İmparatorluk İÖ 27-İS 285 arasında Roma’dan yönetildi.
İmparatorluk Diocletian(h. 284-305) tarafından Doğu ve Batı yönetimleri olarak iki bölgeye ayrıldı.
Dördüncü yüzyılın ilk on yıllarındaki iç savaşlardan sonra Konstantin imparatorluğun bundan böyle Roma’dan yönetilmesinin güçleştiğini anladı, başkenti doğuya, eski Megara kolonisi olan Bizantium’un sitesine taşıdı (330) ve Konstantinopolis olarak yeniden adlandırdı. Kent büyüdü, duvarları yeniden yapıldı, ve kapsamlı bir yapım programı başladı. Konstantin hem askeri hem de yönetsel reformlar yaptı ve parasal ekonomiyi sağlamlaştırmak için para birimi olarak ‘solidus’u getirdi. Son olarak, Hıristiyanlığa yönelik hoşgörü politikasının sonucunda kilise gelişmeye başladı.
“Roma” bir Krallık olarak başladı; sonra Cumhuriyet oldu; ve son olarak İmparatorluk oldu.
Roma İmparatorluğu Doğu Roma İmparatorluğu ve Batı Roma İmparatorluğu olarak, iki ayrı devlet olarak bölünmedi.
‘İki İmparator’ formülü geçersizdir, anlatım bir oxymorondur (‘iki’ tek-erklik erksizlik, anarşi ve en sonunda iç-savaş demektir).
Roma İmparatorluğu Cumhuriyet döneminden kalan bir alışkanlıktan ötürü çoğunlukla birden çok ‘İmparator’ ya da eş-imparatorlar tarafından yönetildi (286-480 arasındaki dönemin büyük bölümü boyunca birden çok imparator vardı).
“Bizans İmparatorluğu” anlatımı bir exonymdir, geçerli temeli yoktur, ve Germanik “Kutsal Roma İmparatorluğu” terminolojisini aklamak için etnik tarihçilik tarafından kullanılır.
Yurttaşları için imparatorlukları “Bizans İmparatorluğu” ya da “Doğu Roma İmparatorluğu” değil, ama yalnızca “Roma İmparatorluğu” idi ve kendilerini “Romalılar” olarak görüyorlardı.
Batı bölümünün Germenler tarafından yıkılmasından sonra Roma İmparatorluğu varlığını bin yıl daha sürdürdü.
Avrupa’daki ‘en’ güçlü ekonomik, kültürel ve askeri güç değildi, çünkü Roma İmparatorluğunun sınırlarının bittiği yerde uygarlık da bitiyor ve barbarlık başlıyordu.
‘Kutsal Roma İmparatorluğu’ feodal Germanik prenslerin onayı üzerine kurulu sanal bir devlet idi (feodalizmin varlığı yasa egemenliğinin yokluğu koşuluna bağlıdır).
The name "Byzantine Empire" was introduced by the historian Hieronymus Wolf only in 1555, a century after the empire had ceased to exist.
“Βυζάντιον, Byzántion” (ya da “Bizantium”) bir antikçağ Helenik kenti idi.
“Konstantinopolis” (“Κωνσταντινούπολις” — Konstantinoúpolis) “Konstantin’in Kenti” demektir.
“Konstantinopolis” “Yeni Roma” (Yun: Νέα Ῥώμη, Nea Romē; Latin: Nova Roma) olarak da adlandırılıyordu.
330’daki kuruluşunundan sonra, Konstantinopolis aşağı yukarı 16 yüzyıl boyunca imparatorluk başkenti olarak hizmet etti: Roma (330-1204); ‘Latin ama Germanik’ (1204-1261); yine Roma (1261-1453); ve Osmanlı (1453-1922)
Osmanlılar yeni başkentlerine “Kostantiniyye” (Ottoman Turkish: (قسطنطينيه diyorlardı.
Kente ancak 1930’da resmi olarak İstanbul adı verildi. Ad "eis-ten-polin" (Yunanca: “kente” / "to-the-city") anlatımından türetilmiştir. (W)
The Empire in 1025 AD.
“Eastern Roman Empire” terimi “Bizans İmparatorluğu” gibi tarihte olmayan, bir realite olmayan bir kendiliği anlatır.
Bu anlatım temelinde kurulan “.. fragmentation and fall of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century” anlatımı da geçersizdir.
Bu ‘iki’ imparatorluk tezi bir üçüncüsünü, “Kutsal Roma İmparatorluğu” tezini geçerli kılmak için türetilir.
During most of its existence, the empire was the most powerful economic, cultural, and military force in Europe. Both the terms "Byzantine Empire" and "Eastern Roman Empire" are historiographicalexonyms created after the end of the realm; its citizens continued to refer to their empire simply as the Roman Empire (Greek:Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων, tr.Basileia Rhōmaiōn; Latin: Imperium Romanum), or Romania (Ῥωμανία), and to themselves as "Romans".
.
Several signal events from the 4th to 6th centuries mark the period of transition during which the Roman Empire's Greek East and Latin West diverged. Constantine I (r. 324-337) reorganised the empire, made Constantinople the new capital, and legalised Christianity. Under Theodosius I (r. 379-395), Christianity became the Empire’s official state religion and other religious practices were proscribed. Finally, under the reign of Heraclius (r. 610-641), the Empire's military and administration were restructured and adopted Greek for official use in place of Latin.Thus, although the Roman state continued and its traditions were maintained, modern historians distinguish Byzantium from ancient Rome insofar as it was centred on Constantinople, oriented towards Greek rather than Latin culture, and characterised by Eastern Orthodox Christianity
Empire under the Heraclian dynasty, 626 AD; the stripped areas experienced Sassanid raids.
