|
Byzantium’s Greatest
Emperors (Part II: Seventh to Fifteenth Centuries)
Rolando Castillo
Translated by Owen
Williamson
The reign of Justinian II might have
somewhat resembled that of Justinian the Great, that is if one
ignores the fact that the times as well as the customs and situation
of the Empire were very different from what they were 150 years
earlier.
Justinian II wanted to imitate his namesake
by ordering the construction of great public buildings and for this
purpose he saddled the unhappy population with an excessively heavy
tax burden.
His policy of colonization was also
merciless, forcing entire peoples to be transferred to foreign and
very distant regions, committing the grave error of ripping from
their homelands peoples who were vital for the defense of the
Empire’s frontiers against the Muslim Caliphate. This short-sighted
policy left the borders increasingly vulnerable, with painful
consequences for the future of the Empire.
Justinian II was an emperor who during his
blood-soaked reign did not shrink from violence but rather responded
with even more violence. Following the counsel of evil advisors (Stephen
and Theodotus), he committed error after error in defense of the
Empire. In a military uprising supported by the Blues, Leonicius,
the Strategus of the theme of Helade was proclaimed Emperor and
Justinian II ended up having his nose cut off, disqualifying him
from the imperial throne. His advisors were publicly lynched.
Justinian, the ex-emperor with no nose, was exiled to distant
Cherson.
Later on, Leoncius, who ruled only from 695
to 698, was deposed by the same people who had proclaimed him
emperor and was replaced by the admiral Apsimar, who took the name
Tiberius II (698-705).
Justinian fled Cherson on learning that
that he would soon be transferred to Constantinople. He finally
became a friend of the Khazars in whose kingdom he married the
sister of the Khan.
Tiberius II deeply distrusted Justinian and
sent a delegation to ask the Khazar Khan to return the deposed
monarch as a prisoner. However, Justinian learned of this plan just
in time to flee once again.
After innumerable hardships, Justinian’s
vengeful spirit led him to Khan Tervel’s Bulgars whom he convinced
to become his allies. Together they reached the gates of
Constantinople in 705. However, his Bulgarian army found itself
powerless before the city walls and the citizenry made a mockery of
his return.
Nonetheless, on the fourth night of the
siege Justinian fearlessly slipped into the city under cover of
darkness, evidently through the pipes of an aqueduct, together with
several of his comrades-in-arms. He then recruited his old followers
inside the city and ended up sowing terror which provoked the
terrified emperor Tiberius II to flee.
Justinian sent for Theodora, his Khazar
wife, to join him in the city and regaled the Khan Tervel and his
Bulgar friends with gifts and honors.
Justinian II Rhinometos, the emperor
without a nose, punished Leonicius and Apsimar, who was captured
while attempting to escape. The two were brutally executed in the
Hippodrome before the people of the city and their heads were cut
off.
Justinian pursued his enemies with fire and sword, murdering
hundreds of people in the capital who were suspected of plotting
against him.
Meanwhile, the Arabs took full advantage of the civil war that had
been ignited by the emperor himself by pushing deep into Byzantine
territory in Anatolia.
Justinian ordered an army to Ravenna to sack the city and kill its
main officials in revenge for the city’s betrayal of him. Later he
did the same to Cherson, but even more mercilessly.
However, the attack on Cherson sparked a military revolt against the
wave of violence that had cost the lives of many of their best men,
unleashing a general uprising that ended with the beheading of the
emperor. The revolutionaries under the command of Philipicus
Bardanes also executed the emperor’s young son and heir, Tiberius,
thus putting an end to the Heraclian dynasty after a century of rule
over Byzantium.
Justinian’s head was publicly displayed in Ravenna to the joy of the
survivors of the cruel sack of that city. The monster with no nose
was no more.
Leo: The first iconoclastic emperor
Introduction
The early 8th century began an extremely difficult era for the
Byzantine Empire which during the previous century had lost the rich
provinces of Syria, Palestine and Egypt to the Arabs. We must note
that these provinces were of extreme importance not only because of
the economic power held by the cities of Antioch and Alexandria but
also due to the importance of the art, literature and theology that
had arisen there as well as the fact that the seats of the
Patriarchs were there and in Jerusalem.
These losses permanently changed the character of the Empire, now
reduced to control of Greece, the Balkans and Asia Minor.
Nor did Byzantium have any significant control in the West, having
been reduced to a few areas in the south of the Italian peninsula
whose north and central regions had fallen to the bloodthirsty
Lombard invasion (even though this territory had never been
particularly loyal to the Empire even in the best of times).
What is more, since the previous century the first Bulgar kingdom
had begun to form in Byzantine territory south of the Danube, a
development which would add a new and nearby enemy and create
countless future problems.
To complete the panorama, Greece had in recent centuries become more
and more Slavic. Little by little, year after year, the Slavs
advanced even as far as the Peloponnesus, leaving to Asia Minor the
burden of consolidating the future Empire.
However, in spite of the general anguish and pain that was caused by
the loss of important territories, an urgent need to assimilate new
peoples like the Slavs as well the ongoing wars with their neighbors
gave the Byzantines other things to think about, and even served to
benefit the Empire in some ways. In their territory there was a new
sense of unity due to the increased degree of integration and
religious homogeneity among the population. Considering the
opposition role the Monophysite majority had played in Syria and
Egypt, the Empire’ losses were in some degree compensated by the
advantages of becoming a smaller, Orthodox Christian Empire without
significant internal centers of dissent.
Thus an end was put to competition between the patriarchs of
Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. These three religious leaders had
maintained a rivalry among themselves as well as with the patriarch
of Constantinople, to whom accrued an unquestioned religious
importance and who became the greatest single influence over the
emperors.
In this era the Byzantine Empire at long last achieved its own true
character in both human and social terms. One who was unaware of its
history might not guess that it was a continuation of the Roman
Empire, since Latin was no longer spoken anywhere, only Greek, which
had become the official language of legislation and administration.
Long forgotten was Justinian I’s dream of recovering the West, in
territory as well as in culture. Byzantium had now transformed
itself into a sort of Greek Empire straddling the line between
Europe and Asia, acquiring its own unique identity distinct from
that of the kingdoms of East and West, possessing elements of both
but integrated in a distinct form that was perhaps unique in the
history of the world.
In any case, it is helpful for us to understand that the inhabitants
of the Empire, even though speaking the Greek language, even with
their customs, art and administration that were so different from
those of the ancient Roman Empire, even with their radically reduced
territorial control, always considered themselves Romans.
Constantinople was the New Rome and they were the Roman Empire. Even
their enemies considered them to be Romans, and, as is well known, a
civilization may be best defined by its enemies.
This that we could call the New Empire was, in any case, an
endangered species. Not only had it been territorially reduced but
it was also threatened with death by the magnificent rise of Islam
which had taken place largely at the territorial expense of
Byzantium.
The religious enthusiasm of Muhammad’s followers, which in turn
exacerbated the Byzantines’ Orthodox religious enthusiasm, meant
that mutual hatred continued to grow even as the two different
cultures were absorbing elements from one other.
The Caliphate was determined to gain control of the Empire’s
remaining territories just as it had completely put an end to
Sassanid Persia during the previous century.
What is more, one must take into account the anarchy that the Empire
suffered thanks to the ongoing usurpations of power that finally
brought down the Heraclian dynasty, a line which had begun
brilliantly and ended in the most abject disaster.
After the final fall of the despotic and bloodthirsty Justinian II
in 711 (the emperor who had lost his nose after the uprising that
had ended his first reign), he was succeeded by the emperors Phillip,
Anastasius II and Theodosius III, weak and mostly ineffective rulers
who reigned amidst social disorder, anarchy and revolt.
The last, a simple fiscal official who was named emperor against his
will by a faction of the army, soon reached the limit of his
abilities without being able to do anything about the disorder and
malaise that had overtaken the whole Empire. In the best decision he
ever made he chose to abdicate on 25 March, 717 in favor of Leo III,
who was in the process of engineering an imminent coup. Theodosius
opted to retire to a monastery in Ephesus.
Leo III, who was governor (Strategos) of
Anatolia (the theme of Anatolicon), was very popular in the Empire
due to his extremely successful campaign against the Alans. Although
he was called the Isaurian because of his supposed Isaurian origin,
there are studies that locate his birthplace in Germanicia, a region
in the north of Syria, which would give him a completely different
profile, above all in the religious upbringing he might have
received. This factor would be of immense importance in
understanding his actions, which had an enormous influence on the
Empire’s future life.
The truth was that the only thing the new
emperor inherited from the Heraclian dynasty which had once saved
the empire from disappearance was the capital itself and a little
territory that surrounded it; the situation facing Byzantium was
that grave.
Emperor Leo III: Savior of the Empire and
of Europe
In the face of this somber panorama and
taking into account the concrete differences between the aggressive
and expansionist Arab Caliphate and the tottering Byzantine Empire
that was in fact at the verge of disappearing, it was clear that
sooner or later a definitive confrontation would occur, and Leo III
was perfectly aware of this threat. Thus, from the very moment he
was proclaimed Emperor he desperately dedicated himself to preparing
the city’s defenses.
Leo III was an excellent army commander,
close to forty years old, well trained and with a great deal of
experience in the struggles against the barbarians.
After carefully thinking through the
strategy required to complete the conquest of the Roman Empire,
Suleiman, Caliph of the Umayyad dynasty, decided in 717 to subject
it to the same fate as Sassanid Persia rather than to continue
trying to occupy Byzantine territories piecemeal in Asia Minor as
had been done up to that time, where he had been unable to cross the
Taurus line. He would besiege the capital, Constantinople, and once
the city was taken by storm he could easily gain control of the rest
of the Empire.
Thus he prepared a spectacular strategy, an idea of such grand scope
that its success would surely leave his name among the great
conquerors of history: an attack by sea carried out by the mighty
Arab fleet, coordinated with a land attack that would attempt to
overcome the famous and until-now invincible triple wall of
Theodosius.
That very same year he put the plan in march: The land army of more
than one hundred thousand men under the command of Maslamah, brother
of the Caliph Suleiman left from Pergamon, crossed the Hellespont
and arrived on 15 August, 717 to confront the terrified capital
which looked like its glory days were at an end.
Meanwhile, ever since 1 August the powerful Arab navy under the
command of general Suleiman and comprised of about eight thousand
vessels had surrounded the capital by sea.
Luckily for Constantinople, its own navy was still sizeable and its
captains were very good sailors and even better fighters. Thus they
were able to hold off the Arab navy and easily re-supply the city by
sea so the besieged did not suffer extreme hardships.
The first fierce Arab attacks were followed
by periods of relative calm, and then once again an all-out attack.
So the months dragged on with repeated cycles of attack and of
relative quiet.
This time the energy, the organization and the calm were all in
favor of the Empire with its Emperor at the head of its defenses as
was his duty, enjoying the incalculable advantage of the triple wall,
a monument to military engineering.
However, the essential weapon in the defense of the city was
something that nobody but the Byzantines knew about, and for this
reason it was called Greek Fire: a secret formula that produced a
sticky incendiary mixture that could not be extinguished even on
water. This secret weapon had the advantage of not only starting
fires and inflicting casualties on the enemy, but also sapping their
morale, seeing that the Arabs felt powerless before it and
constantly threatened by it. Above all, the attackers realized that
they possessed no such similar weapon in battle and, in a word, felt
overpowered by such a weapon which, just as importantly, the
Byzantines utilized with great skill.
Another great enemy of the Arabs was the intense and bitter winter
of the year 718. Needless to say, Arabs often feel less than
comfortable in lands with cold climate, a factor which increased the
besiegers’ suffering even more.
On the other hand we have to point out that Leo III was an excellent
diplomat. In spite of the risks involved he concluded a treaty with
the Bulgars after convincing them of the danger that would be posed
to them as well by an Islamic conquest of the region. Thus, Bulgar
forces began to harass the besieging army in the spring of 718, just
when the Arabs were receiving reinforcements and making their
supreme effort to cross the great walls, causing many casualties and
great loss of spirit in the ranks of the besieging army.
Totally discouraged, the demoralized invaders abandoned the siege by
order of Maslamah exactly one year after it began, 15 August, 718,
with a terrible final toll of around one hundred thousand dead due
to combat, starvation or the previous winter’s intense cold.
Even worse, the retreat of the Arab fleet was disastrous, first of
all because of the Byzantine navy’s attacks on their rear guard
which destroyed a large number of ships, and then due to a severe
storm that completed the job of liquidating the attacking fleet as a
fighting force.
With this all-around victory the Empire was rescued for the second
time in its history (the first was in the previous century while
Heraclius was on campaign against the Persians who had taken Syria,
Palestine and Egypt, when the Patriarch Sergius organized the
defense of the city against Persian and Avar attack).
Thus Leo III became the hero of all, the real savior, combining in
his own person unlimited power and the admiration of all the
inhabitants of the renewed Empire.
This victory over the Umayyad Caliphate could be considered the
salvation of the West, equally or more important than the battle of
Poitiers in 732 when Charles Martel defeated the Saracen invasion
from south of the Pyrenees. The most important consequence was that
the unlimited expansion of Islam was contained, now confined to
fighting for territory in Asia Minor with a much smaller scope of
ambition. After their defeat the Arabs came to believe that
Constantinople was protected by some sort of divine power, a belief
that drew the danger considerably away from the West and allowed the
creation of a new foundation for a new Empire that would stand for
centuries as a bastion in the struggle against the Arabs and later
against the Turks.
If Constantinople would have been taken, Islam, the Umayyad
Caliphate with the its limitless strength in those days, with the
incredible army that it could mobilize and with the religious
enthusiasm that was its principal weapon, would have been
unstoppable in its conquest of the rest of Europe.
It is for this reason that the figure of Leo III represents the
great Christian victory of that era in the battle for Constantinople
against Islam. He was the emperor who led his people to victory, who
maintained calm and order at the most crucial moments, who used all
the weapons at his disposal, everything from patience, alliances,
strategy and fierce defense to the good luck which crowns the
victorious, such as winter’s lethal cold.
Rebirth of the Empire
With peace, trade and commerce was able to redevelop.
Although peace was reestablished at least in the capital and nearby
regions, the struggle against the Arabs returned to Asia Minor but
remained no less fierce. Leo III dedicated himself with his
characteristic strength and decisiveness to organizing his
government in the best manner possible.
He published special regulations governing trade and commerce (nomos
nauticos), which were gradually being restored and were once again
lending strength to the tottering Empire. He also addressed the
social situation of the peasantry (nomos georgicos), who in some
regions had disappeared due to the wars and invasions and in other
areas had undergone a great turnover of population particularly
because of the influx of the Slavs.
Leo III was also an energetic renovator of the Empire’s
administrative apparatus, although in this task he continued the
tendency that had begun under Justinian, was affirmed by Maurice and
was followed by Heraclius as well: unifying the themes or provinces
under a single governing authority (Strategos) who controlled both
civil and military affairs.
In addition, he reduced the size of the themes and thereby created
an efficient organization with more provinces of smaller size,
increasing their economic, financial and military effectiveness to
the Empire’s great benefit and simultaneously reducing the
possibility of revolts by governors of powerful themes (one may
recall that the Emperor himself had originally usurped power by
relying on the support of the army of the then-enormous theme of
Anatolicon, in Asia Minor).
In the realm of finances Leo was an intelligent administrator. He
imposed more taxes on Sicily and Calabria and he seized the income
generated by the papal territories in Italy, establishing a
fundamental equilibrium between the Empire’s permanent state of war
and the enormous expenses that this required.
He also organized the legal system of the Empire, ordering the most
eminent jurists of the time to produce an update of the 6th century
compiled works of Tribonianus, the Digest, the Institutes and the
Novels, which were written in Latin, a language no longer current
among the inhabitants of the Empire.
There were also countless numbers of usages and customs that needed
to be put into law, given that the Latin-language Codes had fallen
into disuse because they had simply become incomprehensible.
Together with the changes to be expected with the passage of
centuries, this created the need to have on hand a new code of laws
better adapted to the new society and published in Greek.
From this idea came the Ekloga, which as well as summarizing the
Codes of Justinian added new laws generally aimed at affirming
public morality, prohibiting abortion, limiting the causes for
divorce and condemning homosexuality with even heavier sanctions.
Once again a link with the ancient Roman Empire was definitively
broken, since Latin had become only a memory in the Empire.
Leo III’s Beliefs: the Iconoclastic Controversy
It is not surprising that every so often a new religious controversy
would emerge in the East, being that the passion of its people gave
rise over time to a number of heresies which had been condemned by
different Christian councils, e.g. Arrianism in the era of
Constantine the Great, or a century later the followers of
Nestorius, patriarch of Constantinople, who preached against the
Holy Trinity.
This was also the origin of Monophysitism, which the population of
Syria and Egypt had massively embraced because it was much simpler
than Orthodoxy with its sumptuous and complicated rituals.
The Monophysites were so numerous and of such importance that many
emperors offered them certain advantages, such as for example Zeno,
Anastasius, Justinian (only occasionally at Theodora’s urging) and
even Heraclius, even though others dedicated themselves to
sometimes-bloody persecutions. On this point Byzantine policy did
not maintain any consistency over the centuries, which in turn
became a deciding factor in undermining the Monophysite population’s
loyalty to an Empire that had no respect for their beliefs.
Just when it seemed that the Empire had finally gained a certain
degree of religious homogeneity, from the hand of Leo III there came
a new controversy which in its earliest years seemed to impose
itself “almost” naturally, but which later provoked growing
opposition and even violence.
Virtually since the beginning of its history with the foundation of
Constantinople in 330 the Empire’s Christian inhabitants had images
of Christ and the Virgin, carried them as standards in battle,
adorned their churches with them, displayed them in different public
places and no less, kept them in their own homes.
The veneration of images was finally accepted by the Ecumenical
Council of 692. However, according to some Christian theologians
influenced by Arab beliefs (which around the year 700 prohibited
religious images in mosques) and by Jewish theologians who had
always remained enemies of visual representations of a religious
character, this veneration had become adoration. The images had
become idols worshipped by the people, something which according to
these theologians Christianity could not accept, given that it
reduced Jesus Christ and Mary to mere images to be worshipped.
We have already spoken about Leo III and his origins; his family was
from northern Syria in the region of Germanicia although later he
ended up living in Thrace. This may have been because of the Arab
conquest of his homeland or perhaps due to the capricious actions of
the nefarious Justinian II who had ordered the redeployment of
important contingents who had been serving as a bulwark against the
Islamic conquerors whose domain extended through northern Syria.
This is very important to gain some understanding of the Emperor’s
ideas, which were most probably influenced by Arab beliefs regarding
images.
Also understandable was the swift adoption of these ideas, given
that the Arab world was achieving such a rapid expansion (to an
extent that is probably unique in all of history) that it astounded
the known world. In that era it was only logical for people to
conclude that this success was due to Islamic religious beliefs, and
if one adds to this a terrible earthquake which was blamed (perhaps
intentionally) on the worship of images it is possible to make a
conjecture about the emperor’s true motives for beginning his
iconoclastic campaign.
On the other hand, the images were so important to the Byzantine
people that it is impossible to believe that iconoclasm could
triumph in the long run, so deeply did it run against the grain of
Byzantine culture. Nonetheless, the energy and decisiveness that
were so characteristic of this emperor would once again impose
themselves upon the Empire.
Perhaps what bothered Leo III the most was the fact that the images
were credited with divine powers. They were objects of adoration
because one could ask favors of them just as though they were idols,
and this made them objects of worship.
There is no doubt that the Emperor was acting on the basis of his
own convictions when in 726 he decided to spark the iconoclastic
struggle by ordering the removal of the famous painting of Christ
from the Bronze Gate of the Grand Palace. The tumult that resulted
from this action left a toll of one soldier dead, a number of
citizens wounded, and many iconodules [those who supported the
veneration of icons] under arrest.
There were two immediate consequences: first, Pope Gregory II
condemned the Emperor’s interference in church affairs and cut off
Italian funds for the Empire. Secondly, there was a serious coup
attempt which originated in Greece, from whence a fleet sailed for
Constantinople with Kosmas as a replacement candidate for the
Priest-Emperor. However, when they clashed with the Imperial Fleet
at the Hellespont the rebels were defeated and Kosmas was executed.
Not long thereafter in the year 730 Leo III published an edict
prohibiting the adoration of images, provoking a grave conflict with
Patriarch Germanus, an ardent iconodule and defender of the images
who refused to approve it.
Without a moment’s hesitation Leo III convoked the Sliention, the
supreme council of laymen and ecclesiastics which approved the edict
in support of the Emperor.
Germanus immediately resigned and was replaced by his assistant,
Anastasius, provoking the ire of the eastern Patriarchs and of Pope
Gregory II, who excommunicated the new Patriarch, opening a schism
between the eastern and western churches that would not heal for
more than a century.
In spite of his victory in imposing iconoclasm, which at this point
was supported by a large part of the population who had the same
feelings about the subject as the Emperor, Leo III never convoked an
Ecumenical Council to impose his beliefs.
The strong support that the Emperor enjoyed in his struggle against
the images was mostly based on a strong feeling of envy toward the
monks in the richest monasteries, who as well as exercising an
ever-stronger influence in Byzantine society were accumulating vast
wealth based on tax exemptions and large donations. This situation
provoked an intense religious reaction, with the Emperor itself
acting as its main crusader and participant.
Due to the Emperor’s ban on the adoration of images a large number
of Greek monks opted to “exile” themselves to the south of the
Italian peninsula, mostly to the cities of Bari, Amalfi and Salerno
where they could continue their customary iconodule ways beyond the
effective reach of the edicts. This was partially due to an
intelligent decision of Leo III who was well aware that the Empire
did not hold great sway in these provinces.
Gregory II convoked a Council which condemned iconoclasm, but Leo’s
response was not long in coming: he had the members of the Papal
legation in the Byzantine capital placed under arrest and then
removed the provinces of Italy, Sicily and the prefecture of Iliria
from Rome’s jurisdiction, placing them directly under that of
Constantinople. Additionally, all the tax revenues of Rome would
henceforth go directly into the Imperial treasury.
Thus began the distancing of the Papacy from the Byzantine Empire
and its gradual rapprochement with the Frankish kingdoms, a process
which would culminate in the year 800 when the Pope would crown
Charlemagne as Emperor, receiving vast amounts of territory in
reward.
It is not the purpose of this study to analyze the consequences of
the iconoclastic policies of Leo III, but one may draw the
conclusion that it was due to iconoclasm that the Empire finally
lost the already weakened ties that it had with the West. If one
examines Byzantium’s situation at the time of Leo’s coronation it is
possible to note that he accomplished veritable miracles and always
acted based on his convictions. In any case, by 717 this gulf
between East and West had become practically unbridgeable.
The Profile of a Great Head of State: An Enthralling Personality
The years of Leo III’s reign were marked by his political,
religious, administrative and military convictions; in everything he
did he lived up to the ideals of a good military officer, a great
strategist, an excellent diplomat, and (as he liked to refer to
himself) a Priest-Emperor, absolutely convinced of the rightness of
his own ideas.
He gave the Empire a new lease on life, organized the lives of its
inhabitants, gave them laws in their own language and reorganized
the Empire’s economy and finances. With a gift for command he
energetically confronted both foreign and domestic enemies, and
victory always walked at his side.
He consolidated the borders with the Arabs, winning battle alter
battle and always marched at the head of his army until his great
victory in 740 in the decisive battle of Akroinon, in Phrygia.
He held the Papacy at bay as a power-center that was growing behind
the Empire’s back. He took several provinces and their tax revenues,
even though he did not dare to take Ravenna which in any case was
already practically independent of the Empire. A fleet that he
himself prepared for that purpose and sent to Rome was sunk in a
storm in one of his worst defeats.
He managed to convince a significant part of his people of his
religious ideas and made himself a natural leader for those who
believed in him. He provoked endless theological debates and
discussions, the records of most of which were lost when the
Orthodox destroyed all iconoclastic documents after their final
victory.
Under Leo III, state policy was always present in every act of the
life of the Empire and there was none to gainsay it; with this the
Empire once again regained its lost strength.
He never believed in grandiose projects of omnipotent and
expansionist imperialism. He simply dedicated himself to achieving
the possible and that was the secret of his success.
Finally, one must say that he was twice unjustly forgotten by
history, first by the inhabitants of the Empire themselves who, once
iconodulia was victorious, dedicated themselves to destroying
documents and everything else referring to the iconoclasm that Leo
founded and upheld, and later by historians, his name buried for
centuries as a member of that elite group of great emperors of the
Byzantine Empire.
Theophilus
Theophilus was a cultivated and refined person with a great
knowledge of science and especially of the Arab world, of which he
was a fervent admirer, influenced in particular by the inimitable
Baghdad of that era.
His mentor was John the Grammarian, who inculcated in him a love for
Arab art and a loathing for icons.
For this reason, during his reign he returned very strongly to
iconoclasm and Arab influence extended itself throughout the Empire.
He wanted to establish a reputation as a wise and just leader and
for that reason would stroll through Constantinople, talk with
people on the street, listen to their complaints and dole out
exemplary punishment to those whom he declared guilty, without
regard to their social standing.
Administratively, he worked intelligently in creating new themes in
the Empire’s far East, including Paphlagonia, Chaldea and most
particularly, Cherson, on the distant Crimean Peninsula.
Additionally he created new border outposts on the eastern frontiers
of his domain bordering on the Caliphate.
He had great problems with this neighboring state, and in fact the
two remained in a permanent state of war. Occasionally the Emperor
celebrated victories but many times his armies were defeated. It was
an era when the power of Islam was still greatly to be feared, as
was shown in a clash close to Darimon in 838.
The Emperor’s most difficult moment was when the Caliphate took the
city of Amorium, an Anatolian fortress that the Byzantines had
considered unconquerable and, what is worse, the Emperor’s own
dynastic city of origin, which had pleaded desperately but vainly
for help from Venice and the Franks.
Over time a number of legends have emerged about Theophilus due to
his educated and inquiring personality as well as his wish to create
an aura of justice around himself, all of which makes him a
character of more than average interest.
The second iconoclastic period that ended with his death in 842 had
been limited to certain sectors of Constantinople and that only by
will of the Emperor, since most of the Empire had long since
returned to Orthodox religious practices.
One cannot say that he was a great emperor, because as well as
losing territories to the Arabs in the East he also lost part of
Sicily in the West. But we can affirm that he was a good head of
state who organized the State more efficiently and who favored the
development of the arts and sciences. He was poorly remembered by
his contemporaries and by later generations, just as were greater
emperors like Leo III and Constantine V, solely because of his
religious convictions. We must not forget that later history was
written by Orthodox supporters of images, who also destroyed all
iconoclastic documents and art.
Constantine VII (913-959, ruled 944-959)
In the year 958 when Basil II was born Byzantium was ruled by
Constantine VII Porfirogenitus, who promoted education, literature
and culture as no other emperor had done before him. He also
encouraged the exchange of embassies as part of his foreign policy,
as for example with the Umayyad Caliph Abdul Rahaman III, with Otto
the Great, and with Princess Olga of Russia.
He was cautious but firm in the wars that he waged (or rather, that
his generals began), even though in the case of Crete, which since
being conquered by the Arabs was a thorn in the side of the entire
Mediterranean, the expedition was a total failure due to a shortage
of troops. However, this was balanced with the later taking of
Theodosiopolis in the far East.
During these years two generals began to distinguish themselves by
winning significant victories over the Arabs: Nicephorus Phocas, who
led the army, and John Tzimisces, who in 958 took Samosata in
northern Mesopotamia after a fierce battle.
Romanus II (959-963)
On 9 November, 959 Constantine VII died and his son Romanus II was
consecrated emperor. He was an adolescent who was totally dominated
by the woman who in 956 would become his wife, Theophano (her real
name was Anastaso), a beautiful commoner with whom the young Romanus
had fallen madly in love. The couple had their first son, Basil II,
in 958.
The reign of Romanus II was notable mainly for the maneuvering of
Joseph Bringas, the eunuch Parakoimomenos (a sort of Majordomo of
the Palace) who advised the weak and love-sick Romanus II, as well
as for the battles won by Nicephorus Phocas, the best-known general
of the age who won great fame by his reconquest of Crete and then
Germanicea, Anazarbos, Raban, and Duluk. In 962 he totally defeated
Saif ad-Daulah in Aleppo.
Nicephorus Phocas (963-969).
On March 15, 963 Romanus II died while still very young. His wife
Theophano, who began to reign as regent for her two sons, Basil II,
barely five years old, and Constantine VIII, his younger brother,
was aware of her precarious situation and joined in a plot with the
great general Nicephorus Phocas, who had been crowned emperor by his
troops in Caesarea and who usurped power on 14 August, 963, fighting
against the soldiers of Joseph Bringas in the streets of a shocked
Constantinople.
Theophano showed her astuteness by offering her hand to Phocas, thus
legitimizing his power by uniting him by marriage to the Macedonian
dynasty and transforming the veteran general-turned-emperor into the
protector of the two young princes.
Here it is necessary to clarify that the Parakoimomenoi, or
Majordomos of the Palace, had by this time gained a great deal of
power in the State, transforming themselves into the advisors of
weak emperors or of soldier-emperors who had spent far more time on
the battlefield than in the Imperial Palace. These emperors would
make all their decisions based on their Majordomo’s advice, a
situation which had a decisive effect on the political processes of
the Empire.
For this reason it is very important to note that following Joseph
Bringas’ fall from grace, brought about by the quick and crafty
actions of Theophano in making and breaking alliances, the eunuch
Basil was named the new Parakoimomenos. He was the illegitimate son
of Romanus Lecapenus, co-emperor (in reality, the “true” emperor)
with Constantine VII from 920 to 944.
This Basil, who had already possessed broad influence in the court
ever since the time of Constantine VII, would play a very important
role in the reigns of Nicephorus Phocas, John Tzimisces and Basil
II, and would also receive the newly-created title of Proedros, the
Emperor’s right hand man.
John Tzimisces, member of an aristocratic family from Armenia, was
named Domestikos of the East (boasting supreme command) and Leo
Phocas, brother of the Emperor, was Domestikos of the West.
By this method a legitimate government was assembled for a usurper
who emerged from one of the most famous aristocratic families of the
entire Empire, and who nonetheless ended up winning more glory for
Byzantium. The new emperor was motivated by religious fervor and
such a love for Byzantium as rarely had been seen before, which led
him to fight against Islam in an extraordinary way. He was able to
unite all these elements to his own natural talent for war and that
of his principal military comrades-in-arms, John Tzimisces and Leo
Phocas, as mentioned above.
He conquered Tarsus and Mopsuestia en 965, invaded and retook
Cyprus, and in 969 his army under the command of Peter Phocas and
Michael Burtzes retook Antioch. Later on, Aleppo returned to the
Byzantine orbit when its Emir was defeated and forced to pay a heavy
tribute.
As we can see, his major accomplishment was the Byzantine reconquest
of Cicilia and most of Syria.
Political problems with the West were the order of the day. Otto I
had conquered almost all of Italy including Rome and shared the
ancient ambition of one day being recognized as the sole emperor and
heir to the Roman throne.
Nicephorus, basking in the glow of power and victory, expressed his
disgust at the attitude of a “barbarian king” who wanted to give his
son in marriage to the daughter of an Emperor. He treated the King’s
embassy, led by Liutiprand of Cremona, as little more than
impoverished prisoners, which in turn gave the ambassador the
opportunity to rancorously and scornfully describe the figure of the
Byzantine Emperor.
The Bulgars were also gravely mistaken about the Emperor. Nicephorus
ordered the ambassadors of that county to be whipped when they
demanded payment of a tribute agreed upon long years ago.
However, Nicephorus Phocas very wisely refused to be distracted from
his campaigns in the East and he offered Sviatoslav, a Russian
prince, a reward for fighting against the Bulgars and teaching them
a lesson.
The Russian prince took full advantage of the opportunity to extend
his dominions south of the Danube. In 969 he defeated the Bulgars
and became a powerful force and by threatening Byzantium showed that
Phocas had erred in calling him in to help the Empire. This was an
error that was further compounded by the Byzantine policy in the
first half of the 10th century of preferring the Russians to their
own historic allies, the Khazars, who ultimately disappeared under
Slavic rule.
This dark shadow in the Balkans was a major problem that the Emperor
either could not or would not foresee.
The Emperor also fell victim to the brilliance of thought and
alliances of Theophano, who took advantage of the fact that in spite
of his victories, Nicephorus Phocas never achieved a great degree of
popularity. This was because his tax increases and his long and
hard-fought wars made ordinary citizens’ lives much hasher.
Theophano finally drew John Tzimisces, who had become her lover,
into a pact to eliminate the Emperor.
Thus it was that on the night of 10 December, 969 John Tzimisces and
some of his soldiers entered the Emperor’s bedroom, surprising him
in his sleep and assassinating him in one of the most unjust acts in
the long history of Byzantium.
JOHN TZIMISCES. (969-976)
Without any doubt, John Tzimisces was the best Byzantine general of
the 10th century and one of the most brilliant in the history of the
Empire.
John Tzimisces, who came from an aristocratic family of Armenia, was
named “Domestikos” of the East during the rule of Nicephorus Phocas
and distinguished himself as a brilliant general who maintained the
highest standard of honesty while collaborating with the seasoned
general-emperor.
However, it was at this point that Theophano’s influence over the
Byzantine imperial court came to an end, as a direct result of the
decision of the Patriarch, Polyeuctes, who had become indignant at
the murder of Phocas. He made it clear that he had decided to make
the conspirators pay a high price. Before crowning Tzimisces as
emperor he demanded that those responsible for the murder be
punished and that Theophano be exiled. He also demanded the repeal
of laws enacted by Phocas to limit monastic property.
John Tzimisces led Byzantium as emperor and protector of Basil II
and Constantine VIII and showed the same energy as his predecessor
whom he ultimately surpassed both as a general and as a ruler.
This was proven when he was able to peacefully resolve the conflict
with Sviatoslov, who had allied himself with the Bulgars against
Byzantium and demanded the Empire’s retreat.
Tzimisces put the Bulgars in their place after placing the dethroned
Czar, whom he had captured, back on the throne. In 971 he took Grand
Preslav and besieged Sviatoslav in Silistria, squeezing it between
the army and the navy with its fearsome Greek fire. He wore down its
defenders until Sviatoslav surrendered and then made the Russian
prince promise to abandon Bulgaria. However, this promise was never
fulfilled because the Russian ruler met his death at the hands of
the Pechenegs before he could return to his own country.
Thus, the Emperor annexed eastern Bulgaria to Byzantine territory,
eliminating the special peril posed by the Russians.
Politically, Tzimisces was more cautious and possessed better
foresight than Phocas. He also proved himself to be much more
diplomatic, as was demonstrated by the solution he found in giving a
young woman of his own family in marriage to Otto I, thus
establishing peace and stability with the West.
As a military leader he was truly brilliant and in the East, his
principal interest, he conquered Antioch in 974 and in 975 the
cities of Emesa, Baalbek, Damascus, Tiberias, Nazareth, Acre and
Caesarea.
Nonetheless, his real ambition was that of reconquering all the
lands that had been lost to the Arabs in the 8th century. However,
this could not to be brought to fruition and the effort was cut
short by his death on 10 January, 976.
It is not known for certain how John Tzimisces’ life came to an end.
Some authors such as Ostrogorsky are of the opinion that he died of
an illness, possibly typhus. Maier and Treadgold were uncertain
whether it was a case of typhus or a conspiracy driven by the
Proedros Basil, most likely a very opportune poisoning which would
certainly place total power into the hands of the already
over-powerful Majordomo of the Palace.
Whatever caused it, the Emperor’s untimely death was certainly cause
for celebration on the part of all the Empire’s enemies, including
the Fatimids, the Bulgars and other neighboring peoples.
BASIL II
The Proedros, Basil, and Bardas Skleros’ rebellion.
The sudden death of John Tzimisces gave a
number of famous generals cause to reconsider their possibilities of
becoming Emperor, generating an atmosphere of great tension within
the Empire.
In the year 976 Basil II was eighteen years
old and Constantine VII was sixteen. Both had been raised as
frivolous, useless and decorative members of a sumptuous imperial
court that rendered homage to whoever was the strongman of the
moment. Nobody imagined that the heirs to the throne would actually
step forward to claim it that very year.
Nonetheless, their great uncle, the eunuch
Basil, who boasted great power in the palace, was able to take power
in the name of the two young heirs.
It was at this point that we see the
emergence of a powerful warrior: Bardas Skleros, John Tzimisces’
Domestikos of the East and member of one of the oldest and richest
families of Byzantium, was proclaimed Emperor by his troops in the
summer of 976.
Basil, who was running the Empire as the de
facto emperor, began in 977 to unsuccessfully send troops against
Bardas Skleros. Skleros’ rebellion soon gained control of all of
Asia Minor, took Nicea in 978 and was drawing nearer to the capital.
Desperate after Skleros’ victories, Basil
resorted to his only remaining way out: he called on a general,
Bardas Phocas, brother in law of Nicephorus, who had tried
unsuccessfully to usurp power during the government of Tzimiscs but
whose putsch had been quashed by the then-emperor’s defender, Bardas
Skleros.
Bardas Phocas was a fearsome warrior of
great stature as well as an excellent general who would not turn
down a chance to avenge past grievances. In a very daring plan, he
would avoid direct confrontation when Skleros was close to
Constantinople but would move on Caesarea instead, forcing the
usurper to pursue him. Skleros emerged as clear victor in the
initial clashes and later in more important battles he was also
victorious. However, in the decisive battle which took place very
close to Amorium on the plains of Pancalea, Phocas, who had very
cunningly held back his best fresh forces and whose morale was very
high, inflicted a crushing defeat on the rebel forces on 29 May,
979, putting an end to three years of civil war which had sapped the
power of Byzantium.
Thus it was that Bardas Skleros, defeated
and humiliated by Bardas Phocas, was forced to flee and to seek
asylum in the court of the Caliph al-Ta’i.
For his part, the victorious general Bardas
Phocas soon had a confrontation with the Parakoimomenos Basil, as a
result of which he was marginalized for several years.
The Uprising in Macedonia
Due to the death of John Tzimisces and
taking advantage of the civil war declared by Bardas Skleros which
occupied the attention of the armies of Byzantium for several years,
Macedonia experienced a large-scale uprising which eventually took
on the characteristics of a war of liberation against the Empire.
So it was that in 976 when the great
warrior emperor was dead and Byzantium was distracted with one of
its frequent struggles for power the entire region of Macedonia was
gripped by the Cometopouloi uprising, which resulted in the
foundation of a new Empire, the Macedonian Bulgar Empire.
The dethroned Czar Boris, who had been a
prisoner in Constantinople ever since John Tzimisces deftly used him
against Sviatoslav and then let him drop, learned of this
insurrection and fled the Byzantine capital with his brother
Romanus, heading for his homeland.
Here one of those unique events took place
that history capriciously throws up against its protagonists: when
Boris crossed the border the Bulgar soldiers mistook his identity
and he died at the hands of his own subjects.
Romanus could not be crowned Czar because
the Byzantines had castrated him, and being an “incomplete man” he
could not take command of the new empire.
This left Samuel, who took command from
this moment on and later on took the crown of Czar of the Macedonian
Empire.
Samuel was the creator of a great new
empire which had its main capital at Prespa and later at Ochrida and
which was able to win control of all the territory it claimed as its
own, including all of Bulgaria, Thessaly, Epirius, the zone of
Dirrachium, Rascia and Dioclea, stopping only outside of the city of
Thessalonica, which defended itself valiantly and was not conquered.
Samuel very wisely declared the New
Bulgarian Empire as the continuation of the empire of Simeon and of
Peter. The imperial institutions and the patriarchate followed the
traditions of the earlier empire, with the difference that the
region of Macedonia was its center and its empire was larger and
more powerful than that of Simeon
The true character of Basil II
From 976 until 979 the government of Basil,
the palace eunuch, was very weak and subject to pressures of all
sorts while being unable to overcome Bardas Skleros.
With Phocas’ victory, the eunuch Basil’s
power was reaffirmed and he governed at his own whim, dictating laws
and decisions and enriching himself enormously, transforming himself
into the richest and most powerful figure in all the Byzantine
state.
In the face of this situation Basil II, who
had remained a decorative figure and who owed his very throne to the
great eunuch, drew ever further apart from his great uncle.
Showing his true personal character, Basil
II wanted to govern and was eager to take power into his own hands,
which led him to attempt, first subtly and then more openly, to
distance himself from his “benefactor” who stood behind the throne.
Little by little the eunuch Basil saw how
Basil II tried to decide on questions of government, no longer
docile and manageable, now discussing everything and creating
problems for his once-omnipotent uncle.
In the face of this situation, in the year
985 when Basil II was 27 years old, the grand eunuch of the palace
planned a conspiracy together with Bardas Phocas, his old savior,
and other generals. However, in a brilliant preemptive strike that
showed his ability and intelligence Basil II had his uncle arrested,
confiscated his incalculable fortune and sent him into exile.
Not long afterward, the man who had since
963 been the most powerful figure in Byzantium died abandoned, alone
and without a coin to his name. He who had spent twenty-two years on
top of the world died sadly and in the most utter solitude.
The one who was responsible for this,
Emperor Basil II, began thus his long, difficult yet prosperous
reign.
Basil II, the Lonely Emperor (985-1025)
First Campaign against the Bulgarian
Empire.
The first measure that Basil II took upon
gaining sole power was to declare null and void all the laws that
had been promulgated by the eunuch Basil. One may conjecture that
the young Basil, who owed his possession of the throne to his great
uncle, had nourished a great deal of resentment against him, perhaps
because he, the legitimate Emperor, could not even participate in
decision-making, perhaps due to simple envy of the power that the
grand eunuch wielded. The young Emperor kept in force only those
laws that he himself wished to reaffirm.
The situation of the Empire was no longer
the same as at the end of the reign of John Tzimisces, who had
earned the respect and fear of all the neighboring states.
Bardas Skleros’ attempted usurpation of
power and the civil war it produced had weakened Byzantium’s
position with regard to its neighbors, bringing as a grave
consequence the creation of the Macedonian Bulgar Empire of Czar
Samuel.
It was very logical that Basil’s first
campaign sought to return some semblance of normalcy to the
territory of the Balkans, given that the Bulgarian Empire headed by
Czar Samuel had become a fearsome adversary and a potential invader
of new Byzantine territories.
It was Samuel’s invasion of Thessaly and
takeover of Larissa in late 985 that made Basil II decide to go on
the offensive.
Basil II determined to take Sardica (Sofia)
by surprise, but although he dedicated no small number of troops to
the operation he could not penetrate the city and short of supplies,
he decided to return before his casualties became excessive.
Unfortunately for the Byzantine emperor, as his army was retreating
it was attacked by Bulgarian Czar’s army which inflicted a grave
defeat in August, 986, seriously endangering Basil’s power and
reputation within the Empire.
Attempted Usurpation in Byzantium.
In Byzantium the Emperor’s defeats were
usually not received very well, being considered proof that the
ruler either did not enjoy the favor of God or was at very best
incompetent, and this incident was no exception.
Bardas Skleros reappeared in the empire and
had himself proclaimed emperor by the troops he had recruited.
For his part, Bardas Phocas was still
resentful at the disgraceful treatment he had received at the hands
of the Parakoimomenos Basil when he was in power. Thus when he was
called upon to once again confront insurrection as supreme commander
in Asia, even though at first he seemed to accept the
responsibility, he then had himself proclaimed emperor on 15 August,
987, before the image of his great uncle, Nicephorus Phocas.
All the generals of the army and all the
most important families of Asia Minor (with the obvious exception of
the Skleros) supported Phocas, giving his rebellion the
characteristics of a general uprising against the young, autocratic
and pretentious Basil II, who had virtually no allies anywhere in
the Empire.
And, if this were not bad enough news for
the Emperor, Phocas and Skleros came to an agreement to divide the
Empire between them: Phocas in Europe with the capital, and Skleros
in Asia.
However, this alliance was very short-lived
and Phocas, conscious of the massive support that he enjoyed,
imprisoned Skleros and became the only pretender to the throne.
With all of Asia Minor on his side, in
early 998 he drew dangerously close to Constantinople, taking two
positions to attack the city: Abydos and Chrysopolis, preparing to
attack both by land and by sea.
Basil II lost no time. He knew that within
the Empire he enjoyed very little support so instead he called on
Prince Vladimir of Kiev, who sent him a contingent of six thousand
men, the famous Varego-Russian Druzhina, formed of Russian Normans.
The Emperor himself, fearless and brave,
led his Russian-Byzantine army to its destiny at the end of 988:
Chrysopolis.
Basil II’s victory was overwhelming and was
to be repeated at Abydos on 13 April, 989, where Phocas was not only
defeated but died, apparently from a heart attack.
Bardas Skleros, who had still not learned
his lesson, rose up once again but finally arrived at a peaceful
accord, ending up as a loyal subject of the Emperor.
In exchange for his help, Basil II’s pact
granted Prince Vladimir the Emperor’s sister Ana Porfirogeneta’s
hand in marriage, something that was an incomparable privilege in
that era.
So important for the Byzantines was the
giving in marriage of a princess of the imperial dynasty that when
he thought the promise would not be fulfilled, Vladimir invaded
Cherson in 989 in order to enforce his rights. Of course, the
marriage finally took place.
The condition imposed by the Byzantines for
the marriage of their princess to Vladimir was far more important:
the Christianization of the Russian state.
Thus, Basil II achieved almost without
seeking it the Christianization of the most important of the Slav
states, placing it under the leadership of Constantinople. Russia
began its journey toward Orthodoxy, which marked the centuries-long
influence of Byzantium over the Russian state.
Basil II, the Autocrat.
As a child Basil II was raised as a drone
in the imperial court, living a pleasant and easy life that assured
successive Palace Majordomos their supremacy and their own
governance of the Byzantine state.
The tutelage of his great uncle, the eunuch
Basil, made the young heir into an emperor ruling in the shadow of
greater powers; what was expected of Basil was the attitude of his
brother, Constantine VIII, who remained content with his life of
luxury and frivolity.
However, in spite of all this Basil II was
made of stronger stuff, although none realized it until he surprised
his uncle by exiling him and confiscating all his goods.
Then the betrayals by his own generals, the
uprisings, the implacable enemies, all little by little made him
withdraw from all those who surrounded him. He became more difficult
to meet, preferring to be alone, to decide alone, to rule alone as a
true and authentic autocrat.
He had not married up to this point, and he
decided never to do so. He had nobody in whom he could place his
trust and his behavior was very odd in the Byzantine court where
everyone wished to excel in the art of rhetoric or in knowledge of
arts and sciences. However, the Emperor barely spoke to anyone (only
as much as necessary), and did not discuss affairs of state. He did
not bother to convince anyone of what he had decided; he simply put
it into practice.
His very raison d’être was the Byzantine
state, its survival and progress and the defeat of its enemies.
Measures against the Landed Gentry and the
Monasteries.
In order for the State to grow it was
necessary to rein in the aristocratic class of rich landholding
families who with their unlimited ambitions were accumulating lands
that the free peasants sold cheaply for various reasons (droughts,
bad harvests, floods, fires, etc.).
Aware of the crucial importance of the free
peasantry, Basil II collected the laws that were promulgated by
Romanus Lecapenus to protect the peasants and even improved them in
order to return lost land to the peasants.
His agrarian policy was thus deeply
anti-aristocratic, which earned him the hatred of all the important
families of the Themes.
It was with this spirit that he made the
great magnates like the Phocas and Maleinoi families return all the
lands that they had usurped illegally from their legitimate owners
ever since the first agrarian law of Romanus Lecapenus was enacted
in 922. Basil’s Novel of 996 names these families specifically.
In this Novel, the Phocas and the Maleinoi
are held up as examples of aristocratic families who had gained
unlimited power by illegally acquiring land, buying it from owners
who had fallen onto hard times due to frost, fire or excessive
taxes, in contravention of existing laws that protected small
landholders, and then taking advantage of a forty-year statute of
limitations after which no challenge could be made against
illegally-acquired land titles.
Following reasonable logic, the Novel
specified that due to their growing power the great landlords could
easily run out the statute of limitations and gain clear title to
the land. Thus the statute of limitations was abolished, returning
to the status quo antes of 922 when Romanus Lecapenus decreed his
first Novel on this subject.
As a consequence, great landlords who had
acquired lands illegally since 922 had to return them to their
former owners without any recourse to the statute of limitations.
The measure, which was almost impossible to
enforce (more than 74 years had passed), showed the hatred that
Basil II felt toward the rural aristocracy of Asia Minor that had
caused him such problems and challenges with their revolts since the
beginning of his reign, and had caused him to waste a great deal of
time, offering Czar Samuel the opportunity to organize a true rival
empire in the Balkans.
This Novel also affected the monasteries,
which had become immensely wealthy thanks to ever growing donations
made by the subjects of the Empire, including wills which left goods
and property to the church.
At that time a huge number of monasteries
had been established in villages or hamlets where peasants had
donated their lands. In his Novel of 996 Basil II declared that
these were not monasteries but rather Houses of Prayer under the
control of the local hamlet, owing no monetary obligations to the
bishop.
The larger monasteries, defined as those
having more than eight monks, remained under the jurisdiction of the
local bishop but were denied the right to acquire more land, once
again in agreement with the old laws of Romanus Lecapenus.
The “Allenlengyon.”
The “allenlengyon” system was a method of
tax collection that had produced very good results for the Empire
ever since the times of Nicephorus I. It meant that each rural
village was subject to a certain total amount of taxes that the
State collected in the following way: if a neighbor proved himself
to be insolvent (which occurred fairly frequently because of the
various problems that might cause a bad harvest) the remaining
villagers were responsible for paying his taxes. This insured
collection of the total amount of taxes budgeted for that village.
Basil II’s greatest worry was that in his
time the peasants were being victimized by this system because if a
peasant abandoned his parcel of land the neighbors would pay his
taxes. However, those who could not bear this increased tax burden
then often found it necessary to leave as well, leaving great
extents of land abandoned to the rich and powerful who could then
acquire title at minimal expense.
In this situation the State collected less
and less taxes as well as suffering the abandonment of entire
villages.
In a very brilliant move Basil II decided
that from now on only the great landholders would be responsible for
the payment of taxes for the insolvent. This killed two birds with
one stone: the state was assured payment of taxes and agricultural
and livestock production was maintained.
Of course the protests were loud and angry
and great figures made their voices heard, supported by Patriarch
Sergius, but by this time Basil II was already a strong, intelligent
and inflexible monarch and he did not waver in applying the new
rules.
Europe over Asia.
Bardas Skleros’ uprising had certainly left
its mark on the mind of Basil II, along with Bardas Phocas’
betrayal. The Emperor was also impressed by the great power of
Eustacius Malenios, a magnate who occasionally received the Emperor
at his estate and took the opportunity to show him how the people
lived.
These three figures had one thing in
common: they represented the rural landed gentry of Asia Minor.
Their lands were in Anatolia, Armenia or Cappadocia, where in many
cases their landholdings bordered on the western Islamic
territories. This landed nobility had dominated the life of the
Empire in recent years under the rule of Nicephorus Phocas and John
Tzimisces.
These landowners held that the interests of
the Empire ought to lie in reconquering lands lost to the Arabs,
which appeared eminently logical to them given their own interest in
increasing control of territories close to those that they already
owned. However, Basil not only fought them by charging them the
taxes of the destitute peasants and making them return lands seized
more than seventy years ago, but occasionally even (as in the case
of Eustacius Malenios) confiscated all their belongings. And, he
favored war against the Bulgarian Empire of Samuel (totally confined
to European territory) over the reconquest of territories from
Islam. Unfortunately, the latter would have actually been much more
advantageous because Fatimid Egypt, which controlled Syria and
Palestine, was passing through an era of significant weakness, as
John Tzimisces had demonstrated with his remarkable campaigns.
Basil II, the Soldier.
The Bulgarian Empire: the Great Obsession.
Thus we have an emperor with several
lifelong obsessions: limiting the power of the nobility in Asia
Minor, limiting the power of the Church, and winning a predominantly
European empire, which in turn required the defeat of his great
rival, the intelligent, astute and powerful Czar Samuel who had torn
from Byzantium a large part of its European empire.
As to the rural aristocracy and the church,
nobody could suggest that Basil II wanted to destroy them. He simply
could not bear the thought that there might be families who were
more powerful than the Emperor himself, or that the power of the
church could be greater than that of the State.
With an intelligence that dwarfed others of
his time, the Byzantine sovereign understood that if business went
on as usual as it had under his predecessors the State would
inevitably end up disintegrating into petty feudal estates like the
one already held by Eustacius Maleinos. When visiting him after a
campaign against Syria the Emperor came to realize that Malenios
controlled thousands of slaves and serfs and that if he had wished
to he could have easily formed his own army. He also knew that the
monasteries owned whole villages that paid no taxes to the State,
only contributions to the bishop, which made the church even more
powerful.
However, the principal goal that the
Emperor had set for himself was to conquer the empire of Samuel, and
he would not rest until achieving total victory. Perhaps his hatred
toward the gentry of Asia Minor lent more importance to the war in
Europe, or perhaps he felt humiliated by his first defeat when he
was unable to enter Sardica. In any case, Samuel and his empire
remained a thorn in the side of the Emperor, who dedicated all his
strength, all his creativity and all his waking hours to the task of
conquering his enemy.
Foreign Help and Complications in Antioch.
Certainly enthused with the brilliant
success won with the help of the Varegan soldiers, the Emperor
requested help from the Croat king, Stephen Drzhislav. In return he
sent Stephen the royal insignia, named him Eparch of all the zone of
the Dalmatian cities, and granted him the title of Patrician.
He also made contact with the Serbs, but
when the delegation from the Slavic lands arrived in Constantinople
in 992 they did not meet with the Emperor because he had already
left on military campaign against the Bulgars.
Macedonia thus became the scene of a
merciless war between Bulgaria and Byzantium. Both Samuel and Basil
II knew that the future of their respective empires was at stake and
they both put forth their best efforts to win victory battle by
battle.
However, in 994 problems emerged with the
Fatimids, which obliged the Emperor to return to Constantinople and
then to march to the north of Syria where the city of Antioch was in
danger and Aleppo was already occupied by the Arabs.
In 995 he arrived at Aleppo, taking the
enemy by surprise and defeating them. He then took Rafanea and
Edessa, showing an extraordinary talent and energy for war. However,
war on two fronts means only bitterness, and the Empire suffered
once again when Samuel took advantage of the respite that Basil II
had given him and the Bulgarian advance reached the Peloponnesus.
Nonetheless, the Emperor had an excellent
general in Nicephorus Uranos, who beat Samuel in a battle in 997 in
which the Bulgarian Czar was gravely wounded.
Yet Samuel was also a talented military
leader as well as a very strong man. He survived and recovered from
his wounds and the next year took Dirrachium and then incorporated
Rascia and Dioclea into his empire in late 998.
Meanwhile, Basil II fulfilled his
obligation to give battle in the East where, in 999, he returned to
Syria and once again defeated the Fatimids in Antioch, although he
was unable to take Tripoli.
That same year he had to go to Armenia and
Iberia to put down uprisings in these two nations.
As soon as he returned to Constantinople in
1001 he had to leave in haste for the Balkans to once again face his
hated enemy.
Total War.
In 1001 Basil was finally able to
concentrate all his military power in the area of the Balkans, since
the Byzantine East was pacified and stable.
As direct and frontal as he usually was in
war, his expedition headed for Sardica where he entered triumphantly
and then proceeded to dominate the whole region, cutting Samuel’s
empire in two and weakening it significantly from the beginning.
The Byzantines were also able to take
Plishka, the former Bulgarian capital, as well as Great Preslav.
Their next step was to enter Macedonia
where they took Berea and conquered Serbia.
Then they headed for Greece, to the region
of Thessaly, conquered it without important opposition and then
returned to Macedonia.
The taking of Vodena in Macedonia was a
quite different case, requiring great efforts to besiege and conquer
the city because of its great walls.
By now it was the year 1003, and after
taking Vodena Basil headed for Vidin, a fortress on the Danube which
he besieged with his army but which turned out to be very difficult
to penetrate.
After besieging the Danubian city for
several months he was surprised by Samuel, who took and sacked
Adrianople by surprise.
The Emperor, nonetheless, did not take the
bait. He refused to be distracted by what could turn out to be a
trap laid by his intelligent adversary and he continued the fight
for Vidin, which he was able to take after eight months of siege in
1004.
Immediately and without respite, Basil led
his army toward the south where he encountered the army of Samuel on
the banks of the River Vadar, very close to Skopje, and inflicted on
him what turned out to be a decisive defeat in the course of the
war.
Basil’s entry into Skopje was immediate,
returning this city as well to the Byzantine orbit.
After four years of fierce combat Basil II
had won victory after victory, had cut the Bulgarian Empire in two,
had taken away their best cities, and half their territory was once
again Byzantine.
Faced with this situation and certainly
aware of his soldiers’ need for rest and recuperation, he decided to
return to Constantinople to spend the winter a bit more comfortably
and to prepare his forces to deal a final blow.
The Bulgaroctonos.
By 1004 Byzantium had the war practically
won. This is shown, for example, by the betrayal of Dirrachium which
went over the Byzantine side in 1005, knowing that Samuel’s side had
no chance to win.
The war that was waged by the emperor was
very far from that customarily carried out by previous Byzantine
rulers, who would usually attack only during the warm seasons and
would return to Constantinople for the winter, partly to maintain
control of the always-unpredictable events of the imperial court and
the nobility and partly to rest and recuperate in order to carry on
again when the weather permitted.
Basil had no second thoughts about being
four years on the battlefield, four full winters before returning,
because he had drawn up a plan and he would not relent until it was
accomplished. Possessed of an enviable degree of determination, he
enjoyed a prodigious intelligence that allowed him to take the enemy
apart at the most vital points, along with an incomparable energy
that was daunted neither by Samuel’s brightest stratagems nor by his
knowledge of the terrain, nor by the diversionary tactics that the
Bulgarian Czar employed with great skill and the greatest daring.
Beyond any doubt, the Byzantine army was
superior to the Bulgarian army in order, discipline and technique;
additionally, the mobility that it was given by its commanders was a
fundamental factor and its maneuvers were fast and always
unpredictable. The Byzantine siege tactics against the most
important fortified centers, plus the high moral of its soldiers who
were ready and willing to follow their leader as far as he wished to
go were all decisive factors in this war.
The next ten years of the war found Samuel
holding out in several different zones that he more or less
dominated, but his empire was by now nothing but a memory. His
resistance, based on a high degree of mobility and constant
skirmishes, did not lead to any great battles until the year 1014
when in July the Byzantine army pinned him down in a mountain pass
in the Clidion chain in the region of Strymon.
There, Samuel’s army was slaughtered by the
Byzantines, although Samuel himself was able to make a desperate
escape to Prilep, which was still under his control.
Basil II, now surer than ever of his final
victory, had a true attack of cruelty, perhaps motivated by the
delay in ending a war that had cost him the better part of his life.
He ordered the vast number of Bulgar prisoners (according to
Skylitzes, 15,000; according to Kekaumenos, 14,000, although both
these figures may be a bit exaggerated) to be blinded, all except
one man out of every hundred who could serve as a guide to lead the
rest to Prilep.
This cruelty was Basil’s final stroke in a
war that had now been running in his favor for a long time, and it
confirmed the nickname that the Emperor had earned some time before:
the Bulgar-killer, the Bulgaroctonos.
Samuel, who was a great soldier but who had
no other option but to resist the Emperor as well as he could for so
many years, surely loved the Bulgars; when he saw the blind
battalions staggering into Prilep he fainted and fell to the ground
senseless.
Two days later the great Bulgarian Czar
died, on 6 October, 1014.
Nonetheless, his successors were dedicated
to carrying on the war. His son Gabriel Radomir fell victim, along
with his wife and his brother-in-law John Vladimir, to an
assassination plot that cost him his life in 1015. The instigator of
the assassination, his cousin John Vladislav, had himself crowned
Czar and continued the hostilities.
Bit by bit the Byzantine army was taking
control of the territory that Vladislav still dominated and his
death during an attempted attack against Dirrachium marked the final
end of the war.
An Incomparable Conqueror.
By 1018 the Emperor had fulfilled his
purpose in life. At seventy years of age he could say that his
life’s goal was accomplished: he had overcome the Bulgarian Empire
and had utterly defeated it.
His entrance into Ochrida was
extraordinary. There he received the homage of those he had
conquered, the Czarina and the rest of the Bulgarian imperial
family.
Basil II then dedicated himself for a time
to touring all of Macedonia and the lands south of the Danube,
making it totally clear that he was the highest and unquestioned
authority in the conquered territory.
And, this was really an absolutely
invaluable conquest, something that no other emperor had achieved in
Byzantium since the times of Justinian when the Slavic invasions had
begun over four centuries before. All of the Balkan Peninsula was
once again Byzantine territory.
Of comparable importance was the fact that
Byzantine influence now extended to Dioclea, Bosnia and even
Croatia, all of which functioned as vassal states, with their own
princes but following the policies of the Empire.
At this point the European part of the
Empire was truly impressive, its domains were firm and respected,
the army was at its most important point since Justinian, the
Byzantine Emperor was admired in his territories and beyond, and
conditions were ripe for an even greater expansion.
The Situation in Bulgaria.
The Emperor was very considerate regarding
the situation of the conquered nation, almost as though he wished to
apologize for the violence and cruelty that he had unleashed during
the war.
First of all, regarding the tributes that
the Bulgar people had to pay, he allowed them to pay in kind,
something that greatly alleviated the suffering of the country which
had been devastated by war for so many long years.
Here one must remember that in all of the
Empire taxes were paid in cash and the circulation of Byzantine
coinage was vital to the economy of the Empire as well as that of
the then-known world.
Then, on the question of religion, Basil II
continue to show the superiority of his reasoning over that of his
subjects: he reduced the rank of the Patriarchate of Ochrida to that
of an Archbishopric, which at first glance seemed to be a demotion.
However, in exchange he granted it independence from Constantinople,
a decision which was received with great satisfaction by the Bulgar
clergy. Finally, the Emperor reserved for himself the privilege of
naming the Archbishop.
With these measures Basil II kept control
of the Bulgar church in the hands of the Emperor himself, keeping
the church of Constantinople from growing in power and at the same
time earning the gratitude of the Slavic nation’s clergy.
Finally, in the political arena Bulgaria
(as we must recall, Macedonian Bulgaria) became a Byzantine theme,
with Skopje as its capital.
This theme was named a “Catepanate” and
then a Duchy, which showed the emperor’s degree of concern, given
that this lent more importance to the territory.
Silistria became the capital of the theme
of Paristrion, south of the Danube, which would also be a Catepanate
and then a Duchy.
Sirmium would also head a theme south of
the Danube in its northwestern part.
The theme of Dalmatia was confirmed with
its administrative center at Zara.
Then came the Duchy of Dirrachium, the most
important city facing the Adriatic Sea, and the theme of
Thessalonica, the second most important city in the Empire after
Constantinople, which was also raised to the dignity of a Duchy
Finally, there were the regions of Dioclea,
Trevinia, Zachlumia, Rascia, Bosnia and Croatia, which were not
themes but as noted above were vassal status of the Empire, each
with its own ruler.
Thus Basil organized the enormous territory
that now totally dominated a Byzantine Empire whose center of
gravity had shifted significantly toward the European part of the
Empire.
The East Once More
In 1020 Gagik I, the king who had ruled the
destiny of Armenia ever since 990, died. A period of unrest followed
in that eastern country, offering Basil II the opportunity to
intervene. Vaspurkan and Iberia were incorporated into the Byzantine
Empire, which kept on accumulating power, this time in the distant
East.
The Armenian kingdom of Ani would pass into
Byzantine hands on the death of John Smbat, its king, according to
an agreement that had been established by the Emperor.
The themes of Asia Minor continued to be
favored by the Emperor to the detriment of the new border themes;
Antioch became a Duchy and Mesopotamia as well. Then Edessa,
Vaspurkan and Iberia were named Catepanates, which also raised their
status above the themes of the regions of Anatolia and Cappadocia.
Thus was organized the Byzantine far East,
giving preponderance to the territories conquered by Phocas,
Tzimisces, and Basil II over the themes where the aristocracy had
its own bulwark.
The West as Well.
As though this work of conquest was not
enough, the Emperor also planned the reconquest of the territories
of the island of Sicily, where there were still living memories of
Byzantine rule.
Prior to this, a Catepanate had been formed
of all the remaining Byzantine domains in the south of the Italian
peninsula, which gave greater cohesion to the administration of the
territory. Basil Boioanes was the Catepan who had made southern
Italy strong, taking advantage as well of Byzantine influence in the
Western imperial court, whose emperor, Otto III was the son of
Theophano, the young female relative of John Tzimisces who had been
given in marriage to Otto II, his father.
The immediate plan was to take advantage of
the strength of the Catepanate of Italy in order to invade Sicily
and for this purpose Basil made lengthy preparations, taking full
advantage of the stabilization of his other borders. However, on 15
December 1025 the great emperor died at the age of 67 years.
Unfortunately, Basil II did not live to put
his plan into action, but his work in favor of the Empire was
invaluable.
The Errors of a Great Emperor.
Beyond a doubt, Basil II was one of the
greatest emperors in all the history of Byzantium, and one of the
most distinguished personalities of medieval Europe in the 10th and
11th centuries, but this does not mean that either his personality
or his dedicated work at the head of the Empire were infallible.
In principle, his thoroughly autocratic
government, based on the cult of his own personality, could not do
other than leave an vacuum of people with real values who could
succeed him at the head of the army or of the Empire itself.
It is logical to conclude that if for forty
years the army was under the command of a single person to the
exclusion of all others, one whose orders were obeyed as though he
were a god, at his death there would be no one with so much as a
minimum degree of aptitude to succeed him, being that all who worked
under his unquestioned and very personal orders and decisions had no
option but to obey or die.
Of course there were distinguished generals
who fought for him, but always under the shadow of his authority
which allowed these generals to establish neither a minimum degree
of popularity nor personalities of their own.
The very monumental authority that the
Emperor held in life engendered after his death a power-vacuum that
would barely be filled in the future by a couple of generals who,
being good soldiers, lost their posts due to the intrigues of the
Byzantine court, showing that their power was limited in spite of
their military talent.
The Succession.
Precisely the same thing that happened with
the army occurred in the imperial court: at the time of Basil II’s
death in 1025 there was not a single figure with even the slightest
aptitude to succeed him, at least not at the court, among his family
members or associates.
Constantine VIII was now more than 70 years
old. Even though he had accompanied his brother in some of his
campaigns, even though he was always present at court, even though
he was always associated with the throne, he did not have much
personal interest in managing the destiny of the Empire.
The figure of the recently deceased Emperor
was, in 1025, absolutely irreplaceable. Even worse, there was not a
single member of the Macedonian dynasty who could even partially
emulate him.
Why was it so important that the succession
be passed to some more or less capable member of the ruling dynasty?
It was because among the people of Byzantium the idea of succession
via hereditary legitimacy had become so deeply rooted that it was
impossible to accomplish by any other method.
If only the Emperor would have had sons the
problem would have been less, but his brother and co-emperor
Constantine VIII never fathered any male heirs either, only two
daughters who were already adults in 1025. This would not impede one
of them, Zoë, from marrying twice in order to “produce” several
other emperors. She would adopt one son as well, which shows what
degree of importance dynastic legitimacy held in the Empire.
And, it was the person of Basil II himself
who had helped strengthen the popular concept of legitimacy by
dynastic origin, even though ever since the era of Romanus Lecapenus
and then the usurpers Nicephorus Phocas and John Tzimisces, regency
or marriage was the only thing that could legitimate an emperor not
born to the purple.
This was the great debt to the empire that
Basil II left unpaid: failing to arrange a succession which would
please the people and the nobility and would grant some sort of
continuity to his government. The consequence was a slow but
inexorable dismemberment of the Empire due to the unstoppable
feudalization that emerged in later years from his failure to
enforce the very that laws he himself had decreed. Nobody in power
was particularly worried about maintaining and building upon his
conquests or ordering the life of the citizens in the interests of
the State.
This is no small debt, and stems from the
Emperor’s utter lack of interest in the life of an imperial court
that he openly scorned and viewed as superfluous.
Obviously, this is a great debt, but
nonetheless does not take rob Basil II of the honor of being
considered one of the greatest emperors of all time.
Alex I Comnene
Alex I was the third son of John Comnene as well as the son in law
of the emperor Isaac I.
He took the throne from Nicephorus III.
He had military success against the Normans and the Pechenegs as
well as strongly throwing back the Seleucid Turks who were exerting
pressure on Anatolia following the Battle of Mantzikert (1071).
He was an energetic military man who belonged to one of the highest
ranking families in Constantinople, that is to say, the military
aristocracy, and he was a good emperor although his battles were
defensive, with an empire under threat from every side.
He was also a good diplomat who successfully dealt with the leaders
of the First Crusade, upon whom he imposed an oath of fidelity in
spite of their profound contempt for him, especially the Norman
barons.
He even arranged for them to conquer and return to him the crucially
vital city of Nicea, which had been conquered a few years before by
the Turks.
However, he was unable to accomplish the same goal with Antioch,
which he was tricked out of by the Norman Bohemund.
According to some historians it was Alex I Comnene who asked the
Pope for help to reconquer lost territories, but this refers to
mercenary troops, not the highly problematic intervention of Western
armies as was decided with the First Crusade.
Alex fought the financial bourgeoisie, which earned him many
enemies. Nor did he get along well with the great merchants.
The Comneni
Out of the thousand years that the Byzantine Empire existed, it was
governed for no less than one hundred years by three unequalled
figures: Alex I, John II and Manuel I Comnene.
They were members of one of the empire’s richest families, and they
brought Byzantium through hard times. Because the administration was
disintegrating the whole foundation of the Empire was crumbling.
Byzantine commerce was continuously shrinking due to the increasing
ambition of the Italian maritime republics, taxes were being
collected by the great landlords through the institution of the
pronoia, a special concession that allowed them to collect tribute
on their own lands, the army was becoming more and more dominated by
contract mercenaries, the navy was disappearing, etc., etc.
Why did they do nothing to stop or at least slow this process? It
was only logical in this world that was so different from that in
which Basil II lived (even though I believe that the great Emperor
could foresee this moment, which explains why he decreed the laws
that he did) that the Emperor would be forced to “buy” loyalties
even though thereby further enriching the Empire’s aristocrats and
landed gentry. It was a political question; the Emperor was no
longer truly in command, his power having been reduced to that of a
mediator between members of the imperial court, the great rich and
influential citizens.
Times had indeed changed. By 1081 the centrifugal forces that had
been tearing the Empire apart had already prevailed and by the time
Manuel died in 1180 all that remained was a hyper-fragmented shell
that would do nothing but cause ever-increasing disunity and wars
among the Greek landed gentry.
Only the powerful personalities of these three warlords themselves
could hold the Empire together during those hundred years and for
this reason even their greatest triumphs were short-lived.
It is very difficult to know if the Comneni would have been able to
successfully oppose a process that was already accelerating when
their government first began, but their constant wars, even though
in most cases victorious, drained the state treasury. Meanwhile,
most taxes went uncollected, trade and commerce generated profits
only for the Italians. This was clearly the road to ruin.
These hundred years were, in my view, the Byzantines’ swan song. The
rest of the story was one of death, resurrection, and then the sad
though heroic final downfall.
History has dealt unfairly with these three soldier-emperors who,
relying solely on their own strength, drive, diplomacy and
intelligence were able to carry forward a once-great power like
Byzantium which by that point had been pulverized into thousands of
semi-feudal micro-states.
The reality is that the final years of the Macedonian dynasty must
bear primary blame for this process of dismemberment, along with the
anarchy subsequent to the disaster of Mantzikert (Manazgert for the
Turks) which eventually descended into total chaos, the worst the
Empire had seen since Heraclius.
Another factor that had to be dealt with and which brought with it
enormous problems was that of the crusades: those mad Westerners
whom the Byzantines did not understand because the idea of a crusade
was utterly alien to the Byzantine mind. It was the crusaders who
sacked whole villages in Imperial territory during the First Crusade
in the times of Alex and again in the Second Crusade during the
reign of Manuel. It was the crusaders who took over Antioch as
though it was their perfect right to do so and who constantly
schemed among themselves about how to get rid of the bothersome
Comneni, to whom they owed an oath of loyalty in spite of hating
them so deeply.
To understand more clearly one must realize that for a Byzantine the
idea of soldier-monks (for example, the Templars) was totally
insane. Either one was a monk or one was a soldier. And, the idea of
naming fallen warriors as saints was deeply repugnant even though
men like Tzimisces tried unsuccessfully to persuade the patriarchs
to do the same with Byzantine soldiers.
The economic history of Byzantium is as interesting as its political
history and in fact the two are closely linked and interrelated.
The Comneni had the bad fortune to preside over a sad era of
economic decline. This occurred for several reasons: some years
previously a great part of Asia Minor had been lost to the
Seleucids, meaning that what had once been the richest lands in the
Empire no longer generated taxes for the Emperor. Also regarding
taxes, the pronoia, that inflexible institution that became ever
more necessary as central administrative control continued to break
down, granted the great lords of the Empire the right to collect
taxes on their lands, permitting them of course to keep a portion of
the revenue in return.
Byzantine territorial control had essentially been reduced by this
point to the coasts of Asia Minor and the European part of the
Empire (great extensions of coastline, but very little land area),
at the very moment when the Byzantine navy was shrinking due to
economic constraints. Hardly any new ships were being built,
prompting the Venetian, Genoese and Pisan fleets to look with
growing avarice toward these Greek seas.
Nonetheless, the strength and the fervor of Alex Comnene founded a
dynasty of brilliant men who resolved many of the Empire’s problems
and kept it on its feet and even growing for no less than a century.
John II Comnene
His accession to the throne.
On 15 August, 1118, Emperor Alex I Comnene died, almost certainly
from a heart attack. With what was virtually his last breath he
designated his son John II Comnene as successor to the throne, in
spite of the pleas and demands of his wife, Irene Ducas, who
desperately wanted the dying emperor to name Caesar Nicephorus
Brienio, husband of Anna Comnena, as successor.
Even before Alex I drew his last breath
John II was already rushing to take command of the Empire, hastening
with the imperial seal to the Grand Palace in spite of the
opposition of the guard. However, he overcame them and together with
his supporters forced his way in and closed the doors to keep out
the supporters of his sister Anna and his brother Andronicus who had
joined forces with her. So great was John II’s insecurity that he
did not even attend his father’s interment because it might have
offered the rest of the family the opportunity to topple him from
the throne.
John II enjoyed the support of his brother
Isaac and that of his great friend John Axuco.
Later on when he was in control of the situation and firmly in the
position of Emperor, John pardoned the plotters, thus demonstrating
his greatness of character. One may justly say that he never failed
to live up to the example of his father, finally earning from the
both aristocratic and problematic Comneni family full recognition of
his role as leader.
John II Comnene was chosen by his father Alex over the objections of
his sister Anna and had to make a risky move to take power. Had he
not done so, today we would be referring to the empress Anna
Comnena.
He encountered an empire with many of its problems (but not all, of
course) already resolved by his father. There were no crusades
during his reign (!!!), and in general, foreign relations were less
pressing for him than during the reigns of either his father or his
son (although still by no means easy). This allowed John a certain
degree of peace in which to plan out his government with his own
character and intelligence. His policies were just as brilliant but
more calm and thought-out than those of either his predecessor or
his successor. This allowed John to turn over to his son, Manuel I
an empire that was much larger and more powerful than the one he had
inherited from his own father, Alex.
When the Pechenegs, who had previously been crushed by his father,
rose up again and invaded the Empire, John was able to confront them
in such a way that they disappeared from history, mainly because so
many had died and the survivors had joined the Byzantine forces.
Laodicea and Sozopolis of Panfilia were retaken from the Turks.
The Seleucids were at the point of being defeated just like the
Pechenegs, but the question of Antioch and the Hungarian problem (a
new European power) did not allow this to happen.
The Serbs were defeated and many were deported to Asia Minor to
occupy territories of crucial importance in the struggle against the
Turks.
The Hungarians, who had invaded Serbian territory from the north,
were attacked and forced to retreat back to their own homeland.
Luckily, Roger II, the arch-enemy of all things Byzantine, did not
attack during John’s reign although he made many threats.
John also conquered the Armenians of Cilicia, occupying Tarsus and
Mompsuestia in a move that had been prepared before the effective
conquest of Antioch. In this way a large part of Asia Minor was
recovered along with the great city of Antioch and part of northern
Syria, an achievement never again equaled by any subsequent
Byzantine ruler.
The only problem that could not be resolved was that of Venice. John
first tried to cancel the concessions they had received under his
father’s imperial decree but the Venetians, with their vast navy,
occupied Rhodes, Chios, Lesbos and Samos, forcing the Emperor, who
had virtually no navy, to capitulate to their demands and return all
of their commercial rights.
At the time of his death, which may have been due to an unfortunate
hunting accident (?) in Cilicia involving a poisoned arrow, he was
already considering the reconquest of Jerusalem after having taken
Antioch and other lands from the Turks and the old Norman crusaders.
That is to say that prudently but firmly and with overwhelming
strength he hoped to reconquer all of the territory that Byzantium
had lost to the Seleucid Turks, plus that lost to the crusaders in
Antioch and Syria, and to the Armenians in Cilicia, north of Syria.
John II was considered by his contemporaries and descendents as the
greatest of the Comneni and according to Photios Malleros he was
‘one of the best and most resolute of the Byzantine sovereigns.’
According to Hertzberg, John was “the noblest among the Emperors who
held the throne of Byzantium.”
Manuel I Comnene
Manuel Comnene was one of the most imposing figures in all of
Byzantine history. His abilities were unequalled, his personality
enthralling, his ambition limitless and his politics an unstoppable
force.
He was a brilliant military leader, a great
politician, a Byzantine without equal, with the grace of the
Westerners, the courtly customs of knights and ladies, grand balls
and jousting tournaments, things that had never before been seen in
Byzantium.
His two marriages were with western
noblewomen and his alliance with the Germanic Empire made all
Byzantium look toward the West with an eye toward reconquest and
universal domination.
Unfortunately for Manuel, by his era Europe
had developed into many independent countries and city-states that
absolutely scorned the idea of having an emperor and forming part of
an empire.
His policies looked westward without
ignoring the East, but without any doubt his principal objective was
that of returning the West to Roman control and for this purpose he
was ready to employ all the means at his disposal: the
above-mentioned royal marriages, alliances, buying loyalties, etc.
The Treaty of 1149 between Conrad III and
Manuel I.
An important part of Manuel’s politics was the treaty with the
German emperor Conrad III reaffirming the treaty signed by Manuel’s
father, John II.
Manuel’s objective was simultaneously simple and complex: on the one
hand he was the Emperor and as such he was determined to enforce his
title just as his predecessors had; on the other hand Europe was
clearly divided into two great power-blocs: one composed of Roger
II’s Normans, Louis VII’s France, Hungary, Serbia, the Guelphs, and
even the Pope, and opposing them, Byzantium, Germany and Venice.
Roger II of Brindisi was the leader of the anti-Byzantine coalition
and even wanted to launch a crusade against Constantinople, an idea
which came to naught because of Conrad III’s fidelity to Byzantium.
The pact that was signed in Thessalonica envisioned an invasion of
the entire Italian Peninsula. Negotiations were difficult because
Manuel I gave this conquest a fundamental degree of importance in
his foreign policy. He wanted to take the greatest possible
advantage of it, until an agreement was finally arrived at. The
invasion would be a joint operation and the Byzantines would
establish themselves in the Apennine peninsula.
Conrad III, his German ally, had many problems given that his power
was open to question even in his own country. As a member of the
House of Hohenstaufen he was opposed to Papal policy, while his
supporters were the Waiblingen (named for the castle that the family
owned in Swabia) in Germany, and the Gibbelines in Italy.
Conrad III, together with the king of France, Louis VII, led the
Second Crusade which suffered a devastating defeat in Damascus and
was an overall failure. Conrad had enormous interest in controlling
Italy but his position was shaky in his own country and in light of
the terrible defeat in Damascus and the still immense power of
Manuel Comnene, the treaty included provisions favorable to the
Byzantines (as noted above, after arduous negotiations in
Thessalonica).
For Manuel II this conquest was but the first step toward gaining
universal power, but the death of Conrad III amidst the preparations
for the invasion in 1152 brought the whole enterprise to ruin, given
that the latter’s successor, Frederick Barbarosa had the same
ambitions as Manuel I Comnene. Because of this, instead of a common
action against France and the Normans, Germany’s relations with
Byzantium were now those of competition for universal power. No
longer was there a submissive Germany at the service of the Emperor.
The Reconquest of Italy
Manuel I could not invade the Italian peninsula together with Conrad
III because, as is noted above, the German ruler died in the midst
of preparations for this operation, and also because his successor,
Frederick Barbarosa was not submissive to the wishes of the
Byzantine Emperor; in fact, very much to the contrary. However,
Manuel I would not remain on the sidelines. In 1155 he decided to
launch the invasion, surely encouraged by the death of Roger II the
year before. He sent a great fleet of ships to Ancona and began the
restoration of the Roman Empire.
The cities of Apulia quickly fell into Byzantine hands, either by
force of arms or because of the betrayal of the Norman princes of
the region.
But Europe was no longer the same. All the European states united in
opposition to the Emperor. Frederick Barbarosa, Venice, and of
course William of Normandy declared themselves in opposition to
Byzantium (which was already opposed by the king of France and by
Hungary) and these European powers decided not to allow any
restoration of Imperial power.
In 1156 William of Normandy defeated the Byzantines in Brindisi and
shortly thereafter eliminated the Byzantine holdings in Italy,
crushing, at least for the moment, Byzantine dreams of restoring the
Roman Empire
However, Manuel I Comnene did not give up easily, considering the
reverses suffered in the south of Italy but a minor setback, the
result of undue haste on his part.
Even with a reformed State of a different character, with a highly
decentralized structure, the idea of the restoration of the Roman
Empire never ceased to obsess every Byzantine emperor, and most
particularly Manuel Comnene, the product of a unique,
thousand-year-old culture that merits much deeper study.
Myriokephalon and the End
Determined to eliminate the problems that the Empire was
experiencing in the East, Manuel went out at the head of a great
army to confront the Turks. The emperor suffered defeat but he and
most of his army escaped unscathed.
Nevertheless, the battle of Myriokephalon in 1176 spelled the end of
Manuel’s ambitions. Never again would the Byzantine state have the
means to assemble an army that could carry out the necessary
campaigns to sweep its enemies before it as it had once done.
The great emperor died four years later, devastated by his inability
to achieve his dreams and sunk in deep sorrow, leaving his young son
of seven years to head the empire with all the dangers that this
represented.
Conclusion.
I believe that Manuel I Comnene may be justly accused of being off
the mark in his ill-fated attempts to reconquer the territories that
Byzantium had lost over the centuries, and in spending fortunes in
the effort. However, in this he was only following in the imperial
tradition of Justinian, Heraclius, Constantine V, Nicephorus Phocas,
John Tzimisces and Basil II. I do not believe that this was
necessarily a tragedy, but rather a necessary response to the needs
of the Empire to recover lands that had been lost to the Turks,
Normans and others.
Nonetheless, Manuel was a great emperor although his era was marked
by the significant rise of Western powers which he either managed to
subjugate (Germany) or to exasperate (France).
This rise, which characterized the great differences between his era
and those of Justinian or even Basil II, allowed Western Europe to
easily contain Byzantine ambitions even while respecting its power,
a situation very different from that faced by the emperors of old.
The conquests of Manuel I could not be maintained by his successors
and shortly thereafter would come the great blow of the Fourth
Crusade in 1204, but it would be unjust to cast aspersions on the
old emperor for doing the same thing that his more glorious
predecessors did. Quite simply, Europe was not the same, nor was the
Empire, and the imperial succession in Germany was unfavorable, all
of which resulted in a West that was united against the Empire.
Manuel II Palaeologus, Emperor of Byzantium (1391-1425)
The life of an enlightened monarch and warrior who ruled an empire
that was surrounded by enemies and gradually bleeding to death.
Rolando Castillo
“The emperor is predestined to rule the world, just as the eye is
born to guide the body. God has no need of anyone; the Prince has
need only for God. Between God and him there is no intermediary.”
Agapetus, 6th century.
Introduction.
Manuel Palaeologus is undoubtedly a very important figure in the
history of the Byzantine Empire. He conclusively demonstrates that
the Empire was still a living reality even into the 15th century,
although many historians claim that everything really came to an end
in 1204.
During his lifetime Byzantium continued to be represented by an
emperor of noble blood, a man of note who possessed enough energy
and intelligence to deal with the difficult era in which he lived
and to control Balkan policy much better than his own possibilities
would seem to allow. And, if this were not enough, just as though he
were an adventurer or treasure-hunter he lived through some of the
most incredible adventures that could ever be ascribed to a
Byzantine ruler.
In all the history of the Empire there was none like him, for his
alone were the unique circumstances of being the great emperor of a
tiny and shrinking empire in its death-throes. He found himself in
command of the capital and its immediate surroundings as well as the
costal cities of the Black Sea and the southern costal cities of
Thrace, Thessalonica and the Peloponnesus, where the Despotate of
Mistra was reaching its cultural apogee in spire of the Ottoman
menace. It is impossible even to imagine what Manuel felt when he
saw his father’s empire crumbling away bit by bit, everything that
he would be governing in the future falling to pieces.
But he did not have an easy life. He did not have enormous palaces
with vast numbers of luxurious rooms, nor did he have the sumptuous
treasures of his ancestors, the emperors of past centuries. He was
taken prisoner several times, was caught up in the most difficult
turns of events and was forced by circumstances to become part of
the Sultan’s court. He was even obliged to command an army that
would conquer a Byzantine city for the Sultan. Manuel bravely and
stoically bore all these humiliations, overcoming them one by one
and successfully establishing the best possible policy to overcome
the fatal events that followed one after another at dizzying speed.
He never knew Constantinople when it was a city of marble and gold,
great columns, grand avenues, palaces and churches filled with
relics, nor when it was filled with happy residents who traded,
worked, studied or trained for military service. He knew only a
capital in ruins, dominated by the Italian republics in every sense,
surrounded and strangled by a nascent Ottoman Empire. Nevertheless
there were occasional moments of respite, particularly when Manuel’s
wise policies prevailed or when some outside aid was generously
provided, although this did not often occur.
For all these reasons and more we can see that it is worthwhile in
this work to consider Manuel as one of the greatest of Byzantine
monarchs. He was undoubtedly responsible for Byzantium’s continued
survival and he kept its hopes alive much longer than otherwise
could have been expected. Little by little we will discover a figure
who knew how to live as his world required him to live, a world
filled with dangers, intrigues and betrayals, with Ottoman
domination on the one hand and the greed of the Italian republics on
the other. In spite of all this he was able to make the best of
every small advantage that was available to him.
And if this were not enough to establish the magnitude of his
character, Manuel was also an excellent writer, a man who devoted a
great part of his risky life to letters. It is as though in each of
his writings, in each letter he wrote, one may discover his true
personality: that of a cultured, sensitive and friendly man who also
knew how to be an emperor.
Finally we must examine the life of a man who perfectly understood
his people, who never went against the wishes of the common people
of Byzantium, a people who respected him and who ended up adoring
him as none other. He was never willing, as were his father and
later his two sons, to betray the sentiments of his citizens by
bending the knee to the Roman church. This fact alone shows that, in
spite of his own ideas which were probably in favor of a saving but
shameful union, Manuel knew how to interpret what the people felt
about union and submission to the Papacy: that it would spell the
true death of Byzantium.
In this his greatness shines through even more clearly because he
knew that he had to renounce his own ideas in order to maintain the
pride and religious independence of his native land. Even though he
was not above begging, even though he traveled abroad to ask for
help, to plead for aid in near-desperation, he always did so with
the dignity that was his, never on his knees and never promising
that which he could never deliver: the soul of his people.
Manuel, the Man.
Manuel Palaeologus was born in 1350, second son of the emperor John
V (1341-1391) and Elena (1333-1396), who, in turn, was the daughter
of the emperor John Cantacuzene (1347-1354).
Thus Manuel inherited imperial blood from both his father and
mother, from two of the most distinguished families of the Empire.
He was fairly tall, elegant, and carried himself like a sovereign.
According to chroniclers of the time the sultan Beyazid commented
that even if he did not know that Manuel was an emperor he would
have recognized it from the latter’s very appearance. Manuel had
great power in his gaze and an extraordinary resoluteness for a
Byzantine ruler of the final era. According to the writers of the
time he always enjoyed an amazing energy and the health of a man of
iron. He was very well educated, greatly enjoyed reading, and was an
extraordinary writer who devoted part of his time to composing
theological studies, rhetorical works, a variety of other different
written works and an enormous number of letters which, luckily, are
still extant.
Manuel’s was a life that was marked out by luck, which in his case
usually escaped him, so much so that that he became melancholy and
sometimes disconsolate due to his serious and responsible
preoccupation with the destiny of his empire. In spite of this, his
sensitive and cultured personality was admired by everyone who knew
him even in the demanding pre-renaissance Western world.
In spite of all these humanist characteristics he was also an
extraordinary soldier, a distinguished warrior as was expected of a
Byzantine lord, and he showed this in repeated acts of courage. With
his word of command he inspired the people both to follow him
without hesitation and to love him as no other in those sad final
decades of the Empire.
At a mature age he married Helen Dragases, daughter of the Serbian
prince Constantine Dragases. They had seven sons: Michael, who died
in infancy, John, who became his successor as John VIII from 1425
until his death in 1448, Andronicus, governor of Thessalonica until
1422 and his death that year from serious illness., Theodore, Despot
of the Morea as Theodore II (1407-1442), Constantine, Despot of
Mistra (1443-1448) and successor to Juan VIII as Constantine XI
(148-1453), the last emperor of Byzantium, Demetrius, Despot of the
Morea (1449-1460), and Thomas, also Despot of the Morea (1430-1460).
With the formation of such a family Manuel assured the succession to
the throne in the best way possible, even endorsing his oldest child
as preferred candidate over the rest in order to avoid conflict.
This was a very wise method of avoiding intra-family civil wars for
succession, which had been one of the causes of the Empire’s
decline. Although it was too late, he nonetheless did succeed in
this where other great emperors like Basil II or Manuel Comnene had
failed. His two emperor sons also failed in this respect.
Thus reaffirming family unity and the confidence and loyalty of his
sons, Manuel assured himself of a system of government which was
imposed in a very intelligent way, granting each of his sons a
territory to govern in his own name, which allowed the Emperor to
gain a certain degree of homogeneity in an empire that was
geographically divided and surrounded by enemies. The danger of
civil wars, which had been so common within the governing family,
was thus eliminated thanks to his life’s work, imposing his own
voice over those of his all his sons who obeyed him without
hesitation until, old and tired, he finally retired to a monastery.
One of his most important pleasures was that of writing in a
diversity of |