[41]georg.pisides，heraclias 2，108 ff.，ed.pertusi，p.256.
[42]cf.e.darkó，‘die militarischen reformen des kaisers herakleios’，bull.de l’inst.archéol.bulgare 9（1935），110 ff.；‘influences touraniennes sur l’évolution de l’art militaire des grecs，des romains et des byzantins’，b 10（1935），443 ff.，12（1937），119 ff.；‘le role des peuples nomades cavaliers dans transformation de l’empire romain aux premiers siècles du moyen age’，ib.18（1948），85 ff.
[43]georg.pisides，exped.pers.2，357，ed.pertusi，p.114.
[44]cf.pernice，eraclio 121.also kkovskij，istorija 3，65，note 4.
[45]this has been preserved in sebeos，trans.macler 79.the inscription of the letter reads：‘chosrov，chéri des dieux，matre et roi de toute terre，fils du grand armazd，à notre serviteur，imbécile et infame，héraclius’。
[46]kkovstij，istorija 3，72 and 74，rightly stresses that this renewed retreat indicates that the campaigns of the years 624 and 625 were less sessful for the byzantine emperor than would appear from the ount of theophanes 312 f.
[47]a full ount of the siege of constantinople，based on all avable sources，is given by f.barisic，‘le siège de constantinople par les avares et les ves en 626’，b 24（1954），371 ff.
[48]ording to nicephorus 20 f.he wrote to heraclius：‘in the same way as you say that your god was presented to the old man symeon，so i present your ve，my son，into your hands’。
[49]on the chronology see kkovskij，istorija3，367 ff.cf.also a.frolow，&lsquo vraie croix et les expeditions d’heraclius en perse’，reb 11（1953），88 ff.
[50]on the problems concerning the rise of samo’s empire see b.grafenauer，‘novejsa literatura o samu in njeni problemi’（recent literature on samo and its problems），zgodovinski casopis 4（1950），151 ff.
[51]nicephorus 24，9，who also states（p.12，20）that kuvrat’s uncle organa，the founder of the federation of bulgarian tribes in the northern caucasus，visited constantinople in 619，epted christianity and was given the title of patrician.apparently kuvrat was amongst his followers on that asion and was left behind in constantinople as a hostage;john of nikiu（ed.zotenberg，p.460）records that kuvrat grew up at the imperial court and epted christianity while he was still a child.cf.g.ostrogorsky，‘the byzantine empire in the world of the seventh century’，dop 13（1959），15 ff.
[52]de adm.imp.，c.29-36，pp.122-64（ed.moravcsik-jenkins）。
[53]the reliability of this ount has been criticized by e.dümmler，s.b.d.wiener akad.20（1856），357 ff.，by f.racki，knijzevnik 1（1864），36 ff.，and rad jugosl.akad.52（1880），141 ff.，and especially by v.jagic，archiv f.v.philol.17（1895），47 ff.，with the result that it has been generally epted-contrary to the ount of constantine porphyrogentius-that the croats and serbs prated into the balkans about the year 600 togerther with the other v tribes.in spite of the objections of certain schrs，notably k.grot，izvestija konstantina bagrannorodnogo o serbach i chorvatach（the evidence of constantine porphyrogenitus concerning the serba and croats）（1880），k.jic，povest hrvata 1（history of croatia）（1899），30 ff.，and rad.jugosl.akad.130（1897），11 ff.，n.nodilo，historija serdnjega vijeka（history of the middle ages），3（1905），433 ff.，this view had had the support of the highest authorities in the fields of v history and philology，including k.jirecek，l.niederle，st.stanojevic，f.sisic.recently there has been a reaction and it has been pointed out that there are not sufficient grounds for rejecting the ount of constantine 7 which，though embroidered with legendary details，is in essence thoroughly reliable.cf.the informative article by d.anastasijevicin：s.stanojevic，narodna enciklopedija 4（1929）81 ff.，who himself defends the trustworthiness of porphyrogenitus（cf.also his article in narodna enciklopedija 3，607 ff.）