Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Responses to the Problem of Banditry in the Medieval Balkans

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Banditry in the Medieval Balkans, 800-1500

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

  • 175 Accesses

Abstract

The evidence presented thus far leaves little doubt that banditry represented a considerable problem for most Balkan states, as it made travel and commercial activity in certain areas particularly hazardous. One suspects that banditry festered partly as a result of the inability or reluctance of central authorities to devote substantial resources, whether human or financial, in order to restore peace and security. These precursory observations allow us to formulate the aim of this chapter. The guiding questions are simply: how did the authorities attempt to control the threat of banditry, and how truly successful were these efforts?

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Hostes hi sunt, qui nobis aut quibus nos publice bellum decrevimus. Ceteri latrones aut praedones sunt; Corpus iuris civilis, I, 50.16.118, 861 (Trans.: Watson, IV, 406). The same definition appears in later legal texts: Πολέμιοί εἰσιν οἱ κρίνοντες πρὸς ἡμᾶς και ἡμεῖς πρὸς αὐτοὺς δημόσιον πόλεμον. Οἱ δἐ μη τοιοῦτοι λῃσταί εἰσι; Basilika, IV, 34.1.24, 1556; Troianos 2014, 201; Ziegler 1980, 93–103.

  2. 2.

    Κλέπτας δὲ καλοῦμεν τοὺς λάθρα καὶ ἄνευ ὅπλων τὰ τοιαῦτα πλημμελοῦντας· τοὺς γὰρ βιαίως ἐπερχομένους ἢ μετὰ ὅπλων ἢ χωρὶς ὅπλων, ἐν οἴκῳ ἢ ἐν ὁδῷ ἢ ἐν θαλάσσῃ, τὰς ἀπὸ τὼν νόμων κελεύομεν ὑπομένειν ποινάς; Corpus iuris civilis, III, 134.13, 688 (Trans.: Miller and Sarris, II, 555).

  3. 3.

    Ὁ λῃστεύων καὶ ἔνεδρα ποιῶν καὶ φονεύων, ἐν ᾧ κρατεῖται τόπῳ φουρκιζέσθω; Ecloga , 17.50, 242 (Trans.: 76). For the furca , see Speck 1990.

  4. 4.

    Οἱ τὰς ἐφόδους ποιοῦντες διὰ τὸ πραιδεῦσαι ἐοίκασι τοῖς λῃσταῖς, καὶ ἐὰν τοῦτο μετὰ σιδήρου ποιῶσι καὶ πολλάκις καὶ ἐν ταῖς ὁδοῖς, εἰς κεφαλὴν κολάζονται; Basilika, VIII, 60.51.26, 3079.

  5. 5.

    Ὁ λῃστὴς, ἤγουν ὀ ἐνέδρας πρὸς ἐπιβουλῆν ἀνθρώπων ποιῶν, ἐπὶ τοῦ τόπου φουρκιζέσθω; Eklogadion, 17.9, 71 (Trans.: 78); Troianos 1980, 23–26.

  6. 6.

    Οἱ ἐπίσημοι λῃσταὶ ἐν τοῖς τόποις ἐν οἷς ἐπλημμέλησαν φουρκίζονται; Hexabiblos, 6.6.24–25, 356.

  7. 7.

    Οἱ ἐπίσημοι λῃσταὶ ἐν τοῖς τόποις, έν οἷς ἐπλημμέλησαν ἀνασταυροῦνται [….]; Matthew Vlastares, Syntagma, 334, 353.

  8. 8.

    Basilika, VIII, 60.27.1, 2926; Troianos 2014, 202.

  9. 9.

    Τό μέντοι γεγονὸς εἰς τὸν περιβόητον λῃστὴν τὸν Πετρίλον, ὡς ὁ τὴν καθ’ ἡμᾶς πολιτείαν ἰθύνων λόγος ἐξακριβοῦται, εὖ λογίζεται φόνος· ἀλλὰ τῶν μὲν προλαβόντων φόνων καὶ κακώσεων ἔκτισις, τῶν παρ’ αὐτοῦ δηλαδή εἰργασμένων, εἰς ἄπειρα πλήθη ἀνδρῶν, τῶν ἐφεξῆς δὲ κωλύμη, καὶ τῶν μελλόντων παθεῖν ἀπολύτρωσις· εἰ γὰρ ἔτι ζῆν εἷχεν ὁ κάκιστος, πόσοι ἔμελλον ὑπὸ ταῖς ἐκείνου χερσὶν ἀπολέσαι τὸ ζῆν; Demetrios Chomatenos, Ponemata, 364, no. 110. For the Slavic origin of Petrilo, see Dželebdžić 2006, 494.