The borders of the empire evolved significantly over its existence, as it went through several cycles of decline and recovery. During the reign of Justinian I (r. 527-565), the empire reached its greatest extent after reconquering much of the historically Roman western Mediterranean coast, including North Africa, Italy, and Rome itself, which it held for two more centuries.
The empire recovered during the Komnenian restoration, and by the 12th century Constantinople was the largest and wealthiest European city.However, it was delivered a mortal blow during the Fourth Crusade, when Constantinople was sacked in 1204 and the territories that the empire formerly governed were divided into competing Byzantine Greek and Latin realms. Despite the eventual recovery of Constantinople in 1261, the Byzantine Empire remained only one of several small rival states in the area for the final two centuries of its existence. Its remaining territories were progressively annexed by the Ottomans over the 14th and 15th century. The Fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Empire in 1453 finally ended the Byzantine Empire. The last of the imperial Byzantine successor states, the Empire of Trebizond, would be conquered by the Ottomans eight years later in the 1461 Siege of Trebizond.
📹 Justinian and the Byzantine Empire — Khan Academy (VİDEO)
Justinian and the Byzantine Empire — Khan Academy (LINK)
Overview of the Byzantine Empire under its greatest strength under Justinian and then eventual slow decline over the next 900 years. Code of Justinian. Hagia Sophia. Empress Theodora's role in putting down the Nika Riots.
📹 Battle of Pliska (Byzantine-Roman Empire vs Bulgarian Empire) (VİDEO)
Battle of Pliska (Byzantine-Roman Empire vs Bulgarian Empire) (LINK)
The Battle of Pliska (Битката във Върбишкия проход) or Battle of Vărbitsa Pass was a series of battles between 80,000 troops of Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire, led by the Emperor Nikephoros I (Nicephorus I) and Forces of Bulgarian Empire, under Khan Krum. The Byzantines successfully defeated Bulgarian garrison of 72.000 guarding their capital. After eliminating the defenders, on 23 July 811 The Byzantines plundered and burned the Bulgar capital Pliska (Плиска) which gave time for the Khan Krum to block and set up ambush on passes in the Balkan Mountains that served as exits out of Bulgaria (Vărbitsa Pass). The final battle took place on 26 July 811. There, the Bulgarians used the tactics of ambush and surprise attacks to effectively trap and immobilize the Byzantine forces, thus annihilating almost the whole army, including the Emperor Nikephoros I along with elite imperial guard Vigla Tagmata. After the battle, Krum encased Nicephorus's skull in silver, and used it as a cup for wine-drinking.
The Battle of Pliska was one of the worst defeats in Byzantine history. It deterred Byzantine rulers from sending their troops north of the Balkans for more than 150 years afterwards, which increased the influence and spread of the Bulgarians to the west and south of the Balkan Peninsula, resulting in a great territorial enlargement of the First Bulgarian Empire.
Anachronistic painting of the Battle of Nineveh (627) between Heraclius' army and the Persians under Khosrow II. Fresco by Piero della Francesca, c. 1452. (W)
Constantinople in the 13th C. by French Artist Antoine Helbert.
The empire recovered during the Komnenian restoration, and by the 12th century Constantinople was the largest and wealthiest European city. However, it was delivered a mortal blow during the Fourth Crusade, when Constantinople was sacked in 1204 and the territories that the empire formerly governed were divided into competing Byzantine Greek and Latin realms.
The Byzantine Empire, also referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire, was the continuation of the Roman Empire in the East during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, when its capital city was Constantinople. It survived the fragmentation and fall of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century AD and continued to exist for an additional thousand years until it fell to the Ottoman Turks in 1453.
📹 Comparing Roman and Byzantine Empires — Khan Academy (VİDEO)
Comparing Roman and Byzantine Empires — Khan Academy (LINK)
Similarities and differences between the Roman Empire and the "Byzantine Empire" (which considered itself the continuation of the Roman Empire).
The Roman Empire c. 400 CE
The Roman Empire c. 400 CE
The Roman Empire c. 400 CE
The Roman Empire c. 400 CE
Following the civil wars of the first decades of the fourth
century, the Emperor Constantine I recognised that the empire
as a whole could no longer effectively be ruled from Rome. He
moved his capital eastwards, to the site of the ancient Megaran
colony of Byzantium, and renamed it Konstantinoupolis, the
city of Constantine. Its strategic position was attractive, for the
emperor could remain in contact with both eastern and western
affairs from its site on the Bosphorus. The city was expanded,
new walls were constructed and the emperor undertook an
expensive building programme. Begun in 326, the city was
formally consecrated in 330.
The Roman Empire c. 400 CE
🔎
Constantine inaugurated a series of important reforms within
both the military and civil establishment of the empire. The
fiscal system was overhauled and a new gold coin, the solidus introduced in a successful effort to stabilise the monetary
economy of the state. Military and civil offices were separated,
the central administration was restructured and placed under
a series of imperially-chosen senior officers responsible to
the emperor directly. The armies were reorganised into two
major sections, those based in frontier provinces and along
the borders, and several field armies of more mobile troops
attached directly to the emperor’s court as a field reserve, ready
to meet any invader who broke through the outer defences.
