The Glory That is Rome (CK2+ Byzantine AAR)

[spikeyazn]

The Glory that is Rome
CK2 Plus Byzantine AAR

​

Prologue: The Reign of Leon III and Konstantinos V


When Leon III the Isaurian ascended the throne, the empire was facing threats from all sides. Within months of his coronation, the Muslims attacked Constantinople with overwhelming force. Yet Leon fought bravely, decimating the Muslim navy with powerful liquid fire and destroying their army outside the city walls. Through his efforts, Constantinople was saved and with it the empire. After two decades of civil war and foreign threats, the Byzantine Empire was finally stabilized.

Leon embarked on an ambitious program to restore the empire. A revolt in Sicily was suppressed and he put an end to the deposed emperor Anastasios II’s attempt to reclaim the throne. He recodified the law, abolished unfair taxes, and reorganized the themes of the empire. Yet all was not successful. The city of Ravenna fell to the Lombards in 738, and though it was ultimately recovered, the Exarchate of Ravenna became detached from the rest of the empire. Leon also failed to make much leeway in his campaign against the Arabs.

Perhaps what defined Leon’s reign the most was his ban on the veneration of icons. Born in Syria, and perhaps influenced by Islam, Leo outlawed the depiction of religious figures throughout the empire, beginning the first wave of iconoclasm. Such an order brought turmoil to the church and the empire, and further strained relations between the East and the West.

Leon’s son, Konstantinos V, continued such iconoclastic policies. Religious symbols in churches were destroyed, iconophiles were punished, and Konstantinos even went so far as to condemn iconodulism as a heresy. Early in his reign, Konstantinos was forced to fight off Artabasdos, who briefly occupied Constantinople and was crowned emperor. Artabasdos was defeated and killed, and Konstantinos reclaimed his rightful place as Basileus. His reign saw the destruction of the Exarchate of Ravenna by the Lombards in 751, and the Byzantines regrouped in southern Italy and Sicily.

​

The reign of Leon III and Konstantinos V saw a resurgence of Byzantine power. Despite some military setbacks and religious strife, the empire was strong and prosperous. Yet after two decades on the throne, even the aging Basileus could not resist the sweet allure of palace life. Will Konstantinos will able to continue maintaining the might of the empire, or would he succumb to the same decadence that brought down his predecessors?

The year is 769.

The Byzantine Empire during the Reign of Konstantinos V (Menorca not shown)

-----​

Hello everyone, welcome to my first AAR attempt! I'm playing the 769 start date for the Byzantines using the CK2+ mod, which I thought would be more of a challenge since it adds more to the gameplay. For this AAR, I'm planning to write in a historical style.

​

 

[spikeyazn]

Table of Contents

Prologue

Konstantinos V (741-788)
- The Latter Years -
- The Conquest of Diocleia -
- Interlude -
- Jihad -
- The Emperor's Revenge -
- Triumph -
- The Final Decade -

Leon IV (788-802)
- A Troubled Beginning -
- Suppression and Coronation -
- The Bulgar War -
- Internal Affairs -
- Continued Reforms -
- Leon's Legacy -

Konstantinos VI (802-840)
- A New Beginning -
- The Young Emperor -
- The Early Wars -
- The Restoration of the Icons -
- Holy Wars, Part I -
- Holy Wars, Part II -
- Holy Wars, Part III -
- Family Tragedies -
- Armenia -
- A Sudden Passing -

Christophoros (840-864)
- Christophoros -
- Pushing East, Part I -
- Pushing East, Part II -
- Politics and Plans -
- A New Army -
- The Armenian Revolts -
- Faith and Family -
- Later Reign -

Demetrios (864-905)
- Crisis -
- The Isaurian Rebellion -
- Rewards and Punishments -
- The Italian Wars -
- The Eternal City -
- The Second Isaurian Rebellion -
- The Kingdom of Heaven -
- Infidels and Heretics -
- Return to Italy -
- The Issue of Succession -
- Demetrios's Legacy -