.the study of the problem has been advanced by the important research of l.hauptmann（cf.especially his article‘seoba hrvata i srba’（the migration of the croats and serbs），jugosl.istor.casopis 3（1937），30 ff.）.of particr value are thements by b.grafenauer，prilog kritici izvestaja konstantina porfirogenita o doseljenju hrvata’（a contribution to the critical evaluation of the information given by constantine porphyrogenitus on the immigration of the croats），hist.zbornik 5（1952），1-56，who in many respects follows hauptmann，but who rightly rejects his theory of the caucasian origin of the serbs and croats，and of the origin of the croatian aristocracy.cf.also f.dvornik，the making of the central and eastern europe，london，1949，215 ff.and the vs，their early history and civilization，boston，1956，62 ff.，and also the stimting discussion by h.grégoire，‘l’origine et le nom des croates et des serbes’，b 17（1944/5），88 ff.，who provides a much fuller list of sources as the basis of the whole investigation，though one cannot agree with him when he tries to rte the name‘croat’to‘kuvrat’，and certainly not when he would like to derive the word‘serb’from‘servus’，as does constantine 7.cf.instead grafenauer，op.cit.and a.maricq，b 22（1952），345 ff.simr suggestions concerning the name croat can also be found in buryter rom.empire 2（1 st ed.，275 f.）and howorth，journ.of the anthropological inst.of great britain and irnd 2（1882），224 ff.an excellent summary of the whole literature on this problem up to approximately 1925 is given by sisic，povijest，236-65，though his criticisms are coloured by his own‘anti-constantinian’point of view.cf.also the bibliography in istorija naroda jugovije（a history of the peoples of yugovia）1（1953），101-3.a particrly important recent contribution is that of b.ferjancic，vizantiski izvori 2，who trantes everything constantine porphyrogenitus has to say concerning the south vs into serbo-croat，and gives an extensivementary，in which he discusses all the previous literature.see also f.dvornik in constantine porphyrogenitus：de administrando imperio，2mentary，london，1962，94 ff.
</br>
[42]cf.e.darkó，‘die militarischen reformen des kaisers herakleios’，bull.de l’inst.archéol.bulgare 9（1935），110 ff.；‘influences touraniennes sur l’évolution de l’art militaire des grecs，des romains et des byzantins’，b 10（1935），443 ff.，12（1937），119 ff.；‘le role des peuples nomades cavaliers dans transformation de l’empire romain aux premiers siècles du moyen age’，ib.18（1948），85 ff.
[43]georg.pisides，exped.pers.2，357，ed.pertusi，p.114.
[44]cf.pernice，eraclio 121.also kkovskij，istorija 3，65，note 4.
[45]this has been preserved in sebeos，trans.macler 79.the inscription of the letter reads：‘chosrov，chéri des dieux，matre et roi de toute terre，fils du grand armazd，à notre serviteur，imbécile et infame，héraclius’。
[46]kkovstij，istorija 3，72 and 74，rightly stresses that this renewed retreat indicates that the campaigns of the years 624 and 625 were less sessful for the byzantine emperor than would appear from the ount of theophanes 312 f.
[47]a full ount of the siege of constantinople，based on all avable sources，is given by f.barisic，‘le siège de constantinople par les avares et les ves en 626’，b 24（1954），371 ff.
[48]ording to nicephorus 20 f.he wrote to heraclius：‘in the same way as you say that your god was presented to the old man symeon，so i present your ve，my son，into your hands’。
[49]on the chronology see kkovskij，istorija3，367 ff.cf.also a.frolow，&lsquo vraie croix et les expeditions d’heraclius en perse’，reb 11（1953），88 ff.
[50]on the problems concerning the rise of samo’s empire see b.grafenauer，‘novejsa literatura o samu in njeni problemi’（recent literature on samo and its problems），zgodovinski casopis 4（1950），151 ff.
