"Buffer states" as an instrument of Byzantine foreign policy in Italy in the 9 - mid-11th centuries (according to tangible and written sources)

Baranenko Pavel Andreevich ORCID: 0009-0006-3400-9451 Postgraduate student; Institute of Social Sciences and International Relations; Sevastopol State University 6 Strawberry Street, Sevastopol, 299023, Russia PavelNichey@yandex.ru

Hapaev Vadim Vadimovich ORCID: 0009-0008-0535-9617 Doctor of History Associate Professor; Department of Universal History and World Culture; Sevastopol State University 299011, Russia, Sevastopol region, Sevastopol, Gogol str., 7, sq. 11 khapaev007@mail.ru

In the 9th – first quarter of the 11th century, during the Macedonian Renaissance, the Romaic Empire possessed sufficient military and economic potential to act as a center of gravity for small states. But gradually this potential decreased. The southern part of Italy, where several Byzantine femes were located, bordered on small states (mainly Lombard duchies). Like other border territories of the empire, the Italian femes were in constant danger, both from the north and especially from the south – from the Arabs. Byzantium had to respond to emerging threats by using economic, diplomatic and military resources.

The vast extent of the empire's borders and the presence of several exclaves separated by the sea forced the Basileos to look for non-standard ways to organize their defense. One of these measures was the creation of a femic system during the 7th–8th centuries. By the time of the accession of the Macedonian House (867), an important factor in strengthening the borders was the formation of a "security belt" of semi-independent and loyal states, which individually did not pose a threat to Byzantium and protected it from external aggression. As a rule, such "belts" were located between the empire and its enemies (both potential and actual). The position of the states that voluntarily or involuntarily performed the function of protecting the Byzantine borders coincides with the modern definition of buffer states ^[1]. This was the structure of the eastern border of the empire in the 9th–11th centuries ^[2]; somewhat earlier, the processes of forming a "buffer" began in the Italian region.

The issue of the formation of a buffer zone in Southern Italy, which included the Lombard principalities, is absent from scientific discourse. But the political history of this region has been studied in sufficient detail in both domestic and foreign studies. The existence of semi-independent principalities on the Byzantine borders in the Apennines is traditionally presented as a negative factor, which subsequently led the empire to the loss of Italian possessions. Such a point of view can be found both in the generalizing works of Russian historians (pre–revolutionary and Soviet) - F.I. Uspensky ^{[3, 4]}, A.A. Vasiliev ^[5], S.D. Skazkin ^[6], and in the fundamental research of the British Byzantine J. Shepard's ^[7]. The processes of development of the Lombard principalities and the entire Southern Italian region were also studied by G.A. Laud ^[8], Barbara M. Kreutz ^[9], N. Christie ^[10]. The history of the Byzantine pheme of Lombardy during the reign of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus was studied by N.A. Oikonomides ^[11] and A. Pertuzi ^[12].

O.R. Borodin ^[13], M.A. Kurysheva ^[14], P.A. Ryazanov ^[15], A.B. Tselunov ^[16], Biagio Pace ^[17], Peter Charanis ^[18] and a number of other researchers studied the history of the Romani possessions in Italy. They touch upon the socio-economic, administrative, and cultural aspects of the history of Byzantine Italy. The military aspect of the processes that took place in the Byzantine provinces (first the Ducats, and then the Femes that replaced them) is characterized by A.S. Mokhov ^[19]. In the works of other authors, the military and political history of the region is considered indirectly.

The material monuments of the era we are studying are the Byzantine temples of Southern Italy, as well as their mosaics and frescoes, and other decorative elements. Most of the Byzantine temples and fortresses were demolished in the classical Middle Ages (either by the Normans or the Arabs), and new churches and fortifications were erected in their place. Temples built on the site of the Romanesque ones, as a rule, have survived to the present day, and fortresses have been rebuilt more than once. Therefore, there are few material traces of the Roman presence in Southern Italy.

Fortification monuments of the Byzantine era have been fragmentally preserved in several cities of Southern Italy: Regium, Troia, Dragonara, Civitate, Castel Fiorentino and Monte Corvino. The Byzantine castron of San Niceto of the first half of the 11th century has been preserved better than others today (Fig. 1) near the modern city of Reggio Calabria (ancient and early Medieval Region) ^{[20, p. 148-150]}. At the foot of the fortress, the Byzantine domed church of Santa Maria Annunziata has been preserved in ruins (fig. 2) ^{[21, p. 13-49]}.