  10. 10.

    οὐ γὰρ εἰς ἁμαρτίαν λογισθήσεται ἡ ἐκείνου ἀπώλεια, ἐπείπερ εἰς κοινὸν ὄφελος γέγονεν; Demetrios Chomatenos, Ponemata, 364–365, no. 110.

  11. 11.

    See Zakon’ soudnyj ljud’m. I would like to express my gratitude to Dr Kiril Nenov for providing me with a copy of this text. There is still a wide debate concerning the (Moravian or Bulgarian) origin of the text; see, for instance, Andreev 1963, 331–344; Procházka 1968, 112–150; Angelini 2015, 484–498. The short version was attributed to the ninth century on the basis of a number of archaic linguistic features. See Biliarsky 2014, 216–227.

  12. 12.

    Zakon sudnyj ljudem (prostannoj redakcii), 40, 70, 107, 146 .

  13. 13.

    Solovjev 1998, 401–415; Alexandrov 2012; Angelini 2013, 488–501.

  14. 14.

    Fine 1987, 314.

  15. 15.

    Specifically, articles 103, 118, 126, 143, 145, 146, 149, 150, 157, 158, 159, 160, 180, 183 and 191.

  16. 16.

    Dokumenti Srpskih vladara, 129–130, no. 1; 134, no. 3; 138, no. 5; 149–150, no. 10; 153, no. 11; 173, no. 21; 184, no. 29; 269, no. 84. In some cases (nos. 16, 29, 84) promises of compensation for loss of goods were made.

  17. 17.

    Listine, I, 377; II, 75–76.

  18. 18.

    Burr 1950, 519.

  19. 19.

    Article 160: “If it so happen that any traveller, merchant or monk be robbed of aught by brigand or thief, or be in any way detained, let them all come to me and I will repay them what they have lost and I will recover it from the prefects and lords to whom the patrolling of the road was entrusted. And let any traveller, merchant or Latin come to the first guard with all that he has and bears with him, that the guard deliver him to guard all the way. And if it so happen that he lose aught, there is the jury of trusty men, and whatsoever they shall swear upon their soul to those jurors, that shall the prefects and guards pay them”; Zakonik, 210–211 (Trans.: 530–531); Solovjev 1980, 304–305.

  20. 20.

    Article 118: “No man, noble or other, may molest merchants who travel about the Tsar’s dominions, nor rob them by force nor scatter their merchandise, nor take their money by force. Whosoever shall be found seizing or robbing their merchandise shall pay five hundred”; Zakonik, 192–193 (Trans.: 519); Solovjev 1980, 273–274.

  21. 21.

    Article 159: “When merchants come for a lodging for the night, if the reeve or headman of the village do not admit them to rest in the village according to my law as it is in the code, if the traveller lose aught, that reeve or headman shall pay all, for not having admitted him to the village”; Zakonik, 210 (Trans.: 530); Solovjev 1980, 304.

  22. 22.

    “If there be robbery or theft on urban land around a town, let the neighbourhood pay for it all”; Zakonik, 196 (Trans.: 522); Solovjev 1980, 280.

  23. 23.

    “If there be an unpopulated hill between two counties, the neighbouring villages which are around the hill shall keep the watch. If they fail to keep watch, whatsoever happen on that hill in the wilderness by way of damage or robbery or theft or any crime, then shall those neighbouring villages pay, to whom it has been ordered to keep the watch”; Zakonik, 210 (Trans.: 530); Solovjev 1980, 303–304.

  24. 24.

    “If a brigand steal the Tsar’s swine, let the neighbourhood pay. When swine are stolen, let the swineherd be judged with the county, as the court may decide”; Zakonik, 221 (Trans.: 537); Solovjev 1980, 327–328.

  25. 25.

    Zakonik, 204–205 (Trans.: 526); Solovjev 1980, 293–294.

  26. 26.

    Zakonik, 205 (Trans.: 526); Solovjev 1980, 294–295.

  27. 27.

    “If any brigand, coming through a frontier province, rob anywhere and again return with his booty, let the Warden of the Marches pay sevenfold”; Zakonik, 203 (Trans.: 525); Solovjev 1980, 292.

  28. 28.

    Article 157: “Where there are mixed counties, ecclesiastical and Imperial villages, or seigneurial, and all the villages are mixed, and there is not one lord over the whole county, but if there are prefects and judges whom I have appointed, let them place guards on all roads, and let them hand over the roads to the prefects, to keep them with their guards, and if anyone rob or steal or do any crime, let recourse be had forthwith to the prefect, who shall pay him from his own house, and the prefects and patrols shall seek the robbers and thieves”; Zakonik, 209–210 (Trans.: 530); Solovjev 1980, 303.

