Kaloyan of Bulgaria
Kaloyan (
Bulgarian: Калоян,
Kalojan),
Ivan I (Иван I, also Йоан I,
Ioan I, in English
John I), ruled as emperor (
tsar) of
Bulgaria 1197-
1207. He was born in about
1168/
1169. The name
Kalojan (in Latin
Caloiohannes), signifies the "Good John" or the "Handsome John", and is derived from Greek
Kaloiōann"s, a standard augmentation of the names of Byzantine emperors named "John" (
Iōann"s) in the Komnenian and later periods. (
Byzantine opponents to Kaloyan dubbed him Skyloïōann"s
, or the "Dog Ioan".) Another of his nicknames was
Ioannitsa (Йоаница,
Ioannica), variously rendered
Ioannitza,
Ivanitsa (Иваница,
Ivanica), a diminutive form of Ivan or Ioan (equivalent to "John" in both Bulgarian and Romanian).
Kaloyan was a younger brother of
Peter IV (Petăr IV) of Bulgaria and
Ivan Asen I. In
1187 he was sent as a hostage to
Constantinople, from where he escaped and returned to Bulgaria about
1189. After the murder of Ivan Asen I in
1196, Peter IV associated Kaloyan as co-emperor. Peter IV was murdered himself in
1197, and Kaloyan became sole ruler of the country.
Kaloyan pursued his predecessors' aggressive policy against the
Byzantine Empire to the point of making an alliance with
Ivanko, the murderer of Ivan Asen I, who had entered Byzantine service in
1196 and had become governor of Philippopolis (
Plovdiv). Another ally of Kaloyan was
Dobromir Hriz (Chrysos), who governed the area of
Strumica. The coalition was quickly dissolved, as the Byzantines overcame both Ivanko and Dobromir Hriz. Nevertheless, Kaloyan conquered Konstanteia (
Simeonovgrad) in
Thrace and
Varna from the Byzantine Empire in
1201, and most of Slavic
Macedonia in
1202.
In
1202 King
Imre of
Hungary invaded Bulgaria and conquered the areas of
Belgrade, Braničevo (
Kostolac), and
Niš (which he turned over to his protege on the throne of
Serbia,
Vukan Nemanjić). Kaloyan retaliated in
1203, restoring Vukan's brother
Stefan Prvovenčani (Stefan the First-Crowned) in Serbia and recovering his lands after defeating the Hungarians. Ill-feeling between Bulgaria and the Hungarians continued until the intercession of
Pope Innocent III.
Innocent III had written to Kaloyan, inviting him to unite his Church with the
Roman Catholic Church, as early as
1199. Perhaps because of the conflict with Catholic Hungary, Kaloyan responded only in
1202, requesting that Innocent bestow on him the imperial crown that had been held by
Simeon I,
Peter I, and
Samuel. Kaloyan also wanted the Papacy to recognize the head of the Bulgarian Church as a Patriarch. The pope was not willing to make concessions on that scale, and when his envoy, Cardinal Leo, arrived in Bulgaria, he anointed the Archbishop Vasilij of Tărnovo as Primate of Bulgaria, and crowned Kaloyan as
rex Bulgarorum et Blachorum ("King of
Bulgarians and
Wallachians") or
rex Bulgarie et Blachie ("King of
Bulgaria and
Wallachia"), not emperor. Blithely Kaloyan wrote to the pope, thanking him for an imperial coronation and for the anointing of his patriarch; meanwhile, in an attempt to foster an alliance with Kaloyan, the Byzantine Emperor
Alexios III Angelos recognized his imperial title and promised him patriarchal recognition.
Immediately afterwards, in
1204, the
Fourth Crusade captured Constantinople and created the
Latin Empire, electing as emperor
Baldwin I of Flanders. Although Kaloyan had offered the crusaders an alliance against the Byzantine Empire, his offer had been spurned, and the Latin Empire expressed the intention of conquering all the lands of the former Byzantine Empire, including the territories ruled by Kaloyan. The impending conflict was precipitated by the Byzantine aristocracy in
Thrace, which rebelled against Latin rule in
1205 and called on Kaloyan for help, offering him its submission.
