back to the second half of the 7th cent. In this regard, see STADLER, P.: Avar chronology revisited and the
question of the ethnicity in the Avar qaganate. In CURTA, F. (ed.): The Other Europe in the Middle Ages
Avars, Bulgars, Khazars, and Cumans. Leiden Boston New York 2008, 78.
62
See STEINHBEL, J.: Pvod a najstarie dejiny Nitrianskeho knieatstva [The Origin of Nitra
Principality and its Oldest History]. Historick asopis 46 (1998) 381385; STEINHBEL, J.: Nitrianske
knieatstvo [The Nitra Principality]. Bratislava 2004, 3031. However, the author assumes, in compliance
with the concept presented by D. TETK (Vznik Velk Moravy. Moravan, echov a stedn Evropa
v letech 791871. [The Beginning of Great Moravia. Moravians, Czechs and Middle Europe in the years
791 871] Praha 2001, 2628) that the nucleus of the uprising was located in the central part of Pannonia.
63
First to point to this fact was GRAFENAUER, B.: Nekaj vpraanj iz dobe naseljevanja junih Slovanov [Some problems concerning the migration and settlement of the Southern Slavs]. Zgodovinski asopis 4 (1950) 116. However, similar concerns had been voiced even before Grafenauers study was published.
Vernadsky thought that it was a legendary topos present in various countries that might have been transmitted to Fredegar. VERNADSKY, G.: The Beginning of the Czech State. Byzantion 17 (1944/45) 319.
64
Herodotus in this regard states that when the Scythians were returning from an expedition against
the Medes, they were challenged by the sons of Scythian women and slaves. The initiative is here accredited to the Scythian wives, in contrast with Fredegars report. Herodotus IV 23 (transl. J. par, Bratislava 1985).
65
Miracula sancti Demetrii in LEMERLE, P. (ed.): Les plus anciens recueils des miracles de Saint
Dmtrius et la pntration des Slaves dans les Balkans. Vol. I. Paris 1979, II 284286. LABUDA ([n. 60]
Acta Ant. Hung. 51, 2011

THE EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE AND THE AVAR KHAGANATE

327

But who actually instigated this uprising? The Frankish merchant Samo only
joined it after it had started. Similarly as it was in the case of the unexpected Avar
threat to the empire on the turn of 622 AD, neither in this case can we tell whether
the uprising was a spontaneous effort of the oppressed population of Pannonia, or an
indirect operation of the Persian or eastern Roman diplomacy. Heraclius and the Persian king Khusro II were undoubtedly looking for potential allies in all relevant regions. Could the Eastern Romans and their gold have been the real reason of the
Slavic riot in Pannonia?66 Although several researchers think it might have been so,
we have no direct evidence confirming such an alternative.67 It is highly improbable
that the imperial administrative apparatus would have directly contacted the opposition in the khaganate.68 Although we have to bear in mind that the empire had lost
control over the Balkan territory and its important communication routes, distance
was probably not the main reason for an indirect operation. On the other hand, we
cannot rule out the possibility that a secret message would have found a direct way to
Pannonia. The Romans and the Byzantines always tried to augment tensions between
enemies and thus weaken them. However, the sources indicate that the imperial diplomats only tried to instigate groups against the Avars who had a comprehensible political organization and power structure, such as the Turks, the Longobards, the Franks,
or possibly also the Slavic Ants.69 Had the emperor wanted to look for allies inside