The provincial administration was reformed, more and smaller
provincial and intermediate units being established, the better to
permit central control and supervision of fiscal matters. Finally,
with the toleration of Christianity and its positive promotion
under Constantine at the expense of many of the established
non-Christian cults, the church began to evolve into a powerful
social and political force which was, in the course of time,
to dominateeast Roman society and to vie with the state for
authority in many aspects of civil law and justice.
In spite of Constantine’s efforts at reform, the size of the
empire and the different concerns of west and east resulted in
a continuation of a split government, with one ruler in each
part, although the tetrarchic system was never revived. Upon
Constantine’s death in May 337, his three sons succeeded to
his authority with the support of the armies.Constantine II, the
eldest, was recognised as senior and ruled the west. Constantius ruled in the east and Constans, the youngest, was allotted the
central provinces (Africa, Italy, Illyricum). Tension between
Constans and Constantine resulted in war in 340 and the defeat
and death of the latter, with the result that Constans became ruler
of the western regions as well. As a result of popular discontent
among both the civilian population and the army in the west,
however, Constans was deposed in 350 and his place taken by a
certain Magnentius, a high-ranking officer of barbarian origin.
Magnentius was not recognised by Constantius, and he invaded
Illyricum. But he was defeated in 351, escaping to Italy where,
after further defeats, he took his own life. Constantius ruled the
empire alone until his death in 360.
In 355 Constantius had appointed his cousin Julian to represent
him in Gaul; in 357, he was given the command against the
invading Franks and Alamanni and, following a series of victories,
he was acclaimed by his soldiers as Augustus. Constantius was
campaigning against the Persian king Shapur who had invaded
the eastern provinces in 359, and the acclamation may have
been stimulated by the emperor’s demand that Julian send him
his best troops for the Persian war. Julian marched east, but on
the way to meet him Constantius died in 361, naming Julian
as his successor. Although a competent general and efficient
administrator, Julian may have been unpopular with some of his
soldiers because of his attempts to revive paganism, often at the
financial expense of the church. During the Persian campaign
of 363 he was mortally wounded, although it is not clear in
what circumstances. The troops acclaimed the commander of
Julian’s guards, a certain Jovian, as emperor. Having made peace
with Shapur, Jovian marched back to Constantinople, dying in
Bithynia a mere eight months later.
Jovian’s successors were Valentinian and Valens, brothers
from Pannonia (roughly modern Austria and Croatia), the former
having been elected by the military at Constantinople then
appointing his brother as co-emperor. Valentinian ruled in the
west and established his capital at Milan, while Valens had to face
a rebellion almost immediately, led by the usurper Procopius and
caused by the soldiers loyal to Julian, whose favourite Procopius
had been. But the rebellion petered out in 366.
The two new emperors each had substantial military
challenges to overcome. But Valentinian died in 375 while
dealing with the Quadi in Pannonia, and was succeeded by
his chosen successor, Gratian. In the east, Valens had to deal
with repeated Gothic invasions of Thrace, where in 378 he
was disastrously defeated and killed near Adrianople (mod.
Edirne) in Thrace.
Gratian appointed as Valens’ successor the general
Theodosius, son of a successful general of the same name and
himself an experienced commander, initially as commander-inchief and then Augustus; and by a combination of diplomacy
and strategy Theodosius was able to make peace with the
Goths, permitting them to settle within the empire under their
own laws, providing troops for the imperial armies in return
for annual food subsidies. Following the death of Gratian in
383 as the result of a coup, and the eventual overthrow of the
usurper, Magnus Maximus, by Theodosius in 388, Theodosius
became sole ruler. He was, however, the last emperor to hold
this position. At his death in 395 his two sons Arcadius (in the
east) and Honorius (in the west) ruled jointly.
Cities of the eastern Roman empire in the 5th century.
🔎
The Palgrave Atlas of Byzantine history (2005), p. 16.
Migrations and Invasions: Huns, Germans and Slavs
Migrations and Invasions: Huns, Germans and Slavs
Migrations and Invasions: Huns, Germans and Slavs
🔎
The Germanic Invasions, AD 378-439
🔎
The Roman empire at the end of the fourth century had an enormously long frontier, stretching in the north-west from
the Tyne-Solway line followed by Hadrian’s Wall in Britain,
along the length of the Rhine and Danube rivers to the Black
Sea, and in the east from the eastern littoral of the Black Sea
near modern Batumi down through the Caucasus into Armenia,
across the upper reaches of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers,
through the great Syrian desert down to Sinai and across to
Egypt, whence it followed the desert fringe across Libya/
Tripolitania into modern Tunisia and further west, north of
the Atlas mountains, as far as the Atlantic Ocean. Defending
such a vast territory was always a formidable task, and with
relatively limited resources – an army of perhaps 250,000,
including auxiliaries and allied forces, to defend a perimeter
over 8,000 miles in length, as well as maintain internal security,
combat brigandage and banditry and carry out a range of other
less obviously military tasks – necessarily depended less on
military power alone than on trade and commerce, diplomacy
and cultural influence to avoid constant conflict. It is ironic,
therefore, that much of the pressure on the frontier came not
from forces who were hostile to the empire, but from those who
wished to be part of the Roman state but who found that they
were threatened by others behind them or rejected as barbarians
by the culture they admired. This is, perhaps, to formulate
the issues far too simplistically, but there is nevertheless an
important element of truth here. By the same token, wars of
conquest and then of containment into the third century CE
had familiarised Roman armies and strategists with Germanic
peoples and tactics, and Roman diplomacy, power-politics
and cultural influence had all worked to maintain a degree of
stability. From the late third century in particular, however, a
series of developments across the broader Eurasian context
destabilised these arrangements.
Germanic peoples had been on the move since the first
century BCE, migrating from Scandinavia into north-eastern
and central Europe. By the middle of the second century some
had arrived in the Pontic steppe north of the Black Sea and others
had settled west of the Carpathians. A short-lived stability was
reached with the establishment by the Ostrogoths and Visigoths
of semi-nomadic pastoralist confederacies which evolved in
contact with nomadic groups, such as the Iranian Alans, in the
regions north of the Black Sea across to the Caspian. But while
the Visigoths occupied a restricted region in what is now the
western Ukraine and Romania, the Ostrogoths dominated the
whole area from the Crimea up through the Ukraine and north
to the shores of the Baltic, whose indigenous, largely Slav
populations were made tributary.
Other groups had been under Roman influence for far longer,
including the various west Germanic peoples described by
Tacitus, for example, and with whom the Romans had had
both friendly and hostile relations over the centuries. Some of
these had been absorbed into Roman territory; the majority had
by the fourth century come to form a series of independent,
often competing but still Roman-influenced tribal entities along
and behind the Rhine, again exercising tributary authority
over many smaller groups, both Slav and Germanic. The two
largest groups in the west were the Franks (along the northern
and central Rhine), with the Burgundi – an eastern Germanic
group – and the Alemanni (to their south). But associated with
the latter in particular, and stretching along the upper Rhine
and Danube, were the Marcomanni and the Quadi. Behind
these groups the Jutes, Angles and Saxons in the north, the Lombards and Thuringi in the centre, and the Vandals, Gepids
and Heruls in the south and east were also in frequent conflict
with one another and with the dominant tribes. Raids across
the frontier, or in the case of the northern groups, across the
North Sea into Britannia, became increasingly frequent during
the later fourth century, but pressure on the frontier and warfare
with the various Germanic groups had always been a factor of
Roman imperial existence. Marcus Aurelius had defeated the
Marcomanni in the second century, Frankish and Alemannic
raids had been common during the third century, and in the
350s and early 360s a Frankish-Alemannic attack was defeated
by Julian.
This situation was transformed by the arrival of the Huns, however, who appeared on the borders of the Ostrogothic
world in the late 360s CE.A mixed group of Turkic and
Mongol tribes which had arisen out of the collapse of the great
Hsiung-Nu confederacy on the eastern and central steppe in
the first century CE, the Huns split during the fourth century into two major sub-factions, the White Huns, also called the
Hephthalites, who invaded Iran from the north-east and caused
substantial disruption and devastation, and the Black Huns,who set the Germanic peoples in motion – partly in response
to Ostrogothic attempts to extend their control eastwards. The
clash resulted in the rapid destruction of the Ostrogothic and
Visigothic confederacies and the expansion of the Huns to the
Danube by the early fifth century. In turn this set in motion
the other Germanic peoples, and the enormous pressure this
placed on Roman defences finally led to the collapse of the
western frontiers and the occupation of large stretches of the
western provinces by Germanic groups, initially as federates
granted land and protection in return for military service,
then as occupiers and conquerors.
The breaching of the Rhine
frontier by the Suevi, Vandals and Alans and their move into
southern Gaul and then Spain, the Visigothic invasion of the
Thracian provinces in the 370s and their subsequent move first
into Italy (Rome was sacked in 410), and then on to southern
Gaul and Spain, the occupation of the region of Tunisia by
the Asding Vandals who had fled the new Visigoth masters of
Spain in the 420s, and the Frankish and Burgundian occupation
of northern and eastern Gaul, all followed from this new
international situation.
In eastern Europe the movement of the Slav peoples is
related to, but slightly later than, these developments. By the
middle of the sixth century the eastern empire was becoming
familiar with the raiding of small bands of Slavs, and during
the second half of the century it became clear that many of
these bands were intent on permanent settlement wherever they
could find suitable unoccupied land, or drive the indigenous
population off. But the small, disorganised, if numerous, bands
of Slavs were soon overwhelmed by the more aggressive Avars,
a Turkic people whose dominant clan (known in Chinese
sources as the Juan Juan) had been chased off their pastures
by their former subordinates, the Blue Turk confederacy, and
had fled westwards. Allying themselves with other disparate
nomad groups they appeared on the empire’s borders in the
560s, and by the 580s had become a serious threat to imperial
power in the Balkans.
The Palgrave Atlas of Byzantine history (2005), p. 18.
The West and the Rise of the Successor Kingdoms
The West and the Rise of the Successor Kingdoms
The west and the rise of the successor kingdoms
🔎
The polities which succeeded Rome during the fifth and sixth
centuries in the west all have their origins in the tumultuous
changes which affected the western Eurasian world in the two
preceding centuries, yet they had very different histories and
outcomes.
The loose confederacy of Suevi, Alans and Vandals who crossed the Rhine in 406 spent the next three years
extracting tribute and booty from Gaul, before crossing the
Pyrenees in 409 and entering Spain. Here, the Suevi established
their own kingdom in Galicia.
The Visigoths, who had moved
from the Balkans into Italy and thence (from 412) into southern
Gaul after the sack of Rome and subsequent death of their
leader Alaric in 410, had established their own state around
Toulouse by about 418 – a move encouraged by the imperial
government, which pitted the Visigoths against a rival emperor
set up under Frankish and Alemannic influence. In 416 the
Visigoths then advanced against the Siling Vandals and Alans in
south-western and southern Spain, whom they crushed, before
being offered an independent kingdom in south-western Gaul.
This saved the remaining Suevi and the Asding Vandals in
the north-western regions and Galicia; but by the late 420s
the latter were on the move again, crossing in 429 into North
Africa. Threatened by the establishment of a Vandal kingdom
with naval power at its disposal and with the potential fatally
to disrupt the grain supplies of Rome, the imperial government
was forced to accept and to recognise formally the King of the
Vandals, Gaiseric, as an independent ruler.
Germanic raiders from the Danish peninsula and the North
Sea coastlands had meanwhile transformed the political
landscape in the British provinces.In 410 Rome appears
officially to have conceded to local British authorities the
right to organise their own defences, in view of the lack of
substantial imperial forces. Although the history of the British
provinces is clouded in obscurity at this time, local polities
led by Romano-British nobles and by Celtic warlords appear
to have evolved, competing with one another and with raiders
from Ireland, from the Pictish lands to the north, and from the Saxons, Jutes and Angles in north-west Germany, Denmark
and the Low Countries. The latter were also employed as
mercenaries, and by the later fifth century certain groups had
a firm foothold and would, during the sixth century, succeed
in establishing a political dominance in much of the southern
and central lowlands.
Both the Salian and Ripuarian Frankish groups had been
officially permitted to reside on Roman territory along the
Rhine by Honorius in 410 as a result of the pressures he faced
elsewhere. Several other Frankish groups remained in Franconia.
Those Franks who settled within the empire supplied federate
troops to the Roman armies. In central and northern Gaul the
Salian Franks, having moved first into the low countries, were
then able to establish themselves, precariously at first, in the
valleys of the Moselle and Rhine, and by the last years of
the century had succeeded in defeating the last remnants of
independent Roman rule in the Seine valley, defeating and
incorporating into their territory the Ripuarian Franks (settled
originally on the right bank of the Rhine but occupying territory
on the ‘Roman’ side during the fifth century), and driving off
the Alemanni who threatened them from the south-east in the
late 490s. Frankish control was broad – the valleys of the Loire
and Seine and the central French plain were the heartland, but
Frankish rule extended down to the Visigothic lands stretching
across from the Pyrenees into northern Italy, across to the valleys
of Main and Rhine in the east, and down to the Burgundian
lands about the headwaters of the Rhône in the south-east. The
conversion to orthodox Christianity of the Frankish king Clovis
in 506 won the Franks the support, or at least disarmed the
opposition of, the Gallo-Roman élite and the church, facilitating
the consolidation of Frankish power, gaining diplomatic and
political support from the eastern emperor Anastasius against
the Visigoths and Ostrogoths, as well as the support of the
papacy and thus political legitimacy.
The situation in Italy was, if anything, more complex. The
general Odovacar (Odoacer), the effective ruler in the Italian
provinces, deposed the Emperor Romulus (Augustulus) in 476.
In his manifesto to the eastern emperor, Zeno, he claimed that
the western army had deposed its commander-in-chief Orestes
(Romulus’ father) and the emperor, and that he was himself
acting on behalf of the senate. And upon sending the western
emperor’s diadem to Zeno, he asked to be recognised as the
emperor’s representative in Italy, with the title of patricius,
on the grounds that one emperor was sufficient. Political
circumstances demanded that Zeno concur. But Odovacar
styled himself rex, king, not simply as senator, magistrate and
patrician, and his followers – made up of the eastern Germanic
groups of the Scyrii, Rugii and others – clearly saw him as their
king and warleader. He ruled Italy from Ravenna for the next
17 years, until – after a conflict that lasted some five years from
488 to 493 – he was defeated by Theoderic and his Ostrogoths,
who had been offered the opportunity of acting on behalf of
the emperors to re-establish imperial authority in Italy (and as
a means of removing the threat they posed to Roman power in
the Balkans). While he acted as King of the Goths, Theoderic
was a Roman citizen and maintained as far as he was able
the structures and fabric of Roman government and society,
retaining the framework of Roman administration, hierarchy
and offices. As an Arian Christian, of course (although he has
also been understood as a ‘homoean’), he was viewed by many
of his non-German subjects as a heretic. But in all other respects
he made a genuine effort to shore up Roman traditions, which
– like many other ‘barbarian’ leaders – he greatly esteemed,
and seems to have been held in considerable respect by both
the papacy and the mass of the population. His Gothic soldiery
replaced the Scyrii and Rugii as the ‘Roman’ army in Italy, and
were settled according to late Roman principles. Eventually,
in the 520s, conflicts of interest between the Gothic élite and
some elements of the Roman senate, on the one hand, and
other members of the Roman establishment in Italy, coupled
with Theoderic’s failure to secure recognition at Constantinople
for his heir, led to political crisis and the intervention of
Constantinople in the politics of the court at Ravenna. The
result was the invasion of Ostrogothic Italy and the devastating
20-year war which, although it resulted eventually in a Roman
victory, both exhausted Italy and prepared the way for the
subsequent successes of the Lombards who marched into the
Po valley in 568.
The Palgrave Atlas of Byzantine history (2005), p. 20.
Imperial Neighbours: Italy, the Slavs, the Balkans and the North
The Imperial Neighbours: Italy, the Slavs, the Balkans and the North
Imperial neighbours: Italy, the Slavs, the Balkans and the north in 600
🔎
Conflict, imperial expansion and warfare in the 6th century.
🔎
The history of the Balkan region is overshadowed by the great
migrations on the one hand and by Roman efforts to maintain
the Danube limes as an effective frontier. Traversed, occupied
and pillaged at times from the third century on by peoples of
predominantly Germanic culture, the Balkan landscape had
by the early sixth century already been transformed into a
country of fortified settlements, military bases and declining
population. During the third century Germanic groups such as
the Marcomanni had continued to push against the frontier;
in the fourth and fifth century it had been the various Gothic
groups who had invaded and occupied Roman territory, along
with the Huns; and from the beginning of the sixth century
various Slavic peoples began to appear, migrating for reasons
which are still debated westwards and southwards, pushing
once more into the northern regions of the Balkan provinces.
East Roman writers describe two loosely-organised groups,
the Sclaveni and the Antes, and although they were the source
of trouble and additional expense, they posed no substantial
threat until they were subjugated by the Turkic Avars,whose
arrival in the 560s inaugurated a period of real decline in Roman
power in the region. The break-up of the empire of the Huns had
permitted many of the subject peoples or lesser clans to establish
an autonomous existence. But in the middle years of the sixth
century a new Eurasian empire, formed by the so-called ‘Blue
Turks’ (Kök Türük, mod. Turkish Gök Türk), had extended
its power as far west as the Volga.Byzantine-Turk relations
were at first cordial, but came to nothing when the Byzantines
entered into negotiations with the Avars, the sworn enemies of
the Turks, and their former masters. Known by the Chinese term
Juan Juan, they had been overthrown earlier in the sixth century
and chased west. Meeting a stout opposition from the Franks
their westward expansion was halted, although they were
drawn, partly through the intervention of Constantinople, into
a war between the Germanic Lombards and their neighbours the
Gepids, the result of which was the effective disappearance of
the Gepids and the decision of the Lombards to move into Italy. The slow process of reconstruction and economic recovery
in the peninsula was thus fatally compromised. At the same
time the relaxation of pressure on the Avars from their former
tributaries the Blue Turks (whose khanate was divided in
582) enabled the Avars to consolidate their hold over central
eastern Europe. By the end of the decade the Avar Khagan
exercised hegemony over a large swathe of territory focused
in the Pannonian plain and stretching east as far as the Crimea
and the Don, subjugating the various Turkic groups who made
up the residue of the former Hunnic empire, in particular the
Kutrigurs, Utigurs and Sabiri.
With the successful use of Slav groups along the Danube,
he was able to move into Roman territory along the eastern
Danube in Moesia and Scythia. From there Avar horsemen
swept south into Thrace and as far as Constantinople, disrupting
communications, inflicting substantial damage on an already
strained economy, and threatening the imperial capital itself.
Several key fortresses along the middle reaches of the Danube
fell over the same period, notably Sirmium and Singidunum, a
serious blow to the defensive system dependent on the riverine
limes. Only in the period after 591, when the Emperor Maurice was able to transfer seasoned units back from the eastern front
to the Balkans, was a degree of equilibrium restored, followed
by several successful Roman counter-thrusts aimed at driving
the Avars out of imperial territory and reducing their hold over
the Slav immigrant groups, who had meanwhile been able to
settle as far south as the Peloponnese in southern Greece.
Unfortunately, Maurice’s fiscal policies and his strict
disciplinarianism led to a mutiny of the Balkan field army in
602, as a result of which the emperor and his family were slain
and the usurper Phocas, a lower-ranking officer, succeeded to
the throne. Phocas’ reign did not see a collapse of east Roman
power in the Balkans, although Maurice’s offensive was
stopped. But in the brief civil war which followed Heraclius’
seizure of power in 610 and the ensuing Persian invasion of
the empire’s eastern and Anatolian provinces, the empire lost
the initiative. Slav immigration continued unchecked, and the
Avars were able to reassert their control in the region. Only
with the defeat of the great siege of Constantinople in 626 by
a combined Avaro-Slav army (launched in conjunction with the
Persians on the other side of the Bosphorus) was Avar power
reduced as the Khagan’s vassals among the Slavs and elsewhere
began to challenge his authority. The Kutrigurs and Utigurs
joined forces to establish an independent khanate between the
lower reaches of the Dniepr and the Don, under the new name
of ‘Bulgars’.
While Heraclius was able to defeat the Persians in the east
by the late 620s and recover all the lost territory in the east, in the Balkans the imperial position was fatally undermined
by the flow of Slav immigrants and the establishment of a
number of autonomous ‘sklaviniai’, ostensibly tributary to
Constantinople but effectively independent when no imperial
army was present. At some point in the early seventh century,
perhaps under Heraclius, two Irano-Slavic groups, the Croats
and Serbs, had thrown off Avar control and migrated from
north of the Pannonian plain into ‘Roman’ territory in the
north-west and central Balkan region, where they established
loose confederacies incorporating the indigenous and migrant
populations of the region, again nominally under imperial
authority, but effectively quite independent. By the end of
Heraclius’ reign in 642 the empire could exercise its authority
in the inland regions only through military force.