Isidoros (905-920)
- The Reign of Isidoros, Part 1 -
- The Reign of Isidoros, Part 2 -
- Abdication -

Iouliana (920-923)
- A Brief Interlude -

Ioulianos III (923-952)
- Patriarch Eustratios -
- The Early Reign -
- Mare Nostrum -
- The Emperor's Woes -
- A War Like No Other -
- Ioulianos III Revisited -

Ioulianos IV (952-975)
- Ioulianos IV -

- Appendix I: The Known World in 800 AD -
- Appendix II: Religion in the Early 9th Century -
- Appendix III: The Men of Letters - Sources of the 9th and 10th Century -

 

[sbeaber4]

AWESOME. Thanks for sharing. Ill be following this one.
Could you talk about your goals? For example, make Armenia into a Tributary?

 

[Puskás]

Good luck spikeyazn. Really looking forward to see the Roman Empire restore in its glory!
spikeyazn

 

[spikeyazn]

AWESOME. Thanks for sharing. Ill be following this one.
Could you talk about your goals? For example, make Armenia into a Tributary?

Well my ultimate goal is of course to restore the Roman empire. One of my more immediate goals is to restore Georgia as an independent Orthodox entity (which means I would have to conquer it and grant it independence), as it would serve as a nice buffer. As for Armenia, I'm probably going to conquer it and hold it myself.

Good luck spikeyazn. Really looking forward to see the Roman Empire restore in its glory!
spikeyazn

Thank you! I've already got some epic posts planned!

 

[spikeyazn]

Volume I

Byzantine Iconoclasm under Konstantinos V
​

~The Latter Years~

The the first day of year seven hundred sixty nine of our lord Jesus Christ passed like any other. The years of chaos and disorder had long since disappeared, and the empire was prosperous and strong. The last battle fought in the City happened almost three decades ago, and since then there had been only peace and prosperity. Thousands gathered in the Hagia Sophia to pray, but conspicuously absent that day was the emperor Konstantinos V and his family.

​

At age 50, Konstantinos V had been on the throne for almost 28 years, and even so he still remained a controversial figure. His supporters praised his role in strengthening the Roman military and bringing about prosperity, while his opponents lambasted his fervent support for iconoclasm and his failure to preserve the Exarchate of Ravenna. Kopronymos, they called him, "dung-christened", claiming that he defecated in the purple clothe in which he was swaddled. But they whispered in secret, for despite his failures and religious beliefs, Konstantinos and his family had strong support within the empire, and with seven children, the succession of the Isauros family was all but ensured.

That hope was placed on Prince Leon, Konstantinos's eldest son born to his first empress Eirene Ashina, daughter of the Khazar Chief. Because of his parentage, many mockingly called him "the Khazar" in secret. Prince Leon himself very small in stature and a weak individual, lacking the physical strength and martial prowess of his father and grandfather, though he was well-versed in politics and theology. John of Athens, writing after Konstantino's death, claimed that Leon was never Konstantino's preferred choice of heir, but that he begrudgingly awarded Leon the title of Caesar and designated him heir because his other sons were too young and Leon had the support of many Senators. However, there was no evidence to believe that Konstantinos ever thought about changing the order of succession, since he was quick to send his other sons away from the capital. Furthermore, Leon was granted the County of Thrake to govern, a county traditionally held by the emperor himself.

Prince Leon in 769​

Nonetheless, it was hard to deny there were tensions in Constantinople. As Konstantinos aged, his once firm rule grew lax and he began to indulge himself in worldly pleasures. Religious strife continued to plague the empire, and there were those who worried that the weak-willed and kindhearted Leon would not be able to rule as his father and grandfather had done. Konstantinos himself was clearly aware of this problem. To prevent challenges to Leon's rule, he sent his sons Christophoros and Nikephoros, both born to Basilissa Eudokia, to faraway provinces. Christophoros sailed to Syracuse, where he became strategos of the theme of Sicily, while Nikephoros was dispatched to Koloneia where he too became strategos. [1] Gifts were sent to key Senators and nobles to keep them happy and away from conspiring. For a time, it seemed Konstantinos was doomed to spend his latter years placating nobles and breaking up factions, but God favored him and a opportunity suddenly presented itself in 771.