As the Latin Emperor Baldwin I began to subdue rebel cities and besieged Adrianople, in the words of the Crusader chronicler
Villehardouin,
"Johannizza, King of Wallachia, was coming to succour Adrianople with a very great host; for he brought with him Wallachians and Bulgarians, and full fourteen thousand Comans who had never been baptised" (Villehardouin, 92). On
April 14,
1205, Kaloyan's
Cumans managed to draw the pursuing heavy cavalry of the Latin Empire into an ambush in the marshes north of Adrianople, and Kaloyan inflicted a crushing defeat on the crusader army. Emperor Baldwin I was captured, Count
Louis I of Blois was killed, and the
Venetian Doge Enrico Dandolo led the surviving portions of the crusader army into a hasty retreat back to Constantinople, during the course of which he died of exhaustion. (
Baldwin was imprisoned in the Bulgarian capital Tărnovo until he died or was executed later in 1205.) During the course of
1205, Kaloyan captured
Serres and Philippopolis (
Plovdiv), overrunning much of the territory of the Latin Empire in Thrace and
Macedonia.
In spite of the initially welcome successes of Kaloyan against the Latins, the Byzantine aristocracy now began to rebel or conspire against his rule. Kaloyan also changed course, and turned mercilessly on his former allies, adopting the sobriquet
Rōmaioktonos ("Romanslayer"), as a counter-derivative from
Basil II's
Boulgaroktonos ("Bulgarslayer").
On
January 31,
1206 Kaloyan defeated the Latins again in Thrace, and later proceeded to capture
Didymoteikhon. The Bulgarians repeatedly ravaged Thrace, including the important cities of Herakleia and
Çorlu, and prompting the evacuation of other cities, such as Rodosto (
Tekirdağ). Whereas in the past Kaloyan had limited his oppression to the aristocracy, his later campaigns included wholesale transfer of populations from the captured cities to distant regions in Bulgaria.
Kaloyan besieged Adrianople twice, but failed to take the city because of the withdrawal of his Cuman cavalry, and the determined advance of the new Latin emperor, Baldwin I's brother
Henry of Flanders. In
1207 Kaloyan concluded an anti-Latin alliance with
Theodore I Laskaris of the
Empire of Nicaea. In the same year, Kaloyan's troops killed
Boniface of Montferrat (
September 4,
1207), the Latin ruler of the
Kingdom of Thessalonica. Seeking to take advantage of that situation, Kaloyan advanced on the city and besieged it with a large force, but was murdered by his own Cuman commander Manastăr at the beginning of October
1207. In keeping with tradition, the citizens of
Thessalonica attributed the slaying of Kaloyan to their patron,
Saint Demetrios.
The sources on Kaloyan's reign are for the most part foreign (Byzantine and Latin) and hostile, stressing his brutality and cruelty. Some of this ruthlessness has been ascribed specifically to his Cuman federates, while others have pointed out that Kaloyan's most repressive policies were aimed at the destruction of the enemy elite, while commoners were often treated with mercy. One of the stories about the demise of the Latin Emperor Baldwin describes his cruel dismemberment by an enraged Kaloyan, whose wife had falsely alleged that Baldwin had propositioned her, when he had in fact spurned her advances. The story is reminiscent of Joseph and Potiphar's wife, but fit well with the hostility of contemporary sources, which also suggest occasional outbirsts of rage. Kaloyan's corpse (together with his personal signet ring
[http://www.rightnotprivilege.org/layout/home/tsar.jpg]) was discovered buried in the Church of the Holy Forty Martyrs in
Tărnovo. Forensic examination of the skull has revealed damage to the head incurred in youth, which may have pressed against the brain and occasionally caused considerable pain and outbirsts of rage or madness. On the other hand, Bulgarian sources emphasize Kaloyan as a successful conqueror who enhanced his capital with the collection of holy relics.
Kaloyan's wife was a member of the Cuman aristocracy, who is unnamed, unless she is the Anna (nun Anisija) mentioned in the Synodik of the Bulgarian Church. After Kaloyan's death, she married his successor Boril. By this marriage Kaloyan had at least one daughter and possibly a son:# unnamed daughter (called without basis Marija), who married the Latin Emperor
Henry and died after
1216.# Bethlehem (Vitleem), possibly illegitimate.
When referring to Kaloyan's realm and subjects, contemporary Crusader sources (including the works of
Geoffroy de Villehardouin, Henri de Valenciennes, Robert de Clari, and the letters of the Latin Emperor
Henry of Flanders) represent Kaloyan as
King of Wallachia, ruler of
Wallachians and leader of
Wallachian armies, and sometimes as ruler of
Wallachians and Bulgarians. Such sources talk mostly of
Wallachians and call Ioanitsa a
Wallachian and "lord of Wallachians" (
Blachorum domino)
[LITTERAE HENRICI, FRATRIS IMPERATORIS AD PAPAM INNOCENTIUM III: Porro, audito a Joannitio, Blachorum domino, quod Latini in tanta virorum paucitate civitatem praedictam obsedissent, quem etiam Graeci in auxilium suum, occulte tamen, ut magis laederent, evocarant, irruit subito Blachus ille Joannitius in nostros cum multitudine Barbarorum innumera, Blachis videlicet, Commannis et aliis, quibus etiam nimis improvise obviam exeuntibus nostris.]. At the same time in some of these cases the terms "Wallachians" and "Bulgarians" appear to be interchangeable (for example, in Villehardouin's description of the composition of Kaloyan's army before and after the battle of Adrianople
[pages 96 and 102, Villehardouin's account of the Fourth Crusade]).