In Italy, the invasion of the Lombards in 568 under their
leader Alboin had led to a fairly rapid collapse of imperial
defences and the establishment of a Lombard kingdom in
the Po valley, centred on Pavia, and the two principalities of
Spoleto and Benevento in the centre and south. It also led to
the militarisation of Italian provincial government and the
creation of the exarchate based at Ravenna, a military supreme
commander responsible for co-ordinating the defence of all the
imperial territories in Italy.
Major cities of the 6th century
🔎
The Palgrave Atlas of Byzantine history (2005), p. 28-9.
The rise of Islam and the beginnings of a ‘Byzantine’ empire
The rise of Islam and the beginnings of a ‘Byzantine’ empire
The rise of Islam and the beginnings of a ‘Byzantine’ empire
🔎
The origins of Islam lie in the northern Arabian peninsula, where
different forms of Christianity and Judaism had competed and
co-existed for centuries with indigenous beliefs, in particular
in the much-travelled trading and caravan communities of
Mecca and Medina – Mohammed was himself a respected
and established merchant who had several times accompanied
the trade caravans north to Roman Syria. Syria and Palestine
already had substantial populations of Arabs, both farmers and
herdsmen, as well as mercenary soldiers serving the empire
as a buffer against the Persians. Although Mohammed met
initially with stiff resistance from his own clan, the Quraysh,
who dominated Mecca and its trade (as well as the holy Ka’ba),
by 628-629 he had established his authority over most of the
peninsula. On his death in 632 there followed a brief period
of warfare during which his immediate successors had to fight
hard to reassert Islamic authority; and there is little doubt that
both religious zeal combined with the desire for glory, booty
and new lands motivated the attacks into both the Persian and
Roman lands. A combination of incompetence and apathy,
disaffected soldiers and inadequate defensive arrangements
resulted in a series of disastrous Roman defeats and the loss of
Syria, Palestine, Mesopotamia and Egypt within the short span
of ten years, so that by 642 the empire was reduced to a rump
of its former self.The Persian empire was completely overrun
and destroyed. The Arab Islamic empire was born.
The most important loss for the Romans was Egypt. Already
during Heraclius’ Persian wars Egypt had been lost to the
Persians, albeit briefly, with serious results for the empire, since
it was from Egypt that the grain for Constantinople and other
cities was drawn. It was a rich source of revenue; and along with
Syria and the other eastern provinces had provided the bulk of
the empire’s tax revenue. Constantinople was forced radically
to restructure its fiscal apparatus and its priorities, including the
way the army was recruited and supported; and the result was,
by the later seventh century, an administratively very different
state from that which existed a century earlier. We will examine
these changes in the following chapters.
The reduced and impoverished east Roman or Byzantine
empire now had to contend not only with an aggressive and
extremely successful new foe in the east; it had far fewer
resources at its disposal, it had lost effective control in the
Balkans, and had no real power in Italy, where the military
governor or exarch, based at Ravenna, struggled against
increasingly difficult odds to maintain the imperial position.
The insistence of the imperial government during the reign
of Constans II on enforcing the official Monothelete policy reflected the government’s need to maintain imperial authority
and the views of those in power that the Romans were being
punished for their failure to deal with the divisions within the
church. But it also brought the empire into conflict with the
papacy and the western church, as well as provoking opposition
within the empire, bringing a further degree of political and
ideological isolation with it. In Italy the exarchs and the local
duces in charge of the defence of the various east Roman
enclaves fought a long-term war of raid and counter-raid with
the Lombards, while the papacy did its best both to support this
effort, to encourage the emperors to commit more resources
to the struggle (largely without success), and to fight on the
diplomatic level to maintain its own position and a degree of
equilibrium. In the long term, the balance was slowly tilting
against the imperial interest, in particular because ideological
conflicts such as monotheletism could only damage the chances
for a constructive co-operation between Constantinople and
Rome.
Arab strategy can be followed through several phases – until the defeat of the siege of 717-718 Byzantine resistance was
relatively passive, limited to defending fortified centres and
avoiding open contact. On the few occasions when imperial
troops did mark up successes, this was due to the appointment
of particularly able commanders, but was unusual. During the
Arab civil wars of the late 680s and early 690s the Emperor
Justinian II was able to stabilise the situation for a short
while; but it was only during the 720s that the empire was
able effectively to begin meeting Arab armies in the field and
reasserting imperial military control. In the meantime the
Byzantine resistance, focused on fortified key points and a
strategy of harassment and avoidance, had at least prevented
a permanent Arab presence in Asia Minor, aided of course
also by the geography of the region: the Taurus and Anti-Taurus ranges acted as an effective physical barrier, with only
a few well-marked passes allowing access and egress; while
the climate was in general unsuitable to the sort of economic
activity preferred by the invaders.
The Balkan front was also a concern for Constantinople.
Technically, the Danube remained the border even in the 660s
and 670s, but in practice Constantinople exercised very little
real control. In 679 the situation was transformed by the arrival
of the Turkic Bulgars, a nomadic confederation made up of
the Kutrigur and Utigur Huns and other groups who had been
forced out of their homelands and pastures around the Volga
by the encroachments of the Khazars from the east. Petitioning
the Emperor Constantine IV for permission to seek refuge and
protection south of the Danube, on ‘Roman’ territory (the
Danube river itself remained in fact largely under Byzantine
control because it was navigable, and the imperial fleet could
patrol it), they were refused. They nevertheless did succeed
in crossing over, where they were met by an imperial army
under Constantine himself. But the imperial army fell into panic
(poor discipline, misunderstood signals and a lack of cohesion
all contributed), and was defeated by the Bulgars, who over
the next 20 years consolidated their hold over the region and
established a loose hegemony over the indigenous Slav and
other peoples in the region. By 700 the Bulgar Khanate was an
important political and military power threatening Byzantine
Thrace, and was to remain so for the next three centuries.