1. The Byzantine Castron of San Niceto. XI century.

URL: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castello_di_Santo_Niceto#/media/File:Castello_San_Niceto.JPG (Date of request: 09/12/2023)

Fig. 1. Byzantine Castron San Niceto. XI century.

URL: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castello_di_Santo_Niceto#/media/File:Castello_San_Niceto.JPG (date of application 12.09.2023)

2. Fresco depicting Christ the Pantocrator in the church of Santa Maria Annunziata. XI century.

(Martorano F. Santo Niceto la storia e il restauro Reggio Calabria. H. 49)

Fig. 2. Fresco depicting Christ Pantocrator in the church of Santa Maria Annunziata. XI century.

(Martorano F. Santo Niceto la storia e il restauro Reggio Calabria. H. 49)

There is archaeological evidence indicating the existence of the Romaic limes (limiton) in Southern Italy. However, only individual fortifications have been discovered, and their integration into a single fortification system is still a matter of debate ^{[22, p. 333-337]}.

The most striking monuments of Byzantine church architecture and applied art in Southern Italy are as follows. The Cross-domed Church of St. St. Peter's in Otranto, built in the 9th–10th centuries. (Fig. 3, 4) ^[23]. Byzantine floor mosaic of the VI–VII centuries, preserved in the basement of the 13th-century Cathedral of St. Sabine in Bari, built on the site of the Roman Cathedral destroyed by the Normans in 1156 (Fig. 5) ^[24]. Into the masonry of the Cathedral of St. The bas-reliefs of the previous Byzantine Church of St. Anna of the XVI century are included in Bari. Pelagia of the XI century (Fig. 6, 7) ^[25]. The most representative architectural monument of the era we are studying is the five-domed Byzantine temple of the 9th century located in the town of Stilo in the Calabrian province of Reggio. Catholica di Stilo (fig. 8) ^[26]. Unfortunately, the interior of the temple has been completely lost (Fig. 9). There are no particular buildings or state residences from the Byzantine period in Southern Italy. Archaeological artifacts (mainly elements of temple decoration) from the Byzantine period are kept in the Museum of St. Nicholas. St. Nicholas in Bari ^{[27, pp. 7-87]}.

Fig. 3. The Church of St. Petra in Otranto. Exterior. IX–X centuries. URL: https://wwwbisanzioit.blogspot.com/2015/09/la-chiesa-di-san-pietro-otranto.html (Date of request: 09/12/2023)

Fig. 3. The Church of St. Petra in Otranto. Exterior. IX–X centuries URL: https://wwwbisanzioit.blogspot.com/2015/09/la-chiesa-di-san-pietro-otranto.html (date of application 12.09.2023)

Fig. 4. The Church of St. Petra in Otranto. Interior. IX–X centuries. URL: https://wwwbisanzioit.blogspot.com/2015/09/la-chiesa-di-san-pietro-otranto.html (Date of request: 09/12/2023)

Fig. 4. The Church of St. Petra in Otranto. Interior. IX–X centuries. URL: https://wwwbisanzioit.blogspot.com/2015/09/la-chiesa-di-san-pietro-otranto.html (date of application 12.09.2023)

5. Byzantine mosaic of the VI–VII centuries in the basement of the Cathedral of St. Sabina in Bari.

URL: https://visitbari.wordpress.com/2015/11/10/mosaico-cattedrale-bari / (Date of access: 09/12/2023)

Fig. 5. Byzantine mosaic of the VI–VII centuries in the basement of the Cathedral of St. Sabine in Bari.

URL: https://visitbari.wordpress.com/2015/11/10/mosaico-cattedrale-bari/ (date of application 12.09.2023)

Fig. 6. The wall of the Church of St. Annas of the XVI century in Bari with Byzantine bas–reliefs of the XI-XII centuries in the masonry wall. URL: https://www.barinedita.it/bari-report-notizie/n3228-bari-la-piccola-chiesa-di-sant-anna--li-dove-si-celebra-la-benedizione-dei-neonati (Date of request: 09/12/2023)

Fig. 6. The wall of the Church of St. Annas of the XVI century in Bari with Byzantine bas–reliefs of the XI-XII centuries in the masonry of the wall. URL: https://www.barinedita.it/bari-report-notizie/n3228-bari-la-piccola-chiesa-di-sant-anna--li-dove-si-celebra-la-benedizione-dei-neonati (date of application 12.09.2023)

7. Byzantine bas–reliefs of the XI-XII centuries in the masonry walls of the Church of St. Peter the Great. Anna's in Bari.

URL: https://www.barinedita.it/bari-report-notizie/n3228-bari-la-piccola-chiesa-di-sant-anna--li-dove-si-celebra-la-benedizione-dei-neonati (Date of request: 09/12/2023)

Fig. 7. Byzantine bas–reliefs of the XI-XII centuries in the masonry walls of the Church of St. Anna's in Bari.

URL: https://www.barinedita.it/bari-report-notizie/n3228-bari-la-piccola-chiesa-di-sant-anna--li-dove-si-celebra-la-benedizione-dei-neonati (date of application 12.09.2023)

8. The Byzantine temple of the 9th century. Catholica di Stilo in Calabria. Exterior.

URL: https://www.calabriatours.org/heritage/cattolica-di-stilo.html (Date of request: 09/12/2023)

Fig. 8. The Byzantine temple of the IX century. Catholica di Stilo in Calabria. Exterior.

URL: https://www.calabriatours.org/heritage/cattolica-di-stilo.html (date of application 12.09.2023)

9. The Byzantine temple of the 9th century. Catholica di Stilo in Calabria. Interior.

URL: https://www.calabriatours.org/heritage/cattolica-di-stilo.html (Date of request: 09/12/2023)

Fig. 9. The Byzantine temple of the IX century. Catholica di Stilo in Calabria. Interior.

URL: https://www.calabriatours.org/heritage/cattolica-di-stilo.html (date of application 12.09.2023)

The events studied in this article are reflected in four miniatures of the manuscript of the 12th century. 10-15) (For more information about the miniatures of the Madrid Tomb manuscript as a visual source, see: Khapaev V. V., Glushich A.M. Physical fitness and sports hobbies of the Roman elite of the IX-XII centuries according to material, pictorial and written sources // Archeology of the Eurasian Steppes. 2021. No. 6. pp. 188-191) and a large number of chronicles, both Roman and Italo-Norman. The deeds of the emperors of the Macedonian dynasty up to the middle of the 10th century are described in detail in the work of the Continuator Theophanes ^[28]. The events that took place on the western borders of the empire at the final stage of the Macedonian Renaissance are reflected in the works of John Skilica ^[29] and Michael Psellus ^[30]. They are verified and supplemented in the works of the Norman William of Apulia ^[31] and Gottfried Malaterra ^[32], whose origin (Italian or Norman) remains unclear. Bishop Liutprand of Cremona provides general information about the state of affairs in Italy, as well as German-Roman relations in the middle of the tenth century in his Book of Retribution ^[33].

10. Arab capture of Syracuse in 878

(Ioannes Scylitzes. Synopsis historiarum // Manuscrito del siglo XII / Biblioteca Nacional de España. H. 101)

Fig. 10. The Arabs capture of Syracuse in 878

(Ioannes Scylitzes. Synopsis historiarum // Manuscrito del siglo XII / Biblioteca Nacional de España. H. 101)

11. Naval Commander Adrian is informed of the fall of Syracuse under the onslaught of demons

(Ioannes Scylitzes, Manuscrito, H. 101)

Fig. 11. Admiral Adrianos is informed of the fall of Syracuse by demons

(Ioannes Scylitzes, Manuscrito, H. 101)

12. Refugees from Syracuse confirm the fall of the city

(Ioannes Scylitzes, Manuscrito, H. 101)

Fig. 12. Refugees confirm the fall of Syracuse

(Ioannes Scylitzes, Manuscrito, H. 101)

13. Capture of Amantea by Nicephorus Phocas the Elder in 889

(Ioannes Scylitzes, Manuscrito, H. 102)

Fig. 13. Capture of Amantea by Nicephorus Phocas the Elder in 889

(Ioannes Scylitzes, Manuscrito, H. 102)

14. The landing of George Maniac's troops in Sicily in 1038

(Ioannes Scylitzes, Manuscrito, H. 212)

Fig. 14. The landing of the troops of George Maniac in Sicily in 1038

(Ioannes Scylitzes, Manuscrito, H. 212)

Fig. 15. Defense of Messina from the Arabs under the leadership of Katakalon Kekavmen in 1040

(Ioannes Scylitzes, Manuscrito, H. 214)

Fig. 15. Defense of Messina from the Arabs under the leadership of Katakalon Kekavmen in 1040

(Ioannes Scylitzes, Manuscrito, H. 214)

During the period we are studying, most of the Apennine Peninsula was under the influence of the Frankish monarchs from the Kingdom of Italy (781-962), which included Lombardy, Tuscany and the Duchy of Spoleto. The kingdom itself was part of various Frankish states in the 8th and 10th centuries, and even after gaining formal independence in 855, Charlemagne's heirs continued to rule here, claiming to be emperors of the West and encroaching on Roman possessions in Italy ^{[34, pp. 19-20]}.

Between the lands of the Italo-Frankish monarchs in Central Italy, as early as the middle of the 8th century, the possessions of the Pope were formed from the former Byzantine regions of Romagna and Pentapolis (see Fig. 16) ^{[35, p. 1577, 1624-1625]}.

16. The political situation in Italy in the middle of the 8th – early 9th centuries

(according to V. V. Khapaev, P. A. Baranenko)

Fig. 16. The political situation in Italy in the middle of the VIII – early IX centuries

(according to V. V. Khapaev, P. A. Baranenko)

The southernmost regions of the Apennines, Campania, Apulia and Calabria, became the place of conflict between the interests of the Frankish kings, Roman popes and Byzantine emperors. In the middle of the 9th century, the last Lombard possessions still existed here – the principalities of Benevento, Salerno and Capua. The Roman emperors retained formal suzerainty over the coastal cities of Campagna, which were incorporated into the Duchy of Naples (Gaeta was separated from it in 839) and the principality of Amalfi. Although the subordination was symbolic, the rulers of these cities maintained ties with Constantinople for a long time. They allowed Amalfi at the turn of the 9th–10th centuries to become a powerful trading hub of the Mediterranean along with Venice, Genoa and Pisa ^{[15, pp. 277-278]}. In the south-east of these principalities, there was the Muslim Baria Emirate (847-870/871). The Arabs from Bari and Taranto not only raided the surrounding lands, but also tried to extend their power to the entire region ^{[36, p. 30]}.

Only a small part of the cities of Apulia, the region of Calabria and the eastern coast of Sicily remained under the direct subordination of the Roman emperors.

The constant threat from the Arabs, who were firmly entrenched in most of Sicily and Apulia, forced the Italian princes and dukes to seek support from the Roman or Franco-German emperors. But any military intervention by Byzantium in Italian affairs faced the problem of its lack of a land corridor to the Italian possessions. The assistance of the rulers of the Frankish states to the Italian principalities also had little effect, which led to a gradual strengthening of the Arabs in the region. When the Arab commander Kalfun captured Bari in 847 and established an emirate there, King Louis II of Italy (844-875) tried to expel Muslims from the Apennines, but to no avail. To counteract the Barian Emirate, the Franks were forced to seek an alliance with the Romans ^{[36, p. 30]}.

The Apulian Arabs began to make raids into Byzantine Dalmatia. Therefore, in 867, Basil I equipped a naval expedition led by naval commander Nikita Orifa, and also entered into negotiations with Louis II. In 870, with the joint efforts of the Romans and Franks, the city of Bari was taken, and the Arabs were expelled from Apulia. To prevent the liberated territory from going to the Franks, the Romans organized a conspiracy against Louis II. The king of Italy was captured, but soon released, and Apulia fell into the hands of the Byzantine Empire ^{[35, p. 30; 33, p. 557]}.

The expulsion of the Franks and Arabs allowed the Romans to consolidate their position in the region. The strategos of Otranto, Gregory, took measures to bring Prince Adelchis of Benevento (854-878) under the protection of the empire, as well as for the final subjugation of Bari (876) ^{[34, pp. 557, 573]}. It was from these events that the policy of the Romans began to form a "barrier" from the Italian principalities from the claims of the Franco-German rulers to Southern Italy.

Earlier, we have already considered the process of the empire's formation of a "buffer zone" in the Armenian Highlands in the X–XII centuries from loyal Armenian and Georgian principalities and kingdoms. But this process ended there by the middle of the 11th century with the gradual incorporation of buffer states into the empire, which subsequently had a very negative impact on its defenses during the Seljuk invasion ^{[2, pp. 24-25]}.

Let's look at how a similar process developed in Italy. It can be divided into three stages.

1. The establishment of strong Roman control over Southern Italy and the beginning of the formation of a buffer space to the north of it (mid– late 9th century).

2. The final folding of the buffer space north of the Roman borders and the struggle of the Empire for its preservation (X – early XI century).

3. The collapse of the Byzantine system of government in Italy and the curtailment of the policy of supporting buffer states (early 11th century – 1071).

The first stage. At the turn of the 8th–9th centuries, the lands of the empire in Calabria and Campania were incorporated into the fema of Sicily. At the same time, Calabria retained the status of a ducate with its center in the city of Regium (Reggio) ^{[36, pp. 28-29]}. However, the subordination of the Campanian cities was nominal, the borders in Calabria did not remain permanent, and after the Arab conquest of Syracuse and other Roman cities in eastern Sicily, the Romans had to abolish the Roman empire of the same name ^{[36, p. 29]}.

In the second half of the 880s, under the leadership of Nikephoros Phokas the Elder (?-890s), the Byzantine Empire conquered Tarentum, Amantea, Tropea and a number of other cities. As a result, fema Longivardia (Lombardy) was formed from the newly acquired lands. Subsequently, the power of Byzantium was recognized by Naples and Salerno ^{[7, p. 457-460]}.

The empire did not seek to include the possessions of the Lombard feudal lords located to the north due to the insignificance of its cultural and religious influence on them ^{[14, pp. 203-204]}. Even in the lands that the empire included in its composition after the reconquest from the Arabs (Lucania, partly Apulia and Calabria), predominantly Latin, rather than Greek, episcopal sees were restored. This was explained by the dominance of the Lombard population in them. Since the 9th century, the imperial garrisons in Italy have been supported by troops sent from the Balkan and Asia Minor regions. The local population was not conscripted into the army, as the authorities doubted their loyalty ^{[13, pp. 67-72]}.

The second stage. In 900-902, Muslims launched a new campaign against Italy, and with the status of jihad, although without official authorization from the caliph. The Byzantines were saved by the accidental death of the Mujahideen leader, the deposed Aghlabid emir Ibrahim ibn Ahmed (875-902), during the siege of Cosenza ^{[34, p. 552]}.

In 916, a combined coalition of Italian princes, with the support of the forces of the Holy See and the Byzantine military contingent, besieged the Garigliano fortress, from where Arab pirates carried out predatory raids. After the fall of the fortress and the expulsion of the Muslims from there, the rulers of Naples and Gaeta recognized the suzerainty of the Byzantine emperor ^{[3, p. 447]}: apparently, the role of the Romans in this victory turned out to be decisive.

In 920-921, an uprising broke out in Apulia against Romanos I Lacapinus (920-944), who seized power. For the first time in many centuries, Byzantine Southern Italy demonstrated disloyalty to the central government. Taking advantage of the situation, the Italian femes were attacked by Prince Landulf I of Benevento (901-943). The Emperor found himself in a difficult position and initiated negotiations. Landulf was pacified by "appointing" him as a strategos and including Fema Longivardia in his possessions, i.e. paying with lands for loyalty ^{[34, p. 558; 3, p. 448]}. It really gave the region a peaceful respite of three decades.

But in the middle of the tenth century, the empire's position in Southern Italy became precarious again, this time due to the Arab invasion. The Romans were defeated by the Sicilian Emir al-Hassan near the city of Gerace in 952. The Muslims even managed to take Regium, the capital of Byzantine Calabria. The Byzantine administration was forced to start peace negotiations with the Arabs ^{[3, pp. 451-452]}. The weakness of the empire prompted the Italians to an anti-Roman uprising in 955-956, which centered on Naples. The famous commander Marian Argir (?-963) was sent to suppress him. He coped with his task, but the unrest was repeated in subsequent years ^{[3, pp. 452-453; 34, p. 558]}.

In order to stop external and internal threats and centralize the administration of the Italian exclave of the empire, after 965, three Byzantine femes in the Apennines (Calabria, Lucania and Longuivardia) were united into the catepanate of Italy with its capital in the city of Bari, which had been conquered from the Arabs a century earlier ^{[8, p. 624-627]}. The katepan was given broader powers than the strategos to wage war and conclude peace in his area of responsibility. The reform proved successful, which made it possible to expand the "buffer zone" to the north of the catepanate: by the end of the 10th century, the rulers of the cities of Capua, Salerno, Naples, Amalfi and Gaeta were to varying degrees dependent on the empire (see Fig. 17).

17. The political situation in Italy at the turn of the 10th – 11th centuries

(according to V. V. Khapaev, P. A. Baranenko)

Fig. 17. The political situation in Italy at the turn of the X – XI centuries

(according to V. V. Khapaev, P. A. Baranenko)

But in Northern Italy, the influence of local princes and dukes grew, who alternately bore the formal title of King of Italy and even claimed the title of emperor of the West. Such, for example, was Duke Berengarius of Friuli (crowned in Rome in 916) or Hugo of Arles ("emperor" since 926) ^{[37, pp. 97-101]}.

By the 60s of the tenth century, the initiative in Northern Italian affairs was intercepted by the German kings from the Saxon dynasty. On February 22, 962, Otto I was crowned with the imperial crown in Rome. As a result, the German and Italian kingdoms united into a state called the "Roman Empire" (since 1157, the Holy Roman Empire) ^{[7, pp. 544-545]}. Otto and his supporters believed that Italy was now entirely his legitimate benefice, and he could dispose of it at his discretion. In 967, the new "emperor" received in Rome the rulers of the Romaic "buffer" – the princes of Benevento and Capua. The former received the lands of Spoleto and Camerino as a gift, becoming one of the strongest princes in the Apennines. The appearance of a new suzerain in Italy undermined the authority of the Byzantine basileos ^{[33, p. 134]}.

In 967-968, both emperors, Nikephoros Phokas and Otto I, negotiated, but they were unsuccessful. Therefore, in March 968, Otto I approached Bari to demonstrate his strength, threatening Nikephoros Phokas with war. Negotiations resumed, but even the proposal of a dynastic alliance did not lead to a resolution of the conflict ^{[7, p. 546]}.

In the autumn of 968, a combined army of Germans and Lombards marched against the Roman possessions in Southern Italy, but was defeated in the Battle of Bovino. Duke Pandulf of Benevento, who led the combined German army, was captured and taken to Constantinople. In 969, strategos Eugene, having sufficient resources provided in advance by Emperor Nikephoros, moved to Capua, after which the local dukes again recognized the suzerainty of the Roman emperor ^{[7, p. 565-566]}.

In 970, Otto I again tried to subjugate the Southern Italian lands, but was defeated again. John Tzimiskes (969-976), who succeeded Nicephorus Phocas on the Byzantine throne, enjoyed great prestige among the people, even among Italian subjects. Therefore, during his reign, none of the princes sided with the Germans ^{[7, p. 548]}.

An agreement on a dynastic alliance was also reached, and on John's terms, the marriage was concluded between his niece Theophano and the future Otto II (973-983). The betrothal took place in Rome in 972 and became a symbol, on the one hand, of Constantinople's recognition of the formal revival of the Western Roman Empire, and on the other, of reconciliation with it on favorable terms for the ruling basileus. As a result, peace returned to the region, which lasted for almost 10 years ^{[7, pp. 548-549]}.

But his marriage to the niece of Tzimiskes, who died in 976, only briefly restrained the ambitions of the "Roman" emperors from the Saxon dynasty. They made plans not only to conquer Southern Italy, but also to "reunify" the unified Roman Empire under their rule. The Romans predictably perceived them as an unacceptable threat. Southern Italy has once again become the arena of confrontation. Three of Otto I's successors planned or undertook campaigns against her. The enterprises of Otto II in 980-982 and Otto III in 1002 failed ^{[7, p. 550]}. However, apparently, they reinforced the Romans in the need to "cement" the buffer shield, although it was not easy to do so. The constant separatism of the Lombard princes towards Byzantium is explained by the existence of an alternative to it as a defender against the Arab threat. The path of the Muslim conquerors to the lands of the Lombards passed through the territories controlled by the Romans. Here, rather, Byzantium acted as a buffer for the rest of Italy. And to protect themselves from a possible Muslim attack from the sea, the Italians had a choice – forming a coalition with the Romans, or turning to the Germans for help.

The third stage. The confrontation between the two empires at the turn of the 10th and 11th centuries marked the transition to the final stage of the existence of not only the buffer space, but also the Byzantine possessions in Southern Italy. In 1008, a Lombard aristocrat named Melus raised an uprising in Bari. Italians and Arabs came out on his side. For the first time in the history of Southern Italy, the Normans showed themselves, which became the starting point of their conquests in the region ^{[31; 34, p. 553]}. Melus was defeated by the cathepan Basil Argyrus Mesardonites (1010-1016/1017). The rebels left the Byzantine possessions, hiding at the courts of the Prince of Benevento and the Pope, and the Normans began to arrive en masse from France to Campagna ^{[31; 34, pp. 561, 576]}.

The Norman army led by Melus was finally defeated by the new catepan Basil Voioann (Bugian) (1017-1027) in 1018 at the Battle of Cannae ^{[34, pp. 561, 576]}. Melus fled again, seeking refuge with the Western Emperor Henry II (1014-1024), and the Normans dispersed to the courts of the Italian princes. A little later, Basil Ioann defeated Melus's colleague Dattus in Campania, and the campaign of 1024 undertaken in response by Henry II ended in vain due to the death of the Western "emperor" ^{[34, pp. 561-562]}.

The successes in suppressing the Melusa rebellion gave the Romans hope of reconquering Sicily from the Arabs. But the expeditions led by the eunuch Orestes and George Maniac did not bring success ^{[29, p. 380-383; 34, p. 576]}.

By the time of the defeat of the Romans in Sicily, the situation on the northern border of the Byzantine possessions in Italy had changed dramatically. During the 1020s and 1030s, Norman leaders seized power in the principalities of Campagna, Capua and Naples. Despite the fact that the local princes were considered Roman subjects, the imperial administration completely ignored the processes taking place there. The non-interference of Byzantium in the confrontation between Capua and Salerno led to the Normans not only flooding the region, but also seizing power over it ^[30]. The replacement of Lombard feudal lords on the Romaic border with Norman ones, who did not recognize Romaic suzerainty, led to the destruction of the Byzantine "buffer" in Southern Italy.

From 1042 to 1071, the Empire gradually lost power over Apulia and Calabria (Fig. 18). The Byzantine garrisons remained only in a few coastal cities, including Bari ^{[31; 38, pp. 40-54]}.

18. Expansion of the Normans and the state in Southern Italy in 1050

(according to V. V. Khapaev, P. A. Baranenko)

Fig. 18. Expansion of the Normans and the state in Southern Italy in 1050

(according to V. V. Khapaev, P. A. Baranenko)

The disappearance of the buffer of semi-independent Lombard principalities between the possessions of the German kings and the Roman Catholic catepanate of Italy led to its rapid capture by the Normans. This immediately created a threat to the empire on the Adriatic and Ionian coasts of the Balkans, as the Normans began to attack it. The disappearance of strategic depth in the western direction with the loss of Italy led to the most dangerous raids of the Norman Duke Robert Guiscard deep into the indigenous territory of Byzantium, including plans to capture Constantinople. The emperors of the Komnenos dynasty had to defend the Balkans from the Normans ^{[39, pp. 169-174]}.

Thus, the formation of a buffer zone in Italy, in contrast to the eastern (Arab) direction, was complicated by the fact that here the local rulers had an alternative pole of attraction in the fight against the Arab threat. In the 9th – mid-10th century, these were the Italian kings from the Carolingian dynasty, who were replaced by the emperors of the Ottonian "Roman Empire" at the end of the 10th century. Byzantium took measures to consolidate military power over the region, but there was no civilizational integration between the Romans and the multinational population of Southern Italy. Retaining control of the region cost the Romans a lot of effort. With the change of the Lombard princes in the lands of the "buffer" to the Norman ones, who sought complete mastery of Southern Italy, the empire completely lost control of the region, which became a springboard for Norman attacks on its Balkan possessions.