Bulcsú

Bulcsú (; or Vérbulcsú; , Boulosoudes and Boultzous, ; – 15 August 955) was a chieftain of the Hungarians and military leader in the 10th century. He held the title of harka . Despite not being a member of the ruling Árpád dynasty, he was one of the most important figures of the Hungarian invasions of Europe. He led military campaigns in the direction of the northwest, west, and south during the 930–950s.

In 948, Bulcsú visited the court of Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII, where he was received with great pomp. Bulcsú adopted Christianity, and the emperor became his godfather. He was a "guest friend of the emperor" and was awarded the title of 'patrikios' (patrician).

After his army had lost the disastrous Battle of Lechfeld in 955, he was caught by the German victors and executed. The lands of his tribe lay around Lake Balaton in Transdanubia, the core area of which later formed Zala County.

Name and etymology

Bulcsú is one of the only three Hungarian individuals from the 10th century – beside Gyula II and Taksony –, whose name is mentioned by Western (Latin), Byzantine (Greek) and Arabic sources either. Consequently, many variants of his name are known. The contemporary Constantine Porphyrogenitus' De Administrando Imperio refers to him as "Boultzous", a direct translation from Latin variant "Bultzus". His name appears as "Boulosoudes" in the late-11th-century chronicler John Skylitzes' Synopsis of Histories, which work was extracted by John Zonaras in his Extracts of History in the 12th century; Bulcsú is mentioned as "Bolosoudes" there. Among the Western sources, the near-contemporary Annales Sangallenses maiores calls Bulcsú as "Pulszi". His name is mentioned as "Bulgio" by the mid-11th-century Gesta episcoporum Cameracensium. The 16th-century Renaissance humanist historian Johannes Aventinus, who utilized lost 11th-century annals, mentions the name of Bulcsú as "Bultzko" and "Bulichizo". Latin-language works from Hungary call Bulcsú as "Bulsuu", "Bulsu" (Anonymus' Gesta Hungarorum), "Bulchu", "Werbulchu" (Simon of Kéza's Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum), "Bulchu", "Bolchu", "Werbulchw", "Uerbulchu" (Hungarian chronicle variants). The name of Bulcsú – (w)l.h.w.d.y, "Wulǧūdī" – can also be found in Kitāb al-Muqtabis fī tarīkh al-Andalus written by 11th-century Muslim author Ibn Ḥayyān.

The etymology of his name is uncertain. According to several linguists – for instance, János Melich, Zoltán Gombocz and, initially, Dezső Pais – his name is of Turkic origin, which has the same source as the Hungarian common name "búcsú" (indulgence). Both words derive from Turkic verb bos ("forgive"), thus Bulcsú is a noun form of the verb, or the noun bošug ("decree of heaven, fate, divine judgment, or command"), i.e. a direct variant of the dignity bošugčï (lit. "commander"). Other historians – e.g. Gyula Pauler – connected Bulcsú's name with the adjective "bölcs" ("wise"), while there were also assumptions that the name is a Hungarian variant of the Latin name Basilius or Blasius. Dezső Pais considered that Bulcsú was named for the purpose of predestination: since it was expected that he would succeed his father in the judicial office of harka, he had to be a man of "forgiving nature and gracious character", which is reflected in his name – though, Bulcsú later became known for his cruel nature. Later, Pais abandoned the theory of connection between Bulcsú's name and the verb bos. He, instead, argued that his name derives from the verb bulya or bulģha ("stir", "to mix"), from which the name of Bulgars originates too. Pais claimed the noun participle bulyučy ("mixer") is the direct antecedent of the chieftain's name. Byzantinist Mátyás Gyóni argued that the De Administrando Imperio wrote down an Old Hungarian name form when describing Bulcsú's name, based on hearsay. He connected his name with a Khazar dignity "bwlšcy", which appears in the 10th-century Schechter Letter. If this assumption is valid, it may also reflect Bulcsú's possible Khavar ethnicity (see below).

The name variant "Vérbulcsú" (lit. "Blood Bulcsú") first appears in the sources in the mid-13th century, when the descendants of the chieftain called themselves "de genere Werbulchu". The origin of this variant is unclear. Anonymus, who wrote his gesta in the early 13th century, already refers to Bulcsú as a "bloodthirsty man" ("vir sanguinis"). Regarding the name variant, Simon of Kéza provides a detailed account of its origin in his Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum written in the early 1280s. Accordingly, Bulcsú's grandfather was killed in the legendary battle of Krimhild between the Romans and Huns (see Nibelungenlied), and Bulcsú devoted his whole life to taking revenge on the Germans. Playing the words (spit = veru), Simon refers to the name "Vérbulcsú" in the original Latin text too. Simon describes Bulcsú as "bloodthirsty" and "warlike" with "fearless heart". Although Mark of Kalt, the author of the 14th-century Illuminated Chronicle disregarded Simon's fantastic etymology, but maintained the name variant Vérbulcsú in his work. Dezső Pais argued that the name Vérbulcsú ("vérbocsátó" - "blood provider", then "vérkeverő" – "blood mixer") reflects Bulcsú's status as harka and his possible ceremonial role in the blood oaths among the Magyar tribal chieftains.

Ancestry and title

Bulcsú was born in the early 10th century, possibly around 910. He had at least one sibling. He was not a member of the ruling Árpád dynasty and only his father's name is known. János Belitzky considered that Bulcsú belonged to the Kér, one of the Magyar tribes, while Sándor László Tóth argued in favor of his belonging to the Tarján tribe. The contemporary De Administrando Imperio states that Bulcsú's father was Kál or Káli , who held the title of harka prior to Bulcsú's elevation into the position, possibly sometime in the period 910/920–930s. However, Anonymus refers to Bulcsú as the son of Bogát in his Gesta Hungarorum. Bogát (Bugat or Busac) was one of the two leaders of the 921–922 Italian campaign, alongside Tarkacsu (Dursac), Grand Prince Árpád's eldest living son. According to the widespread belief, Constantine and the Byzantine court acquired the information about the Hungarians, among other things, during Bulcsú's embassy, so the majority of historians accepted the first information as authentic. Because of his frequent appearance with the Árpáds, some historians attempted to connect Bulcsú's person to the ruling dynasty. For instance, Bálint Hóman claimed that Kál was the son of Liüntika, while István Herényi considered that Bulcsú was a descendant of chieftain Tétény through his grandfather Bogát and father Kál.

Mátyás Gyóni assumed that Kál and Bulcsú were of Khalyzian or Khavar ethnicity. These groups rebelled against the Khazar Khaganate and joined the Hungarians in the early 9th century, forming three tribes at the time of the conquest. According to András Róna-Tas, Kál then Bulcsú ruled over the joined and/or subjugated peoples, holding the title of harka. A 16th-century Hebrew chronicle from Bohemia also refers to Bulcsú as a Khalyzian. Herényi claimed that Bulcsú belonged to the Khavar tribe called Varsány which settled down in western Transdanubia and carried out border protection duties. Dezső Dümmerth also argued in favor of Bulcsú's Khavar ethnicity, which is why he later emphasized the role of the Khavars in the conquest of the homeland in the Byzantine court and hushed up the presence of Álmos during the events. Linguist Lajos Ligeti considered the Khavar background of the military leader too. György Szabados expressed doubt arguing that the fact of the defeat and expulsion of the Khavars are not downplayed in the 39th chapter of the work.

Bulcsú's title of harka (or karchas) is a subject of historiographical debates. According to the De Administrando Imperio, it was the third most prestigious position in the Principality of Hungary, after the (grand) prince and "gylas" (gyula). Both gylas and karchas "have the rank of judge".

Emperor Constantine narrated in his work De Administrando Imperio that Bulcsú, together with Termacsu – a member of the Árpád dynasty and Árpád's great-grandson – led a Hungarian delegation to Constantinople "recently", i.e. around 948. Flodoard claims that the Hungarians' original destination was West Francia, as the year before. Gyula Kristó considered that the Hungarians wanted to take advantage of the German domestic political turmoil as soon as possible, before it finally subsided and Otto stabilized his power.

The Hungarians stormed into Bavaria in mid-July 955. Their army was led by Bulcsú and his sub-commanders were Lehel (a member of the Árpád dynasty) and Súr (possibly of Pecheneg origin). According to the 16th-century historian Johannes Aventinus, Taksony and Csaba also served as Bulcsú's lieutenants during the campaign. Tóth argued that the 955 campaign was a large-scale military expedition in which the entire forces of four or five tribes participated. The Annales Sangallenses maiores considers the Hungarian army consisted of 100,000 warriors, in fact Bulcsú and his lieutenants commanded 8,000–10,000 horse archers. According to Gerhard of Augsburg, who wrote the hagiography of Bishop Ulrich, the Hungarian invaders "devastated the land of Noricum (i.e. Bavaria) from the Danube to the Black Forest, which goes to the mountainous regions". Thereafter, the Hungarians crossed the river Lech, reaching Swabia, where plundered the region around Augsburg and looted many churches, including Saint Afra church, devastating whole Swabia from the Danube to Iller. In early August, Bulcsú ordered the gathering of Hungarian raiding units in Lechfeld at the walls of Augsburg, because he decided to besiege the episcopal city with the siege engines he brought with him. The Hungarians calculated that the city promises to be easy prey, because in the previous year's civil war, the city suffered a lot from Arnulf's attacks. However, Augsburg was bravely defended by its bishop Ulrich, who ordered his soldiers to not fight the Hungarians in the open and reinforce the main south gate of the fortress instead. Simon of Kéza mentions that the Hungarians harassed Augsburg with attacks all day and night. That means before the real siege they wished to take the city by rushes. After the harassment of the smaller units did not reach their goal, Bulcsú sent large crowds to break down the eastern gate of the city and occupy the city walls on 8 August. Ulrich led his professional milites soldiers out into the field to engage the enemy in close combat. According to him, the Hungarians could enter the gates anytime, however they lost their attacking commander during the skirmish, and withdrew to their camp taking the body. During the night, the defenders took positions in all towers and the Hungarians completely surrounded the city with siege engines and infantry, who were driven forward by the whips of the Hungarian leaders. Next day, on 9 August, when the fights barely started they were informed by the traitor Berthold of Reisensburg, the son of the late Arnulf that Otto I deployed his troops near. Bulcsú ordered to suspend the siege, and the Hungarian leaders held a war council. Bulcsú and his lieutenants decided to abandon the siege and the Hungarian army set out to meet Otto's army, hoping that their victory will ultimately mean the surrender of the city and the entire kingdom.

Under Bulcsú, the Hungarians immediately crossed the river Lech to surprise the German army that was just standing up on 10 August. They hastily moved to the rear of the army, where they began to decimate the Bohemian legion that was standing in the rear with their arrows, obtaining the army supplies. They advanced to attack Otto's sixth and seventh legions (the Swabians led by their duke Burchard III), scattering their troops. As a result, Otto sent Conrad the Red and his fourth legion (the Franks) rearwards, who successfully liberated the captives, recovered the loot and drove away the marauding Hungarian units. A melee then ensued between the Hungarians and Otto's main army, consisted of Saxons and Bavarians, which was fatal for the Hungarian light infantry. The Hungarians began to flee frantically across the Lech river. Some sought refuge in nearby villages, where locals attacked and massacred them. The Annales Sangallenses maiores says that Bulcsú was taken prisoner already on 10 August. Otto and his army, who also suffered heave losses (including Conrad), spent the night in Augsburg, where Bishop Ulrich welcomed them. On 11 August, the king specifically issued the order that all river crossings were to be held. The Bohemian auxiliary army commanded by Boleslaus I, Duke of Bohemia clashed with a large fleeing group of the Hungarians in the eastern part of Lechfeld on 11 August, where Lehel and Súr were captured near the fort of Ebersberg. Most of the Hungarians were killed or captured a day or two after the battle, when Otto gradually blocked the escape route from them.

Execution After the battle, Bulcsú and his two lieutenants, Lehel and Súr were taken to Regensburg "within days" (as Ulrich's hagiography states), where, under the supervision of the ailing Duke Henry (who did not participate in the battle and soon died), they were condemned to death and executed in the square by the duke's palace. The circumstances of their death have been recorded by many contemporaneous and later sources in different ways. Widukind says that "three leaders of the Avar [Hungarian] people were captured and led before Duke Henry. They were sentenced to a bad death, which they deserved. For their necks snapped from being hanged." The Annales Sangallenses maiores writes that "many [Hungarians] were captured and hanged together with their king, called Pulszi [Bulcsú]". The Necrologium Weissenburgensis states that the executions occurred on 15 August 955. Johannes Aventinus narrates that the prisoners were handed over to "Eberhard, leaders of the Bavarians, who then sent the king [Bulcsú] and the four princes [Lehel, Súr, Taksony and Csaba] to Duke Henry of Bavaria in Regensburg. Where in front of the eastern gate, which faces Hungary, they were dragged to the gallows and killed with a rope". Simon of Kéza writes that "when they saw what had happened, Lél and Bulcsú sought remedy in flight. They boarded a boat and set off down the Danube, hoping to make Hungary. However, they were intercepted as they passed Regensburg and sent captive to the emperor (sic!). The emperor condemned them to be hanged, and they were executed on the gallows at Regensburg. [...] The truth, as recorded in the chronicles, is that they foolishly uttered shameless blasphemies before the emperor and said that if they were put to death, in future no German captives would be allowed to live but would either be condemned to servitude forever or put to death without trial".

Apart from Western sources, Byzantine works also narrate the execution of Bulcsú. John Skylitzes writes that he was "seized and impaled by Otto their [Franks'] emperor",

The 10th-century Hungarian invasions of Europe and the pagan chieftains like Bulcsú represented an ambivalent legacy for the Christian medieval Hungarian kingdom established in 1000, where the new self-identity and national sense of self prevailed at the same time. Bulcsú's personality stood out so much looking back in later centuries that even though his actions were already forgotten, the 13th-century chroniclers Anonymus and Simon of Kéza both put his live to the era of the Hungarian conquest (late 9th century), a generation or two earlier. Anonymus' Bulcsú (a son of Bogát) was a "chief man and commander" of Árpád. Together with Lehel and Botond, he fought against local Bulgarian lord Salan and his Byzantine allies in the Danube–Tisza Interfluve. Thereafter, they captured forts in Slavonia. The Gesta Hungarorum says when the child Zolta succeeded his father Árpád as grand prince, Bulcsú, Lehel and Botond fought in Carinthia and Lombardy. Anonymus erroneously claimed that Bulcsú and Lehel were executed after the defeat at Inn in 913. Simon of Kéza listed Bulcsú ("Vérbulcsú") the seventh of the seven chieftains of the Hungarians, who led the people to conquer the Carpathian Basin. The Illuminated Chronicle preserved this list and Bulcsú is mentioned as the sixth captain. Later chronicles utilized this text (for instance, Chronica Hungarorum); Bulcsú is also depicted in full-length portrait as the 6th Captain of Hungary in the 17th-century Nádasdy Mausoleum.

The execution of Bulcsú and Lehel created the folk legend "Lehel's Horn", which attempted to offset the heavy defeat of the Hungarians at the Battle of Lechfeld and reflecting on the fact that the leaders did not die an inglorious death and did not become servants of their enemies in the afterlife. The mid-13th century chronicler Ákos preserved this oral tradition in his addition of the Urgesta, which thus became part of the text of the Illuminated Chronicle and the other variants. In contrast, Simon of Kéza remained skeptical about the reliability of the legend; "Some authors give a different version of their fate, telling a fanciful story of how when they were brought before the emperor one of them [Lehel] struck the emperor on the head with his trumpet and killed him. Of course this is quite implausible, and anyone believing such a tale would be making an exhibition of his credulity. After all, felons are normally brought before princes with their hands bound".

Bulcsú's character may have influenced German folktale literature as well; according to Heinrich Kunstmann, the name of Hunnic chieftain Craco, who appears as the antagonist in the Dollingersage (which has common roots with the legend of Rasso), is derived from the harka, the title of Bulcsú. Kunstmann argued that "in the allegorical duel in Regensburg, which symbolized the victorious battle in Augsburg, the harka Bulcsú transformed into the pagan Craco, represented the camp of the vanquished", when he was defeated by knight Hans Dollinger, a symbol of the German Christians. Kunstmann identified the knight, who was previously in prison for insulting majesty, with Liudolf, Otto's rebellious son, who later reconciled with his father.

Historiography Bulcsú was the most influential and most frequently mentioned military leader in the last phase of the Hungarian invasions of Europe. Despite this, his cult in Hungarian historiography only developed in the 20th-century Interwar Hungary through Bálint Hóman, who wrote the medieval period of the high impact monograph series Magyar történet (1928). Despite that Bulcsú's name is explicitly mentioned only regarding the 954–955 campaigns, Hóman attributed the large-scale expeditions (937) to him, comparing his military skills and the concept of his campaigns to Attila's wars against the Western Roman Empire and Bayan I against the Byzantine Empire. Hóman described Bulcsú as an example of an "eminently talented Oriental diplomat-general". In mainstream historiography, the prominence of Bulcsú faded away in the late 1950s, when György Györffy established his concept of the rapid disintegration of tribes at the beginning of the 10th century. Accordingly, Bulcsú was degraded from the image of a sovereign, independent chieftain to the executor and general of the Árpád dynasty's central princely authority. Dániel Bácsatyai, who wrote the first monograph about the chieftain (2024), marked Bulcsú's death as an epochal boundary in Hungarian history. The historian considered that Bulcsú is a symbol of that two-decade search for a way from the Battle of Riade (933) to the final defeat at Lechfeld (955), when the main sources of income (ransoms, tributes and booty) for Hungarians began to disappear, and this made the decisive test of strength inevitable between Hungary and Western Europe.

After Hóman's work, Bulcsú was included in the pantheon of Hungarian heroes written by the military specialist author Ferenc Julier in 1930. Right-wing politician Endre Bajcsy-Zsilinszky called Bulcsú as a "great warlord, who gave whole Europe a thrashing [...] and the Germans were afraid of him". Bulcsú also began to appear in prose works of fiction. In György Rónay's novel (Namur alatt, 1939), the chieftain is in a dilemma between the ancient faith and Christianity. In Erzsébet D. Kenese's novel (Vérbulcs, 1942), the character repents and pleads with Jesus when he is led to the gallows in Regensburg. Essayist Viktor Padányi, who emigrated to Australia after the World War II, wrote his essay Vérbulcsu in 1955. Padányi, whose work contains several factual errors, described the events from 937 to 955 as the personal duel between Bulcsú and Otto the Great. According to him, all of Bulcsú's actions were aimed at preventing the creation of a German superpower, the Holy Roman Empire. He completely neglected the issue of Bulcsú's baptism. Padányi's essay was utilized by the far-right Neopaganist movement in Hungary after the end of Communism, for instance the picture album Bulcsu (2008) written by Tamás Kubínyi and Sándor Pörzse.