The Revolt of Timotheos in 771​

In the spring of that year, a large revolt broke out on the island of Krete, led by a disgruntled former soldier named Timotheos. The rebels rose in the province of Kaneia, quickly scattering the local garrison. Konstantinos drew levies from Greece and southwestern Anatolia and dispatched them to Krete, where they quickly routed the rebels and suppressed the rebellion. Timotheos himself was captured while attempting to flee from the battlefield, and he was dragged and paraded through the streets of Constantinople in chains, where Konstantinos personally presided over his execution. The rebellion, though minor, proved to the Basileus that war was a perfect distraction from politics. If the strategoi were fighting, then they were not conspiring. And so not long after, Konstantinos announced that the Romans would be going to war against the Slavic barbarians. The Holy War for Diocleia had begun.

The Romans declare war on the Slavs​

[1] Christophoros came of age in 771 and Nikephoros in 773. Both of them were swiftly married off and sent away.

 

[Work_U_Dumb]

I love it so far!

 

[sbeaber4]

Are you going to change to Orthodoxy or rkeep Iconoclasm and roleplay through it?

 

[spikeyazn]

I love it so far!

Thank you!

Are you going to change to Orthodoxy or rkeep Iconoclasm and roleplay through it?

At this point, I'm probably to going to revert back to Orthodoxy at some point. I'm personally not a big fan of Iconoclasm because it destroyed a lot of beautiful art and mosaics.

 

[spikeyazn]

Slavic Pagans​

~The Conquest of Diocleia~

The war on the Slavs came as a surprise to many. The reign of Konstantinos was certainly no stranger to war, but to decision to attack the pagan barbarians caused many to whisper. Diocleia, or Duklja in the barbarian tongue, was once been Roman territory, but it had been lost for generations. The region was uncivilized and not particularly wealthy, and many did not see a reason for conquest. Surely the military might of the empire could be better spent elsewhere, recovering lost territory in Italy or reclaiming the Holy Land from the infidel Muslims. The emperor himself was a religious zealot and no doubt he harbored ambitions to conquer Antioch and Jerusalem. But Konstantinos was not foolish enough to waste the resources of the empire on wars with the Muslims, not when the Abbasids were at the height of their power.

The Counties of Diocleia​

Though the campaign against the Slavs was not popular at the time, later writers praised Konstantinos’s decision to reclaim Diocleia. The counties of Diocleia lay along the Adriatic, which meant that their conquest would open them up to potential trade. Furthermore, their inclusion in the empire would open a land route to Roman holdings in Croatia, particularly the major port city of Ragusa, which up to that point had to be supplied by water. And no doubt, waging a holy war in the name of God would redirect tensions within the empire outwards.

The Slavs, barbarians as they were, were ferocious fighters who had in the past defeated Roman forces. Furthermore, the barbarians in Serbia maintained close relations with their neighbor the Bulgar Khan, whose own relation with the Romans were uneasy to say the least. Konstantinos and his generals believed that the war would last at least two years, and it was because of this that the emperor ordered the mobilization of ten thousand troops throughout the empire. The Roman army was divided into three contingents, the main army of some 6,000 men, consisting of levies raised from Constantinople and its surrounding regions and western Anatolia, was led by Konstantios himself, who once again donned his armor. A second army was raised in southern Greece while a third auxiliary force was raised in Sicily, awaiting the arrival of the fleet to carry them to Serbia.

