266 chapter four
paradoxically, in toqta’s new Balkan policy, geopolitical relations
between the steppeland colossus and its appendage below the Danube
worked to the tsar’s benefit after the preceding period of Noghai’s perni-
cious dominance.501
once the khan was forced to destroy his rebellious border march on
the Danube, an alternative solution naturally presented itself: the Bulgar-
ian state was brought firmly under Sarai’s control and was entirely at the
khan’s beck and call, having been very much weakened by the upheavals
of preceding decades. the Bulgarian tsar was hopelessly subordinate to
the khan on the Volga, and this very subordination was a solid guarantee
of loyalty. thus the khan appointed the tsar as mandated agent of tartar
policy in the region which Noghai had ruled.
the sources show that theodore Svetoslav made himself noticed in
Sarai by certain personal qualities which would make him a key player
in the Balkans. first and foremost, the assassination of chaka attested to
his loyalty to Sarai and was generously rewarded: while Bulgarian power
had been limited in Noghai’s day, it now spread both to the South, where
in 1304 it took Mesembria and anchialos from Byzantium,502 along with
other towns, and to the North, to Bujak and the banks of the Dniester.503
the Northward expansion of the tsar’s rule is extraordinarily significant
both for the facts on the ground and for the spirit of Bulgarian-tartar rela-
tions as instituted by toqta and continued by Özbek. Mamluk sources
which attest the Bulgarians at akkerman504 are confirmed by Western
information. angelino Dulcert’s nautical chart illustrates abu’ l-fidā’s
cartographic statements about political realities in the region and makes
501 cf. Nikov, Otnoshesniya, p. 14, and above, pp. 239–240.
502 Bulgaria had lost the towns in 1263 and had tried in vain to recover them during the
period of tartar-Byzantine cooperation (cf. bibliographical notes in ciocîltan, “Geneza,”
p. 92 note 44).
503 Brătianu, “Bulgares,” passim, gathers sources on the event and uses these in other
studies as well; they are accepted by many historians, though Spinei, Moldova, p. 172,
rejects them on not wholly convincing grounds.
504 abu ’l-fidā’/Guyard, II/2, p. 318 (completed by 1321): “Aqjā Kermān [.. .] is a town in
the land of the Bulgarians and the turks, on the shores of the Black Sea, by the mouth of
the river Törlü [= Dniester].” al-‛umarī (tiesenhausen, Sbornik, I, p. 213) is not as specific
as abu ’l-fidā’ but also associates akkerman with Bulgaria, saying that both pay tribute
the khan: “the merchant sharīf Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad al-Ḥusaynī al-Kerbelā’ī told me
his story in the months of Rajab al-farḍ in the year 738 [= 23rd January–21st february 1338]
when he returned from that country [= the Golden horde]. he travelled there and then
coming Westwards [the last three words, missing in tiesenhausen, Sbornik, are found in
the manuscript used by ‛umarī/Lech, p. 140] arrived at Aqja Kermān in the land of the
Bulgarians [bilād al-bulghār].”