  29. 29.

    Article 149: Zakonik, 206 (Trans.: 527); Solovjev 1980, 296.

  30. 30.

    Article 150: Zakonik, 206–207 (Trans.: 527); Solovjev 1980, 296–297.

  31. 31.

    Article 183: Zakonik, 219 (Trans.: 535); Solovjev 1980, 322–323.

  32. 32.

    Lam. de foris, XVII, 244; Kurtović 2012, 29–30.

  33. 33.

    Fine 1987, 317. Similar measures can be found in western Europe. For some examples see Reuter 2006, 62–63.

  34. 34.

    See the discussion in Chap. 5.

  35. 35.

    Article 180: “If anyone find aught robbed or stolen or taken by force, let each party in the case give evidence. If anyone buy anything, either in the territories of my empire or in another land, let him give evidence touching it, and if he produce no evidence, let him pay according to the law”; Zakonik, 218 (Trans.: 534–535); Solovjev 1980, 320–321.

  36. 36.

    Odabrani spomenici, 170; Popović 2012, 167. For the confusion between priselica and preselica (the right of the ruler, his nobles, state officials, envoys and foreign ambassadors of demanding board and lodging when they travelled through the country, see Blagojević 1971, 165–188; Blagojević 2009.

  37. 37.

    See, for instance, Listine, III, 263.

  38. 38.

    For the history of local legislation in Dubrovnik, see Statute of Dubrovnik, 7–9. I would like to thank Dr Nella Lonza for allowing me access to this volume.

  39. 39.

    Statute of Dubrovnik, 8, 11.

  40. 40.

    See Chap. 5.

  41. 41.

    Article 6, book 5: Statute of Dubrovnik, 230–231. See also Lonza 2014.

  42. 42.

    Articles 1 and 3, book 5: Statute of Dubrovnik, 228–229.

  43. 43.

    See, for example, Kurtović 2012, 36, 83–84.

  44. 44.

    Diplome, 95–96.

  45. 45.

    Magina 2013, 74–75.

  46. 46.

    Rǎdvan 2010, 199. Once the fine was paid, the members of the community could acquire compensation by selling a part of the property that belonged to the criminal.

  47. 47.

    Documente privitoare, 81, no. 56; Rǎdvan 2010, 207–208.

  48. 48.

    Blagojević 1999, 292–295; Ćirković 2004, 70–71.

  49. 49.

    Zakonik, 209–210 (Trans.: 530).

  50. 50.

    Andreev 1967, 15–16; Biliarsky 1994, 553–562; Biliarsky 2011, 271–272, 371–373.

  51. 51.

    Life of Romylos of Vidin, 129 (Trans.: 36).

  52. 52.

    Zakonski spomenici, 401, 448, 498, 512, 514; Solovjev 1980, 303.

  53. 53.

    διατηρηθήσονται δὲ ταῦτα πάντα ἁνενόχλητα καθόλου καὶ ᾁδιάσειστα καὶ ἀνεπηρέαστα έκ πάντων τῶν δημοσιακῶν κεφαλῶν καὶ ἀπαιτημάτων [….] τοῦ μὴ ἔχειν ἄδειαν τολμῆσαι τις ἐκβαλεῖν τινὰ ἀπὸ τῶν τοιοῦτων χωρίων τῆς τοιαύτης μονῆς, μήτε βίγλαν πεζὸν ἢ καβαλλάριν; Actes de Zographou, 78, no. 33; Bartusis 1992, 319.

  54. 54.

    Schatzkammer, 128, no. 45–46 ΙΙ; 127, no. 45–46 I; Bartusis 1992, 318. Similarly, in late medieval Transylvania (and elsewhere in the Hungarian realm) nobles whose estates were menaced by soldiers-turned-brigands had the right to arm their peasants in order to defend their property; Decreta regni mediaevalis Hungariae, decree of 25 January 1486, xxxi, 55–56.

  55. 55.

    Sigalas 1930, 344–345. These paroikoi were transferred by Demetrios to the Athonite monastery of Vatopedion.

  56. 56.

    Zakonski spomenici, 428. Likewise, from Kantakouzenos we hear that roads were guarded by men who were given this duty by the emperor; John Kantakouzenos, Histories, I, 210.

  57. 57.

