Read somewhere, probably 1453, which was the last East Roman history I read, a pretty good analysis of the faults in Justinian's empire laying the groundwork for the later Arab conquests, the iconoclasm, and the suspicion in which the empire held the west and vice versa. Basically, and this is a horribly simplified and abridged version, Justinian and his successors had the choice of pacifying the unorthodox in the east and south, or trying to reclaim the west, and they assumed that since Egypt and Palestine were tax-payers right now they always would remain so, therefore making no concessions to their non-Patriarch of Constantinople (or for that matter Rome)-centric view of orthodoxy. When Islam came, it was comparatively tolerant, so native resistance movements were far weaker than they might have been once the area was conquered. It was easier to live under the Caliphate as an Orthodox Christian who wasn't on speaking terms with Constantinople than it was to live under the emperor; pay your tax or give lip service (or more) to Islam, and life goes on. At the same time, the westerners viewed the eastern empire as an increasingly alien country that had tried to conquer Rome and dethrone the Pope. Next thing you know - 1204.
In the Footsteps of Rome: A History of Europe in Late Antiquity
- Thread starter volksmarschall
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I actually wondered over to the Vikky forum the other day and saw you starting that new project. I'm going to have to right myself a note to go over and check in on it here and there.
Interesting Chapter about Justinian, only thing I've ever remembered from him is good ole Theodora's shadowy intriguing character. Makes me wonder how those two ran into each other
The entire episode of Belisarious arrest and imprisonment is something that, as a sentimentalist, should never had happened to begin with. Well, here's hoping that when you come back from your vacation, that you will write your Rurikid AAR.
As a matter of alternative history it's always difficult to say. After all, history, as the discipline is practiced, is a linear connected form in order to impart meaning to history (otherwise history is nothing more than millions of unrelated events that all happen but nothing else than that -- that is actually the strictest and most objective form of historical scholarship but is meaningless to readers). Alas, history only gets one run, and what happens happens. William Rosen believes the plague marks the true end of the Roman Empire. Personally, nothing could have saved the empire from eventual collapse, that is the fundamental truth of history - all great empires fall. BTW, since you brought it up, if you haven't read Rosen's Justinian's Flea, it's a pretty decent book that's relatively cheap on amazon or you can find at any library.
Google images!
Way to just spoil my next update!
BTW, are you sure that book is 1453 (The Holy War for Constantinople) by Roger Crowley? I have his book and most recently read it for a historiography paper and I don't remember Justinian being included. Unless it's a different book with the same title. Or perhaps I'll just have to re-read it again since I really didn't concern much of the work itself with Justinian's reign as I did with it's implied content and historiographical representation.
I actually wondered over to the Vikky forum the other day and saw you starting that new project. I'm going to have to right myself a note to go over and check in on it here and there.
Interesting Chapter about Justinian, only thing I've ever remembered from him is good ole Theodora's shadowy intriguing character. Makes me wonder how those two ran into each other
The stories of Byzantine historians writing about how they got together is very much inappropriate for my commenting on that!
Of course, Edward Gibbon skewers Theodora in his work, I probably read 100 pages of that for that paper! "Theodora was so repugnant that it has left an indelible stain upon [her] memory." (Gibbon, p. 456-457, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire).
The stories of Byzantine historians writing about how they got together is very much inappropriate for my commenting on that!
Haha I imagine its a colorful story.
Be prepared, that Gibbon hates everything Byzantine, and Procopius' "Secret History" on which he bases his story is something like "Sun" newspaper. So, basically, it's grumpy Ulster Catholic telling you about Kate Middleton after way to many pints
It is great to return to the fora and see you still writing Volk, especially this area which I have always found fascinating. Especially in the Western I find the transformation from Britain is to England and Gaul to France very interesting, not to mention the widening of "civilisation" across the Rhine, then Elbe, and then further north and east.
I can't find it in 1453 either, and yes, we're talking about the same book. I don't know where it might have been otherwise. Have to check my Goodreads account for what I've been reading recently that might have included commentary on the Western and Southern strategies.
EDIT - May have found it. Asimov's Constantinople: The Forgotten Empire, which was surprisingly readable, given how dry I find his fiction usually. It's a popular history, but Asimov was a versatile, perceptive thinker, and did an excellent job of illustrating what I think of as the Byzantine tragedy, which found its full expression in Gibbon's utter dismissal of everything Byzantine as worthless, despite Constantinople being the cork in the Islamic bottle for six hundred years.
EDIT - May have found it. Asimov's Constantinople: The Forgotten Empire, which was surprisingly readable, given how dry I find his fiction usually. It's a popular history, but Asimov was a versatile, perceptive thinker, and did an excellent job of illustrating what I think of as the Byzantine tragedy, which found its full expression in Gibbon's utter dismissal of everything Byzantine as worthless, despite Constantinople being the cork in the Islamic bottle for six hundred years.
But the fear that Justinian had about Belisarius popularity was far from being irrational. You even explained it well, the rationale behind the decisions.
That could be the understatement of the year, especially if you read some of the primary histories!
Be prepared, that Gibbon hates everything Byzantine, and Procopius' "Secret History" on which he bases his story is something like "Sun" newspaper. So, basically, it's grumpy Ulster Catholic telling you about Kate Middleton after way to many pints
Ditto! Although, I still like Gibbon for his prose and the fact that he essentially pioneered the modern way we do history with the focus on primary sources instead of secondary, even if the secondary sources were probably much more fair in their content! I do love your analogy!
Late Antiquity is definitely one of the most interesting and much underrated, undervalued, and misunderstood era of our history! Great to still see you around stnylan.
Asimov is great, although I naturally prefer his science fiction that you consider dry, although I share the sentiment with some of his work. He is the epitome of a writer I only wish I could come remotely remotely close to reach. Like 2% of his bibliography!
But the fear that Justinian had about Belisarius popularity was far from being irrational. You even explained it well, the rationale behind the decisions.
Ah yes, but we have the benefit of being in the 21st Century. Justinian isn't too bad, although I definitely don't think he deserves the epithet "Great" after his name... But he was, nonetheless, a pretty good ruler who still had his faults (as many rulers do).
You clearly weren't introduced to Asimov's fiction by way of audiobooks. He had a TERRIBLE speaking voice, leavened only by his occasionally awkward pronunciation to a modern ear - "Robuts" comes to mind. First Asimov book I "read" was Foundation, on a long car trip back in the early '90s. It was unbearable. The funny thing is that Foundation is a pacifist's guide to establishing an empire, and is a fascinating read once you get past the difficulty of maintaining interest in a story where action is to be avoided at all costs.
That could be the understatement of the year, especially if you read some of the primary histories!
I may have to look for one of those primary histories than...I do enjoy a good colorful story.
As far as Asimov, that guy was an all around genius, not sure how else to describe him. He dipped his toes in a lot of different subjects throughout his life!
Chapter 3: Byzantine Triumphs and Survival
The new height of the Byzantine Empire under Justinian was short lived. During his reign, he suffered internal turmoil that nearly cost him the throne. One of the more awkward but devastating moments of riots in Byzantine history happened with the Nika Riots. The Byzantine Empire, being Roman, kept the long standing Roman tradition of politicking and internal factional rivalries. This carried into Byzantine entertainment, and was especially true of chariot racing, which was seen as a Christian alternative to the barbarous gladiatorial games. Saint John Chrysostom even remarked of the Christian symbolism of chariot racing, with the rider being the servant of the Lord, the horses his apostles of truth, the stadium the Church, the crowd the laypersons, and the obelisk at center pointing towards the heavens as a constant reminder that God is watching. Despite this, factional favorites were constantly betted upon during the races.
The emperor himself was a supporter of the “Blues,” one of the major factions in chariot racing. Justinian, who was adopted, was seen as illegitimate by some of the long standing Roman aristocracy who had transferred themselves into the Byzantine Empire, and they backed other factions in chariot racing to cut into Justinian’s legitimacy and authority. After one particular incident where chariot members had murdered one another to gain an advantage, angry and outrage among their respective supporters spilled over in a deadly riot that was aimed at Justinian. Justinian grew nervous and even wanted to flee the city, but Theodora convinced him otherwise. Although the damage to Constantinople was immense, the guards of the city managed to quell the riot and restore order. The Nika Riots, along with the period of iconoclasm and Nicaean Civil War of 870-873* (see Chapter 4) were among the most tumultuous periods of internal division the empire would see during its history.
After the death of Theodora, Justinian is said to have descended into madness or depression, maybe even both (which might partially explain his strained relationship with Belisarius). When Belisarius and Justinian died, the three figures so instrumental in the Byzantine revival had passed away, and the Byzantine empire would slowly cave in on itself over the next 3 centuries, partly due to wars between Byzantium and the Sassanids (see Chapter 5) and the Arabs (see Chapter 6), but mostly a result of poor decisions by Justinian.
As I mentioned, although Justinian was a competent administrator and a great ruler, his kindness to his subject ironically doomed the empire he had carved out to slowly collapse like a soufflé. When Justinian lowered taxes to ease the burdens that the subjects of the empire were suffering from, namely a series of deadly plagues that ripped through the empire that killed millions, it came at the wrong time. The newly conquered territories of Italy, North Africa, and Spain demanded maintenance. Garrison forces, rebuilding the logistical infrastructure that had fallen into disrepair, and the rebuilding and cultivation of cities and economic centers in the newly added territories all demanded a high sum of money. The plagues that caused Justinian to lower taxes meant that the newly conquered territories would be undermanned, improperly financed, and not economically prosperous to add to the Treasury to the degree otherwise needed to ensure the continued success of Byzantine administrative policy.
The height of the Byzantine Empire under Justinian. Ironically, Justinian's benevolent administrative policies ensured the empire's loss of the lands most recently conquered.
Overtime, the defeated Barbarians slowly centralized and became more potent forces, and slowly reclaimed much of their lost territory. In addition, the constant wars with the Sassanids and the crisis of the Levant (see Chapter 6) caused Byzantine concentration to change from the west to their more immediate and important homelands in the east. The city of Rome was lost in the eighth century, and with the ascendency of the Europeans, virtually all the former territories in the west were lost by the ninth century, with only a few holdouts in Southern Italy.
Following Justinian’s death, a myriad of less competent to outright incompetent and scheming rulers held the throne in Constantinople and presided over the slow decline of the Byzantine Empire in the seventh and eighth centuries. It should be noted however, that much of the inability of these leaders is due to the essential bankruptcy and manpower depletion of the Byzantine state as a result of Justinian's conquests. As the Europeans and Arabs slowly carved out territories for themselves out of the former Byzantine holdings, one of the worst internal struggles in Byzantine history occurred in the eighth century, known as the period of Iconoclasm, or “image breakers.”
The Byzantine Empire was long home to religious debate, revival, councils, and discussions. Prone to superstition, the Eastern Churches were divided over the context of icons in the Church, one of the issues that the later Protestant Reformers would confront against the Catholic Church in the sixteenth century. In the eighth century however, the iconoclasts were fervent in the opposition to the use of icons in the Church, which they deemed tantamount to idolatry, a violation of the second commandment – thou shall not make for yourself idols or images.
The imperium, long a bastion and supporter to conservative orthodoxy, had supported the use of icons in the church. However, with the rise of Leo III, the emperor suddenly revoked the traditional veneration of icons, something that set off a wave of riots and civil unrest across the country as religious subjects, both iconoclasts and non-iconoclasts, drew the line in the sand and took their sides. The civil strife caused tremendous damages to Christian churches, artwork, and architecture as tens of thousands of mosaics, relics, images, and other icons were shattered, lost or destroyed by the iconoclasts. Many iconoclasts saw themselves as upholding their civil and secular duty by destroying and desecrating churches and icons – thou shall not make idols and the destruction of the images were supported by the emperor.
After Leo’s death, the fury of the iconoclasts grew even stronger and there was outright civil war among supporters of the iconoclasts and supporters of icon veneration. The Byzantine military, strongly loyal to the emperor, became a conservative bastion of iconoclasm and the iconoclast legacy. After the emperors Constantine V and Leo IV all privately supported iconoclasm despite their attempts to mediate the differences, Constantine VI came to the throne at a young age and the regent Irene called for a new ecumenical council to solve the issue of iconoclasm once and for all. Meeting at Nicaea in the Second Council, the Western delegates were firmly supportive of the veneration of icons (The Latin Church never suffered the pains of iconoclasm as the Eastern Church did).