106) as well as TETK ([n. 62] 26) consider Fredegars report of the young men of mixed origin in the
khaganate a mere legend, while Curta considers it a part of the ethnogenetic myth. For more details, see
CURTA, F.: Slavs in Fredegar and Paul the Deacon: medieval gens or scourge of God? Early medieval
Europe 6 (1997) 141167, esp. 151155; and most recently in CURTA, F.: The early Slavs in Bohemia
and Moravia: a response to my critics. Archeologick rozhledy 61 (2009) 130 esp. 1315. For the criticism of the latter concept, see PROFANTOV, N.: Kultura s keramikou praskho typu a problm en
slavinity do stedn Evropy. K lnku Florina Curty [The Prague-type pottery culture and the problem of
the diffusion of Slavinity into central Europe. On the article by Florin Curta]. Archeologick rozhledy 61
(2009) 303330, esp. 308; and BIERMANN, F.: Kommentar zum Aufsatz von Florin Curta: Utven Slovan (se zvltnm zetelem k echm a Morav [The Making of the Slavs (with a special emphasis on
Bohemia and Moravia)]. Archeologick rozhledy 61 (2009) 337349, esp. 344345.
66
STRATOS, A. N.: The Avars Attack on Byzantium in the Year 626. In Polychordia. Festschrift
Franz Dlger zum 75. Geburtstag. Byzantinische Forschungen 13 (196768) 371.
67
POHL (n. 15) 249.
68
Similar assumptions can be found in VERNADSKY (n. 63) 321; STRATOS (n. 66) 170171;
DITTEN (n. 8) 127; HALDON, J.: Byzantium in the Seventh Century. The Transformation of a Culture. Cambridge 1997, 47.
69
For the Eastern Roman policy towards the Turks during the reign of the emperors Justin II and
Tiberios, see POHL (n. 15) 4143, 66, 80. As far as the Longobards are concerned, we have reports that
during the siege of Sirmium the emperor Tiberios tried to create an alliance with them. However, the emperors diplomatic mission lead by the eunuch Narses was unsuccessful. See John of Ephesus, Historia
Ecclesiastica. In PAYNE-SMITH, R. (ed. and transl.): The Third Part of the Ecclesiastical History of John
of Ephesus. Oxford 1860, VI 3031. The Ants were amongst the potential allies of the Eastern Roman
Empire. On the turn of the years 577 and 578 AD, during the great Avar offensive in Thracia and the
Slavic occupation of the western parts of the Balkans, the emperor Maurikios instigated the Ants to attack
the settlements of the Low-Danube Slavs. Michael le Syrien (n. 42) X 21. This information was taken
over by Michael of Syria from the Ecclesiastical History by John of Ephesus from the 6th cent. In this regard see MARQUART, J.: Osteuropische und ostasiatische Streifzge. Leipzig 1903, 479488; WHITBY,
M.: The Emperor Maurice and his Historian: Theophylact Simocatta on Persian and Balkan Warfare.
Oxford 1988, 110112.
Acta Ant. Hung. 51, 2011

328

MARTIN HURBANI

the khaganate, he would rather have contacted other nomadic ethnicities such as the
Bulgars. Looking for partners among the mass of politically incomprehensible Slavs
might have posed a serious problem to the empire.
There was only one possibility for Heraclius in that time to weaken the influence of the Avars: through their strong and stable neighbours the Longobards and
the Franks. Especially the latter alternative seems to be feasible, despite the lack of
any concrete evidence.70 Heraclius might have lured the Franks with promises or
money and leave the concrete steps upon their own decision. The arrival of the unknown merchant Samo, who later became the leader of the uprising, undoubtedly suggests a direct interference by the Frank political scene.71 On the other hand, such an
action could not have had a clear support from the Eastern Roman Empire, if Heraclius had wanted to maintain and ensure lasting peace with the Avars in order to be
able to continue with the war against the Persians.
In any case, the temporary deterioration of the relations between the Eastern
Roman Empire and the Avar khaganate benefited the Persians. It is also possible that
they were somehow connected with the unexpected Avar threat in 622 AD. Although
due to the significant geographical distance it might have been difficult for them to
form an alliance with the Avars, such an alternative cannot be ruled out.72
Martin Hurbani
Department of History
Comenius University, Bratislava
Gondova 2
814 99 Bratislava
Slovakia
hurbanic@fphil.uniba.sk

70

Similarly in POLEK (n. 61) 180181. Unfortunately, the only relevant proof of the intended
alliance between the Eastern Roman Empire and the Franks against the Avars is related to the reign of the
emperor Maurikios. See Theophylact Simocatta (n. 46) VI 3. 7. In that period, the Avars were still only a
marginal problem for the Franks; otherwise the Frank message would have required gifts from Maurikios
for waging a war against the khagan. Although there are two Frank messages mentioned in Fredegars
chronicle that refer to Heraclius reign, they both correspond with the final part of his reign and do not
say anything about the potential alliance against the Avars. Fredegar (n. 60) IV c. 62 and 65.
71
AVENARIUS, A.: Die Awaren in Europa. Bratislava 1974, 136; POHL (n. 15) 256.
72
Similarly in LABUDA (n. 60) 191; HOWARD-JOHNSTON (n. 1) 15; REGAN, G.: First Crusader:
Byzantiums Holy Wars. Gloucestershire 2001, 88. For the possible PersianAvar contacts before 626
AD, see in particular SZDECZKY-KARDOSS, S.: Persisch-Awarische Beziehungen und Zusammenwirken
vor und whrend der Belagerung von Byzanz im Jahre 626. In Kontakte zwischen Iran, Byzanz und der
Steppe in 67. Jh. Hrsg. CS. BLINT [Varia Archaelogica Hungarica IX]. Budapest 2000, 313321; most
recently on this topic, HURBANI, M.: Historick svislosti a priny avarskho toku na Kontantnopol
roku 626 [The historical background and causes of Avars attack upon Constantinople in 626]. Vojensk
histria 12 (2008) 3, 323.
Acta Ant. Hung. 51, 2011