    Popović 2012, 166 and 164 for the Kozjak route. As Popović points out, his hypothesis seems to be corroborated by the reference, in a charter from 1377, to the village Vardišta, some five km southwest of Gorni Kozjak. The name of the village seems to be derived from the Greek vardia (guard, watchman).

  58. 58.

    For a discussion, see Solovjev 1926, 187–188; Bubalo 2004, 148–154; Petrović 2015, 107–114.

  59. 59.

    Zakonski spomenici, 496; Povelje, 412–413. For the vigliatikon, see Bartousis 1992, 147, 311.

  60. 60.

    Nikeph. Gregoras, Letters, 108, no. 32a.

  61. 61.

    Pijović 2018, 250–251 n. 717.

  62. 62.

    For similar measures taken in thirteenth-century England, see Clanchy 1980, 42–43; see also Prestwich 1988, 280.

  63. 63.

    Article 133: Zakonik, 198 (Trans.: 523); and article 156: Zakonik, 209 (Trans.: 529–530); Solovjev 1980, 284–285, 301–302.

  64. 64.

    Article 159: Zakonik, 210 (Trans.: 530); Solovjev 1980, 304–305.

  65. 65.

    Article 125: Zakonik, 195–196 (Trans.: 521); Solovjev 1980, 279. See also our comments in Chap. 3.

  66. 66.

    For the account of Mathew Gavalas, bishop of Ephesos, who describes how one of his companions encountered a group of local brigands at an inn near the town of Vrysis in Thrace, see Matthew of Ephesos, Letters, 193, and Chap. 5. Moreover, George Oinaiotes, in a letter describing a journey from Constantinope to Mount Ganos, some 20 km southwest of Rhaidestos, speaks of the dangers posed by some inkeepers (οὐ ξενοδόχους εὕρομεν φονικόν ὁρώντας); Ahrweiler 1996, 24; Karpozilos 1993, 533. For crimes committed in taverns and inns in the area of Dubrovnik, see Ravančić 1998. For attacks perpetrated in English inns and hostels, see Röhrkasten 1990, 369.

  67. 67.

    See, for instance, Matthew of Ephesos, Letters, 197. However, in August 1318, in the aftermath of Stefan Milutin’s campaign in the hinterland of Dubrovnik, the council of that city forbade foreigners entering its territory from carrying arms; Pijović 2018, 261–262 n. 752. For the background of the Nemanjid involvement in the region, see Fine 1987, 209–211.

  68. 68.

    The examples of the embassies of Theodore Metochites in 1299 and Nikephoros Gregoras 1327, both consisting of several men, have already been mentioned.

  69. 69.

    The brigands are said to have stolen a number of “excellent horses” from the Byzantine party; George Pachymeres, History, II, 454–457.

  70. 70.

    Životi kraljeva, 345–346.

  71. 71.

    Τὰ γὰρ σατανικὰ παίγνια, ἃ νεδάλας μὲν βαρβαρικῶς καλοῦσιν οἱ Βούλγαροι, νυκτερινὰς δὲ ἔχουσιν ἀνδρῶν ἐπιμιξίας ἐπὶ τὸ παίζειν δῆθεν συναγομένων, κἀντεῦθεν τὰ τοῦ σκότους ἔργα χυδαῖα τελούμενα, φθορὰς δὲ σωμάτων καὶ μοιχείας, ἔτι κλοπὰς καὶ ἐμπρησμοὺς καὶ λῃστείας καὶ ὅσα τούτοις ἑπόμενα κωλύεσθαι παρὰ τῶν ἱερέων τῆς τοιαύτης ἐνορίας; Ekloge, 185.

  72. 72.

    Kretzenbacher 1982, 106–130; Podskalsky 2000, 33–34 n. 138. For information on the Rousalia, another festival which is likewise rooted in pagan culture, but which in Christian times was celebrated during Pentecost, see Demetrios Chomatenos, Ponemata, 387–389, no. 120.

  73. 73.

    Ekloge, 185. See also the discussion in Messis 2018, 269–274; Kaldelis 2017, 30; Iliev 2010, 233 n. 381.

  74. 74.

    For an overview of the evidence, see Bogdanović 2012; Ćurčić 1997a, 19–51.

  75. 75.

    Smyrlis 2016, 193, 194.

  76. 76.

    For a survey, see Zikos 1998; Papangelos 2000; Bogdanović 2012.

  77. 77.

    Bogdanović 2012, 188–190; Smyrlis 2016, 192–193; Zikos 1998. In the Athonite tower of Kolitsou, built in the 1370s, the entrance is almost five metres above ground. This, however, is an exception; Theocharides 1997a, 218–219.