However, the Byzantine military realized the council was moving in a direction to venerate icons and disrupted the council meetings. The council was in absentia for a year, before finally meeting again in 787. Two councils were established, one supporting iconoclasm and the other supporting the veneration of icons. When the council closed, the Second Ecumenical Council of Nicaea supported the veneration of icons, and is the seventh, and according to the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the last genuine of the ecumenical councils between east and west. However, a second period of iconoclasm broke out in the first half of the ninth century, but it was not as severe as the first period of iconoclasm.
The Iconoclast controversy further drained the ties between the Byzantine Empire, seen as supportive of the iconoclast movement, and the Latin West, the various successor kingdoms of the western empire under the helm of the Catholic Church had supported the cause of veneration. The period of iconoclasm therefore coincides with the fall of the Byzantine Papacy – Popes who were seen as being pro-Byzantine while Rome was under Byzantine jurisdiction.
An iconoclast (or image breaker) destroys an icon of Jesus of Nazareth. Incidentally enough, this icon depicts an iconoclast destroying an icon.
The iconoclast controversy would linger into the late ninth century. The Nicaean Civil War that broke out under the reign of Basil I of the Macedonian Dynasty (see Chapter 4). The final defeat of the iconoclasts is an important moment in Byzantine and Orthodox Church history. First, the final defeat of the iconoclasts and the re-integration of the Kingdom of Nicaea back into the Byzantine Empire mark the beginning of the Macedonian Renaissance and Revival for the Byzantine Empire. Secondly, the defeat of iconoclasm according to the Orthodox Church signifies the final triumph and ascendency of orthodoxy over the heresies.
The Byzantine Empire, having weathered the trials of four centuries of war against the Sassanids, the ascendency of the Arabs in the Middle East, and the internal struggles of civil war and iconoclasm, now positioned themselves to begin a period of war, re-conquest, and cultural renaissance under the Macedonian Dynasty for centuries to come. The burdens of empire had been shouldered in the east, and the infrastructure of eastern imperialism would remain alive into the nineteenth century.
*At this point, I have begun to make references to in-game developments, like the Nicaean Civil War, which did not actually occur historically. From hereon, gameplay results will be more the focus than the actual histories.
Chapter 3: Byzantine Triumphs and Survival
The new height of the Byzantine Empire under Justinian was short lived. During his reign, he suffered internal turmoil that nearly cost him the throne. One of the more awkward but devastating moments of riots in Byzantine history happened with the Nika Riots. The Byzantine Empire, being Roman, kept the long standing Roman tradition of politicking and internal factional rivalries. This carried into Byzantine entertainment, and was especially true of chariot racing, which was seen as a Christian alternative to the barbarous gladiatorial games. Saint John Chrysostom even remarked of the Christian symbolism of chariot racing, with the rider being the servant of the Lord, the horses his apostles of truth, the stadium the Church, the crowd the laypersons, and the obelisk at center pointing towards the heavens as a constant reminder that God is watching. Despite this, factional favorites were constantly betted upon during the races.
The emperor himself was a supporter of the “Blues,” one of the major factions in chariot racing. Justinian, who was adopted, was seen as illegitimate by some of the long standing Roman aristocracy who had transferred themselves into the Byzantine Empire, and they backed other factions in chariot racing to cut into Justinian’s legitimacy and authority. After one particular incident where chariot members had murdered one another to gain an advantage, angry and outrage among their respective supporters spilled over in a deadly riot that was aimed at Justinian. Justinian grew nervous and even wanted to flee the city, but Theodora convinced him otherwise. Although the damage to Constantinople was immense, the guards of the city managed to quell the riot and restore order. The Nika Riots, along with the period of iconoclasm and Nicaean Civil War of 870-873* (see Chapter 4) were among the most tumultuous periods of internal division the empire would see during its history.
After the death of Theodora, Justinian is said to have descended into madness or depression, maybe even both (which might partially explain his strained relationship with Belisarius). When Belisarius and Justinian died, the three figures so instrumental in the Byzantine revival had passed away, and the Byzantine empire would slowly cave in on itself over the next 3 centuries, partly due to wars between Byzantium and the Sassanids (see Chapter 5) and the Arabs (see Chapter 6), but mostly a result of poor decisions by Justinian.