Contemporary papal and native sources name Kaloyan ruler of
(omnium) Bulgarorum atque Blachorum ("(all) Bulgarians and Wallachians"), of
(totius) Bulgarie ac Blachie ("(all) Bulgaria and Wallachia"), or simply of
Bulgaria/Bulgarians in the diplomatic exchange. Similarly, the head of the church (Archbishop Vasilij of
Tărnovo) is described as presiding over
Bulgarorum et Blacorum Ecclesiam ("the Bulgarian and Wallachian Church"). Other native sources, used domestically, including the lead seals of the Bulgarian rulers from
Ivan Asen I to
Boril use the term "emperor of the Bulgarians", as do the literary sources (for example the
Synodik of Boril) together with the terms "Bulgarian land", and "Bulgarian tongue".
The contemporary Byzantine historian
Niketas Choniates alternates interchangeably between the terms
Mysoi,
Boulgaroi, and
Blachoi for the people, preferring
Mysia for the country, and
Blachos for describing persons and language. It is inferred that geographically the medieval
Wallachia in question (distinct from both
Great Wallachia in Thessaly and the later
Wallachia north of the Danube), overlaps with the former Roman province of
Moesia Inferior (Greek
Mysia, Choniates, 481), as distinct from the Byzantine theme of Bulgaria further west (Choniates, 488). This distinction is corroborated by a slightly earlier contemporary, the chronicler of the
Third Crusade, who describes Kaloyan's predecessors as rulers "of the Wallachians and the greater part of the Bulgarians" (
Blacorum et maxime partis Bulgarorum) in 1189 (Ansbert, 58).
The evidence of much later works involves various levels of contradictory inference. For example, the Venetian chronicle of Paolo Ramusio, finished in 1573 and printed in Italian and Latin from 1604 to 1634, states that
Mysia (
Moesia Inferior) ( was composed of the provinces of
Wallachia and
Bulgaria [Paolo Ramusio (Paulus Rhamnusius), DE BELLO CONSTANTINOPOLITANO: "Unus Ioannissa Rex Mysorum (is inferiorem Mysiam tenabat, quae Valachiae et Bulgariae provincias complectitur)" Ramusio's work is largely a derivative of Villehardouin, supplemented by some Byzantine and Vatican sources as well as general antiquarian knowledge.]. The contemporary work of Mauro Orbini,
Il Regno degli Slavi, published in Pesaro in 1601, cites similar sources but virtually ignores "Wallachians" and uses "Bulgarians" throughout, but his interpretation is a matter of controversy
[The book of Mauro Orbini, "Il Regno degli Slavi, hoggi corrottamente detti Schiavoni", is considered an example of "pro-Slavic" stance. Banned by the Vatican when it appeared, it claimed direct descent of the Slavs from the Illyrians.].
The modern implications of these names are ethnic and cultural rather than geographical, and they are fiercely disputed. Much can be conjectured from them concerning the Romance-speaking and Slavic-speaking populations over which Kaloyan ruled, the precise extent of his empire, and his own ethnic connections. These formulae and descriptions emphasise that his power drew on more than one source. He desired to link himself to the former
Bulgarian Empire, stressing the Papal origins of his crown by claiming (perhaps with some accuracy), that the
Papacy had granted an imperial crown to the rulers of the First Bulgarian Empire, as noted above. In his correspondence with him, Pope Innocent III suggested that Kaloyan was descended both from the emperors of the First Bulgarian Empire, and from the nobility of the city of Rome. Both suggestions may be flattering fiction, but were readily accepted and taken up by Kaloyan.
* John V.A. Fine, Jr.,
The Late Medieval Balkans, Ann Arbor, 1987.
* (primary source) Niketas Choniates,
Nicetae Choniatae Historia, Bonn, 1835.
* (primary source) Magoulias, Harry J. (transl.). O City of Byzantium, Annals of Niketas Choniates, 1984, ISBN 0814317642
* (primary source) Ansbert,
Historia de expeditione Friderici imperatoris, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores, n.s. 5, 15-70.
* Mauro Orbini,
Il Regno di Slavi, Pesaro, 1601.
*
Detailed list of Bulgarian rulers*
Part of correspondence between Kaloyan and Pope Innocent III*
Villehardouin's account of the Fourth Crusade