  78. 78.

    Bogdanović 2012, 188; Theocharides 1997b, 220.

  79. 79.

    Smyrlis 2016, 195.

  80. 80.

    Schatzkammer, 249, no. 93; Ostrogorski 1971, 227–228, 233–234; Bartusis 1992, 316.

  81. 81.

    Lappa-Zizicas 1981, 268.

  82. 82.

    ἀλλ’ ὁ θαυμάσιος οὗτος καὶ ὑψηλότατος βασιλεὺς τῶν Βουλγάρων [….] διὰ ταῦτα καὶ πύργον ἐκ βάθρων ἀνοικοδομεῖ στερρότατον καὶ ἰσχυρὸν εἰς ὕψος τε ἐπηρμένον καὶ πλατυνόμενον εὐρυχωρίᾳ καὶ εἰς κάλλ ος σὺν κόσμῳ πανταχόθεν ἀπεξεσμένον; Life of Gregory of Sinai, 344; Life of Theodosios of Tǎrnovo, 14. For the chrysobull issued by Ivan Alexander in favour of the monasteries of Paroria, see Tachiaos 1983.

  83. 83.

    Actes de Kutlumus, 56, no. 9.

  84. 84.

    Actes de Dionysiou, 91, no 13; Smyrlis 2016, 199, no. 14. Somewhat later, a tower was raised at the monastery of Dionysiou for defence against pirates; Life of Dionysios of Athos, 57.

  85. 85.

    Actes de Xèropotamou, 206, no. 28.

  86. 86.

    Thomas of Split, History, 236–237.

  87. 87.

    Theocharides 1989, 59–70; Ćurčić 1997b, 216–217; Androudis 2012, 301; Marković 2016, 64, 67, 71; Pavlikianov 2017, 417. Bakirtzis 2012 argues that the tower of St Basil belonged to a monastic complex.

  88. 88.

    Theocharides 1997a, 218–219.

  89. 89.

    Smyrlis 2016, 201, no. 28.

  90. 90.

    Lefort 2006, 157; Dunn 1982, 607; Dunn 1990, 323; Theocharides–Papaggelos 1997, 222–223.

  91. 91.

    Some examples are offered by Bogdanović 2012, 196–197.

  92. 92.

    Smyrlis 2016, 195–196.

  93. 93.

    Smyrlis 2016, 196 and 197–203 with a list of estate fortifications built in the region between the late tenth and early fifteenth centuries.

  94. 94.

    Life of Gregory of Sinai, 346–347. From the Greek Life of St Romylos of Vidin, written by the monk Gregory, we hear that the saint, who had withdrawn for a while to Stara Zagora, returned to Paroria as soon as he heard that Ivan Alexander prosecuted (i.e. punished with death) the local brigands: τούτων οὕτως ἐχόντων μανθάνουσιν ὅτι ἡ ἒρημος τῶν Παρορίων καλῶς ἔχει, ἅτε τοῦ βασιλέως Ἀλεξάνδρου ἀπειλησαμένου σφοδρῶς τοῖς λωπυδύταις καὶ λῃσταῖς τοῖς ἔθος ἔχουσι πειράζειν τοὺς τοῦ θεοῦ δούλους [καὶ] ὡς, εἰ μὴ παύσαιντο, κεφαλικῶς αὐτοὺς ἐκτιμωρεῖσθαι; Life of Romylos of Vidin, 126 (Trans.: 34).

  95. 95.

    [….] ού μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ τὴν ὁδὸν λῃστῶν καθαρεύειν οὐ μικρόν; Manuel II Palaiologos, Letters, 132, no. 45.

  96. 96.

    Reuter 2006, 42–44.

  97. 97.

    Oikonomides 1996, 13.

  98. 98.

    Theodore Metochites, Presbeutikos, 98.

  99. 99.

    Nikeph. Gregoras, Letters, 106, no. 32a.

  100. 100.

    Odabrani spomenici, 170.

  101. 101.

    See the discussion in Chap. 5 of this study.

  102. 102.

    See, for instance, Matthew of Ephesos, Letters, 193. For several other examples, see Karpozilos 1993, 528–529.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece

    Panos Sophoulis

Authors
  1. Panos Sophoulis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Sophoulis, P. (2020). Responses to the Problem of Banditry in the Medieval Balkans. In: Banditry in the Medieval Balkans, 800-1500. New Approaches to Byzantine History and Culture. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55905-2_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55905-2_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-55904-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-55905-2

  • eBook Packages: HistoryHistory (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation