The Ideology Of The Ninth And Tenth Centuries 97
ment could be regarded as “constructed” by the Khazars and in some aspects a
replica of the Khazar model.356
According to Gardizi and Ibn Rustah, the Magyars had two rulers who bore
the titles of kende and gyula. The kende, accompanied by 20 000 horsemen, was
the first in command, but the actual ruler was the gyula who was responsible
for the military and other state affairs.357 M. Artamonov presumes (on account
of the 20 000 horsemen) that the kende was also the warlord, while the gyula
managed all other affairs. The historian associates the title of kende with the
Khazar kender khagan, mentioned by Ibn Fadlan, whose rank was below that
of the bek.358 In Shahnameh, a person with the title of k.nd.r. is described as
fighting on the right side of the khagan.359 This title is similar to the Bulgarian
ichirgu-boil (the third highest rank in Bulgaria) who fought on the right side,
in contrast to the kavkhan, who was on the left side.360 The title gyula (gila)
can be seen as a version of djavshighar,361 mentioned by Ibn Fadlan as the
vicegerent of the kender khagan (i.e. the fourth highest rank in Khazaria). The
accounts of Ibn Rustah and Gardizi lead to the conclusion that the Magyars
had a dual kingdom, similar to the Khazar one,362 although G. Györffy claims
that “the dignity of kündü was not yet endowed with the extreme characteris-
tics of the sacred king, isolated from the mortals, which it became in the 9th–
10th centuries among the Khazars”.363
356 Lastly, see Howard-Johnston 2007, 184–191.
357 Beilis 1986, 143; Golden 1980, 19; Zakhoder 1962, 227–228 and 1967, 48–49. There are also
Byzantine and West European sources that speak of more than one ruler among the
Magyars—see Györffy 1994, 88.
358 Artamonov 1962, 346–347.
359 Zakhoder 1962, 227.
360 See for instance Giuzelev 2007, 113.
361 Zakhoder 1962, 228.
362 Spinei 2003, 33; Zakhoder 1967, 49.
363 Györffy 1994, 91. Rόna-Tas 2007, 275 does not accept the theory of the Magyars having a
dual kingdom, since they did not have a sacral ruler. However, a significant part of the
symbolism and essence of the notion of a sacral ruler can be found in the preserved leg-
ends about the fabled Magyar ruler Almus (Almos). Almus is mentioned by Constantine
Porphyrogenitus, along with Levedias and the son of Almus, Arpad, as a Magyar voivode,
worthy to be appointed ruler over the Magyars by the will of the Khazar khagan. The
khagan first approached Levedias, but he suggested that Almus or Arpad be chosen as the
ruler of the Magyars. Thus Arpad became the first ruler of the Magyars. He also stood at
the helm during their migration to the west of the Carpathians (Litavrin and Novosel’tsev
1989, 161). According to legend, Almus, who was the son of Emesu (a Hungarian ancestress
that was impregnated by the falcon Turul), was killed upon the arrival of the Magyars in