[51]nicephorus 24，9，who also states（p.12，20）that kuvrat’s uncle organa，the founder of the federation of bulgarian tribes in the northern caucasus，visited constantinople in 619，epted christianity and was given the title of patrician.apparently kuvrat was amongst his followers on that asion and was left behind in constantinople as a hostage;john of nikiu（ed.zotenberg，p.460）records that kuvrat grew up at the imperial court and epted christianity while he was still a child.cf.g.ostrogorsky，‘the byzantine empire in the world of the seventh century’，dop 13（1959），15 ff.
[52]de adm.imp.，c.29-36，pp.122-64（ed.moravcsik-jenkins）。
[53]the reliability of this ount has been criticized by e.dümmler，s.b.d.wiener akad.20（1856），357 ff.，by f.racki，knijzevnik 1（1864），36 ff.，and rad jugosl.akad.52（1880），141 ff.，and especially by v.jagic，archiv f.v.philol.17（1895），47 ff.，with the result that it has been generally epted-contrary to the ount of constantine porphyrogentius-that the croats and serbs prated into the balkans about the year 600 togerther with the other v tribes.in spite of the objections of certain schrs，notably k.grot，izvestija konstantina bagrannorodnogo o serbach i chorvatach（the evidence of constantine porphyrogenitus concerning the serba and croats）（1880），k.jic，povest hrvata 1（history of croatia）（1899），30 ff.，and rad.jugosl.akad.130（1897），11 ff.，n.nodilo，historija serdnjega vijeka（history of the middle ages），3（1905），433 ff.，this view had had the support of the highest authorities in the fields of v history and philology，including k.jirecek，l.niederle，st.stanojevic，f.sisic.recently there has been a reaction and it has been pointed out that there are not sufficient grounds for rejecting the ount of constantine 7 which，though embroidered with legendary details，is in essence thoroughly reliable.cf.the informative article by d.anastasijevicin：s.stanojevic，narodna enciklopedija 4（1929）81 ff.，who himself defends the trustworthiness of porphyrogenitus（cf.also his article in narodna enciklopedija 3，607 ff.）.the study of the problem has been advanced by the important research of l.hauptmann（cf.especially his article‘seoba hrvata i srba’（the migration of the croats and serbs），jugosl.istor.casopis 3（1937），30 ff.）.of particr value are thements by b.grafenauer，prilog kritici izvestaja konstantina porfirogenita o doseljenju hrvata’（a contribution to the critical evaluation of the information given by constantine porphyrogenitus on the immigration of the croats），hist.zbornik 5（1952），1-56，who in many respects follows hauptmann，but who rightly rejects his theory of the caucasian origin of the serbs and croats，and of the origin of the croatian aristocracy.cf.also f.dvornik，the making of the central and eastern europe，london，1949，215 ff.and the vs，their early history and civilization，boston，1956，62 ff.，and also the stimting discussion by h.grégoire，‘l’origine et le nom des croates et des serbes’，b 17（1944/5），88 ff.，who provides a much fuller list of sources as the basis of the whole investigation，though one cannot agree with him when he tries to rte the name‘croat’to‘kuvrat’，and certainly not when he would like to derive the word‘serb’from‘servus’，as does constantine 7.cf.instead grafenauer，op.cit.and a.maricq，b 22（1952），345 ff.simr suggestions concerning the name croat can also be found in buryter rom.empire 2（1 st ed.，275 f.）and howorth，journ.of the anthropological inst.of great britain and irnd 2（1882），224 ff.an excellent summary of the whole literature on this problem up to approximately 1925 is given by sisic，povijest，236-65，though his criticisms are coloured by his own‘anti-constantinian’point of view.cf.also the bibliography in istorija naroda jugovije（a history of the peoples of yugovia）1（1953），101-3.a particrly important recent contribution is that of b.ferjancic，vizantiski izvori 2，who trantes everything constantine porphyrogenitus has to say concerning the south vs into serbo-croat，and gives an extensivementary，in which he discusses all the previous literature.see also f.dvornik in constantine porphyrogenitus：de administrando imperio，2mentary，london，1962，94 ff.
</br>