The Battle of Neretvani and the Capture of Vojislav​

The campaign began badly, with the city of Ragusa falling to the Slavic hordes even as Konstantinos led his forces north. But God rewards those who serve Him faithfully, and the Romans were granted a great victory at Neretvani in February of 772. There, the entire Slavic force was routed by the army commanded by Konstantinos. Of the nearly three thousand Slavs who fought that day, less than a thousand escaped alive. The Romans, on the other hand, lost only five hundred men. Among those captured was High Chief Vojislav himself, the leader of the Slavs. He had attempted to flee as his army was routed, but a stray arrow struck his horse in the neck and as a result he was taken prisoner. In exchange for his freedom, Vojislav agreed to give up Diocleia, ending the war less than a year after it began. Konstantinos marched back to Constantinople in triumph.

Doux Evangelos Macrodoukas​

The man Konstantinos put in charge of the newly conquered Diocleia was named Evangelos Macrodoukas. He had been a minor functionary in the civil bureaucracy, but was not very well known in government circles. He was an intriguer, but it was said that his abilities in other fields were unexceptional, to say the least. Still, he was a close friend of the Basileus and so was given the task of civilizing the new territories. As a further sign of imperial favor, Evangelos was allowed to pass his all of titles down to his descendants, a privilege afforded to very few people.[1]

In spring of 772, Konstantinos and his victorious army marched into Constantinople to cheering crowds. The Basileus wasted no time declaring that a grand tournament would be held in the city to celebrate his victory.

[1] Honestly I would have appointed his strategos if I could, but the region was not yet feudal and so I was forced to appoint him High Chief instead.

 

[josa235]

This AAR sounds interesting! Spikeyazn, perhaps you should read "Inventing Byzantine Iconoclasm" by Leslie Brubaker or "Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era" by the same author and John Haldon. It would help you at some points. For instance, Leo III was never iconoclast and in fact patriarch Germanos (715-730), in a letter written in the 730's, described the first Isaurian Emperor as a "friend of icons" and says both Leo III and his son Constantine had ordered an image depicting the angels, the cross and the apostles. The sources where Leo III appears as an iconoclast are from the 9th century or, in the case of the "Liber Pontificalis", are interpolations in earlier sources, i.e., the passages saying that were added later with propagandistic purposes.

Anyway, I'm liking your efforts and thanks for your answer!

 

[spikeyazn]

This AAR sounds interesting! Spikeyazn, perhaps you should read "Inventing Byzantine Iconoclasm" by Leslie Brubaker or "Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era" by the same author and John Haldon. It would help you at some points. For instance, Leo III was never iconoclast and in fact patriarch Germanos (715-730), in a letter written in the 730's, described the first Isaurian Emperor as a "friend of icons" and says both Leo III and his son Constantine had ordered an image depicting the angels, the cross and the apostles. The sources where Leo III appears as an iconoclast are from the 9th century or, in the case of the "Liber Pontificalis", are interpolations in earlier sources, i.e., the passages saying that were added later with propagandistic purposes.

Anyway, I'm liking your efforts and thanks for your answer!

That's very interesting to know! I wonder which primary sources Leslie Brubaker used, since all the other sources I've come across (including a college class on Byzantine history) says that Leo III and Constantine V were both iconoclasts, Constantine especially. I wouldn't be surprised if later sources indeed contained propagandist elements though, since it seemed more writers during that period were iconophiles.

 

[josa235]

She used the typical ones of the 9th century, debunked them and used mainly 8th or early 9th century material. You must really read one of those 2 books.

By the way, you might be interested that "iconoclasm" (or better said, "iconomachy") has little to do with breaking images. In fact, the synod of Hieria of 754 declared the destruction of church furniture, including icons, forbidden; and the very few cases of earlier icons being destroyed are very arguable (they seem actually to be a case of renewal of churches, for instance).

Concluding, almost everything that the traditional historiography claimed on the subject is wrong or very misleading.

 

[spikeyazn]

She used the typical ones of the 9th century, debunked them and used mainly 8th or early 9th century material. You must really read one of those 2 books.

By the way, you might be interested that "iconoclasm" (or better said, "iconomachy") has little to do with breaking images. In fact, the synod of Hieria of 754 declared the destruction of church furniture, including icons, forbidden; and the very few cases of earlier icons being destroyed are very arguable (they seem actually to be a case of renewal of churches, for instance).

