Doğu Roma
CKM 2018-19 / Aziz Yardımlı

 

SİTELER

____

 

  ___

 

 




Doğu Roma



  Eastern Roman Empire
  • Krallık — İÖ 753-509.
  • Cumhuriyet — İÖ 509-İÖ 27
  • İmparatorluk — İÖ 27-İS 1453 (395-476/480 Batı; 395-1453 Doğu).

 

  • 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.

Eastern Roman Empire

Eastern Roman Empire (W)

 
   
The Byzantine Empire, also referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire and Byzantium, was the continuation of the Roman Empire in its eastern provinces during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, when its capital city was Constantinople (modern-day Fatih, İstanbul, and formerly Byzantium). 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.

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 historiographical exonyms 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 Byzantine-Sasanian War of 602-628 exhausted the empire’s resources and contributed to major territorial losses during the Early Muslim conquests of the 7th century, when it lost its richest provinces, Egypt and Syria, to the Arab caliphate. During the Macedonian dynasty (10th–11th centuries), the empire expanded again and experienced the two-century long Macedonian Renaissance, which came to an end with the loss of much of Asia Minor to the Seljuk Turks after the Battle of Manzikert in 1071. This battle opened the way for the Turks to settle in Anatolia.

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)

 

During the Macedonian dynasty (10th–11th centuries), the empire expanded again and experienced the two-century long Macedonian Renaissance, which came to an end with the loss of much of Asia Minor to the Seljuk Turks after the Battle of Manzikert in 1071. This battle opened the way for the Turks to settle in Anatolia.

 


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.

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.

 




📹 The History of Byzantium [395-1453] (VİDEO)

The History of Byzantium [395-1453] (LINK)

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.

 







SİTE İÇİ ARAMA       
 
 
 
 
 
 


İdea Yayınevi Site Haritası | İdea Yayınevi Tüm Yayınlar
© Aziz Yardımlı 2018-2019 | aziz@ideayayınevi.com