The Palgrave Atlas of Byzantine history (2005), p. 29-30.
The East Roman Empire c. 632–1050: Transformation and Recovery
TheThe East Roman Empire c. 632-1050: Transformation and Recovery
The East Roman Empire c. 632-1050: Transformation and Recovery
🔎
Territorial losses and gains: 7th-10th centuries
🔎
The defeats and territorial contraction which resulted from the
expansion of Islam from the 640s in the east, on the one hand,
and the arrival of the Bulgars and establishment of a permanent
Bulgar Khanate in the Balkans from the 680s, on the other,
radically altered the political conditions of existence of the
east Roman state, and established a new international political
context. The evolution of this context was characterised
by the political, cultural and economic relations between
the empire and its neighbours, on the one hand; and by the
fluctuations in imperial political ideology and awareness of
these relations, on the other. At the same time, the cultural
imperialism of Byzantium, and the powerful results of this in
the Balkans and Russia, had results which have influenced,
and continue to influence, the Balkans and eastern Europe until
the present day.
Under the Emperor Leo III (717-741) and his son and
successor Constantine V (741-775), the period of contraction
and defeat begins to change. Leo, who was from a military
background and had come to power through a coup d’état,
seems to have been an able military and fiscal administrator;
Constantine proved to be a campaigning emperor who
introduced a number of administrative reforms in the army and
established an élite field army (the so-called imperial tagmata)
at Constantinople in the 760s. Political stability internally, the
beginnings of economic recovery in the later eighth century,
and dissension among their enemies, enabled the Byzantines
to re-establish a certain equilibrium by the year 800. In spite
of occasional major defeats (for example, the annihilation of a
Byzantine force following a Bulgar surprise attack in 811, and
the death in battle of the Emperor Nikephoros I [802-811]),
and an often unfavourable international political situation, the
Byzantines were able to begin a more offensive policy with
regard to the Islamic power to the east and the Bulgars in the
north – in the latter case, combining diplomacy and missionary
activity with military threats. From the early ninth century
imperial authority was re-established over much of the southern
Balkans and the Illyrian coastal regions; while successive
Byzantine victories in central Asia Minor from the 860s on
(and in spite of occasional setbacks, such as the Arab sack of
the important fortress town of Amorion in 842) stabilised a
new frontier and pushed the Caliphate onto the defensive. By
the early tenth century, and as the Caliphate was weakened
by internal strife, the Byzantines were beginning to establish
a certain advantage; and in spite of the fierce and sometimes
successful opposition of local Muslim warlords (such as the
emirs of Aleppo in the 940s and 950s), there followed a series of
brilliant reconquests of huge swathes of territory in north Syria
and Iraq, the annihilation of the Second Bulgarian Empire, and
the beginnings of the reconquest of Sicily and southern Italy.
During the last years of the ninth century and into the first
two decades of the tenth, the recently-Christianised Bulgar state
posed a serious threat to the empire – Constantinople was briefly
besieged – but peaceful relations (followed by an increasing
Byzantine influence on Bulgar culture and society) lasted for
much of the tenth century. Resurgent Bulgar hostility resulted
in a long and costly series of wars, culminating in the eventual
destruction of an independent Bulgar Tsardom after 1014 and
its absorption into the empire. By the time of the death of the
soldier-emperor Basil II ‘the Bulgar-slayer’ (1025) the empire
was once again the paramount political and military power in
the eastern Mediterranean basin and south-east Europe, rivalled
only by the Fatimid Caliphate in Egypt and Syria.
The offensive warfare that developed from the middle of the
ninth century reacted, in its turn, upon the administration and
organisation of the state’s fiscal and military administrative
structures. The provincial militias became less and less suited to
the requirements of such campaigning, tied as they had become
to their localities, to what was in effect a type of guerrilla
strategy, and to the seasonal campaigning dictated by Arab or
Bulgar raiders. Instead, regular field armies with a more complex
tactical structure, specialised fighting skills and weapons, and
more offensive élan began to develop, partly under the auspices
of a new social élite of military commanders who were also
great landowners, partly encouraged and financed by the state.
Mercenary troops played an increasingly important role as the
state began to commute military service in the provincial armies
for cash with which to hire professionals: by the middle of the
eleventh century, a large portion of the imperial armies was
made up of indigenously recruited mercenary units together
with Norman, Russian, Turkic and Frankish mercenaries, mostly cavalry, but including infantry troops (such as the
famous Varangian guard).
The expansionism of the period c. 940-1030 also had
negative outcomes. Increasing state demands clashed
with greater aristocratic resistance to tax-paying; political
factionalism at court, reflecting in turn the development of new
social tensions within society as a whole, and in the context
of weak and opportunistic imperial government, led to policy
failures, the over-estimation of imperial military strength, and
neglect of defensive structures. Pecheneg raids in the Balkans,
the appearance of Seljuk raiders in the Armenian highlands,
and the appearance of Norman mercenaries in Italy were all
harbingers of change to come. Yet in 1050 the empire was
at the height of its territorial power, its international position
appeared unassailable, and its capital city was one of the most
populous, commercially vibrant and cosmopolitan in the
western Eurasian world
The Palgrave Atlas of Byzantine history (2005), p. 58-9.