Concluding, almost everything that the traditional historiography claimed on the subject is wrong or very misleading.

Of course, I think later sources exaggerated the actions of Constantine V in order to demonize him for his hostility to icons. People assume iconoclasm means destruction of idols because that's what the word means - "image-breaking". I think it was much more of removing the icons and images from churches so that people don't worship them - for example taking down mosaics and replacing it with a simple cross. The Council of Hieria said that no man shall, under the pretext of removing icons, lay his hands on the holy vessels or alter them because they are adorned with images. But it did condemn the worship of icons has blasphemy and laid out punishments for those who did.

Interestingly enough, even though Constantine V was much more of an iconoclast than his son Leo IV, for some reason Leo got an "Icon Breaker" trait in my game.....

 

[Olligarchy]

Very well written, subbed!

 

[spikeyazn]

Constantinople in Celebration
​

~Interlude~

Few could remember the last time Constantinople celebrated on such a scale. Those older in age could recall the coronation of Konstantinos some three decades ago, when the City celebrated the ascension of the second Isaurian emperor. But for those born after, it was truly a sight to behold. Konstantinos and his victorious army marched down the central avenue and proceeded to the Hagia Sophia, where the emperor prayed and thanked God for his great victory. He then declared that celebratory feasts would be held for three days and that a grand tournament would be staged. Riders were sent to every part of the empire and officials big and small made their way to the capital, including the emperor’s sons.

Not content to merely watch, and much to the disdain of the civil bureaucracy, the emperor himself participated in the tournament. Perhaps Konstantinos wanted to display his strength and vigor, to show the world that his age had not yet caught up to him. But on a deeper level, it was to show the the various strategos that throne was stronger than they were. During the tournament, strategos Thomas of Nikea tragically lost his life when a shard from a lance impaled him in the eye, and many whispered in secret that he was assassinated on the emperor’s orders for being too vocal on the issue of the icons.

Even as the empire celebrated the return to peace, Konstantinos kept his vigilance, for he knew the Arab infidels desired Anatolia. He was particularly troubled by the news spent from Anatolia by his spies. The Arabs, they say, were stockpiling food and supplies along the border, almost as if they were preparing for war. It was by no surprise, then, that Konstantinos also ordered the Roman garrisons to be alert for any incursion, but whatever preparation he had in mind was cut short when a major revolt broke out in the summer of 773.

The Rebellion of Strategos Theodoros​

Theodoros of Ephesos, the strategos of Samos, desired a title that did not belong to him and he therefore plotted to assassinate the holder of the title, but the plot was leaked. Unwilling to give up and fearing arrest, Theodoros resolved to rebel. His army marched out of Ephesos and prompted put Laodikeia under siege, capturing it two months later. But his luck ran out when an army commanded by the emperor himself arrived to relieve the siege of Laodikeia. Though outnumbered almost two to one, Theodoros refused the advice of his commanders and decided to fight the Roman army.

Battle of Laodikeia (773)​

The Battle of Laodikeia was a overwhelming imperial victory. Konstantinos wisely gave command of the army to his protostrator, Aetios ‘the Hammer’ Souanites, the strategos of Paphlagonia while he himself took command of the right flank. The imperial army overwhelmed the rebels, slaying one of their commanders - Count Petronios of Smyrna. Theodoros fled with the remnants of his army back to Ephesos, where he surrendered early the next year. He was taken to Constantinople in chains, where the emperor stripped him of his titles and threw him in prison.

But the empire would see no respite from war, for trouble was brewing in the east.

 

[Pezito]

That's some great writing. Hopefully the Empire will defeat the Abassids, if a war with them is really going to happen.

 

[spikeyazn]

That's some great writing. Hopefully the Empire will defeat the Abassids, if a war with them is really going to happen.

Thank you, I'm glad you are enjoying it!

 

[spikeyazn]

The Battle of Archelais, late 13th century​

~Jihad~

​

The Muslim jihad on Anatolia in the spring of 774 came as a shock to all. The people of Constantinople, still reveling in the great victory against the Slavs, did not expect war to come so soon. Even Konstantinos, who foresaw renewed conflict with the Arabs, was surprised by the news. Perhaps he too did not expect the Muslims to come with such haste. Michael Doukaina, a chronicler who served at court during that time, wrote that the emperor shut himself in his private chambers for an entire day before coming out and meeting with his generals.

Caliph al-Hadi in 774​

The Muslim leader, Caliph al-Hadi, was a strong leader in his prime and he ruled over an empire at the time was more powerful than the Romans - it was said that the Muslims could raise over 30,000 men for war. There were those who feared that the Roman empire did not have the strength to defeat the Muslims, but Konstantinos was adamant in his belief of victory. He mobilized the armies of the entire empire - even levies from as far as Sicily was raised and transported to Anatolia. Altogether some 15,000 men were raised, and Konstantinos once again donned his armor to lead his troops in combat. Before departing, a Mass was held in the Church of the Holy Apostles where the emperor prayed to God for a swift and decisive victory.

Battle of Tyana, 774​

Caliph al-Hadi was perhaps overconfident in his abilities to defeat the Romans, for he split his army into two forces. The vanguard led by Emir Za'ida al-Shaybanid, numbering nearly 6,000, marched into Tyana and put the Romans fortresses under siege, while the remaining 4,000 men commanded by the Caliph personally stayed behind in Lykandos awaiting further reinforcements and supplies.[1] In January of 775, the first Roman army commanded by Phokas of Pempton clashed with the Muslim forces at Tyana and routed the infidels. By then, the second Roman army led by the emperor had also arrived in Anatolia.

The Slaying of Caliph al-Hadi​

Caliph al-Hadi, unaware that Konstantinos had arrived with a second army, swiftly moved his army to Tarsos when spring arrived, where he planned to strike Phokas as the Roman army resupplied. The emperor was overjoyed when he heard the news and he swiftly laid a trap for the Muslim Caliph. Phokas was to lead his army and attack al-Hadi head on, while the army commanded by Konstantinos was to attack from behind through Ikonion. The Muslims did not realize that they was caught in a pincer attack until it was too late, but even then they fought fiercely, for the army commanded by al-Hadi was composed of his personal guards - the veterans of conflicts in the east. But God was on the side of the Christians. In the heat of battle, Konstantinos was separated from his forces and found the al-Hadi charging towards him with a small group of guards. The Roman emperor slew several soldiers before clashing swords with the Caliph himself. The two engaged in single combat for some time but al-Hadi was ultimately defeated when his sword was knocked out of his hand. Konstantinos did not show any mercy and drove his sword into the infidel's heart.[2]

The Great Victory at Archelais, 775​

April 26, 775 and the Battle of Archelais became forever immortalized in the annals of history. It was no doubt Konstantinos's greatest triumph, his finest hour. The Muslims' morale was shattered upon seeing their Caliph fall and the entire Muslim force was routed. Konstantinos ordered that no quarter would be given to the infidels, and the Roman cavalry ran down every enemy soldier down to the last man. The Muslim army was completely destroyed, the best soldiers the Abbasids had to offer. Later chroniclers would write that the Archangel Michael himself came down from Heaven, bringing with him God's soldiers to aid the emperor, and that the infidel leader begged for his life. These were of course exaggerations, but few doubted God's role in the victory. With al-Hadi dead, his young son became the new Caliph, and was immediately faced with several rebellions. Beset by troubles at home, the new Caliph could ill afford to continue his war with the Romans and the Muslim jihad was called off a year after it was declared.

[1] Honestly I think the Abbasid didn't take me seriously, they only mobilized around 10,000 soldiers for the Jihad when they had the potential to mobilize ~35,000. Maybe they would have if I haven't killed their Caliph.

[2]I really lucked out there. The war would have been so much longer if he didn't die.

 

[Ticket Cookie]

Interesting, subbed

 

[The Number 9]

Interesting so far. I'm subscribing too.