As I mentioned, although Justinian was a competent administrator and a great ruler, his kindness to his subject ironically doomed the empire he had carved out to slowly collapse like a soufflé. When Justinian lowered taxes to ease the burdens that the subjects of the empire were suffering from, namely a series of deadly plagues that ripped through the empire that killed millions, it came at the wrong time. The newly conquered territories of Italy, North Africa, and Spain demanded maintenance. Garrison forces, rebuilding the logistical infrastructure that had fallen into disrepair, and the rebuilding and cultivation of cities and economic centers in the newly added territories all demanded a high sum of money. The plagues that caused Justinian to lower taxes meant that the newly conquered territories would be undermanned, improperly financed, and not economically prosperous to add to the Treasury to the degree otherwise needed to ensure the continued success of Byzantine administrative policy.
The height of the Byzantine Empire under Justinian. Ironically, Justinian's benevolent administrative policies ensured the empire's loss of the lands most recently conquered.
Following Justinian’s death, a myriad of less competent to outright incompetent and scheming rulers held the throne in Constantinople and presided over the slow decline of the Byzantine Empire in the seventh and eighth centuries. It should be noted however, that much of the inability of these leaders is due to the essential bankruptcy and manpower depletion of the Byzantine state as a result of Justinian's conquests. As the Europeans and Arabs slowly carved out territories for themselves out of the former Byzantine holdings, one of the worst internal struggles in Byzantine history occurred in the eighth century, known as the period of Iconoclasm, or “image breakers.”
The Byzantine Empire was long home to religious debate, revival, councils, and discussions. Prone to superstition, the Eastern Churches were divided over the context of icons in the Church, one of the issues that the later Protestant Reformers would confront against the Catholic Church in the sixteenth century. In the eighth century however, the iconoclasts were fervent in the opposition to the use of icons in the Church, which they deemed tantamount to idolatry, a violation of the second commandment – thou shall not make for yourself idols or images.
The imperium, long a bastion and supporter to conservative orthodoxy, had supported the use of icons in the church. However, with the rise of Leo III, the emperor suddenly revoked the traditional veneration of icons, something that set off a wave of riots and civil unrest across the country as religious subjects, both iconoclasts and non-iconoclasts, drew the line in the sand and took their sides. The civil strife caused tremendous damages to Christian churches, artwork, and architecture as tens of thousands of mosaics, relics, images, and other icons were shattered, lost or destroyed by the iconoclasts. Many iconoclasts saw themselves as upholding their civil and secular duty by destroying and desecrating churches and icons – thou shall not make idols and the destruction of the images were supported by the emperor.
After Leo’s death, the fury of the iconoclasts grew even stronger and there was outright civil war among supporters of the iconoclasts and supporters of icon veneration. The Byzantine military, strongly loyal to the emperor, became a conservative bastion of iconoclasm and the iconoclast legacy. After the emperors Constantine V and Leo IV all privately supported iconoclasm despite their attempts to mediate the differences, Constantine VI came to the throne at a young age and the regent Irene called for a new ecumenical council to solve the issue of iconoclasm once and for all. Meeting at Nicaea in the Second Council, the Western delegates were firmly supportive of the veneration of icons (The Latin Church never suffered the pains of iconoclasm as the Eastern Church did).
However, the Byzantine military realized the council was moving in a direction to venerate icons and disrupted the council meetings. The council was in absentia for a year, before finally meeting again in 787. Two councils were established, one supporting iconoclasm and the other supporting the veneration of icons. When the council closed, the Second Ecumenical Council of Nicaea supported the veneration of icons, and is the seventh, and according to the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the last genuine of the ecumenical councils between east and west. However, a second period of iconoclasm broke out in the first half of the ninth century, but it was not as severe as the first period of iconoclasm.
The Iconoclast controversy further drained the ties between the Byzantine Empire, seen as supportive of the iconoclast movement, and the Latin West, the various successor kingdoms of the western empire under the helm of the Catholic Church had supported the cause of veneration. The period of iconoclasm therefore coincides with the fall of the Byzantine Papacy – Popes who were seen as being pro-Byzantine while Rome was under Byzantine jurisdiction.
An iconoclast (or image breaker) destroys an icon of Jesus of Nazareth. Incidentally enough, this icon depicts an iconoclast destroying an icon.
The Byzantine Empire, having weathered the trials of four centuries of war against the Sassanids, the ascendency of the Arabs in the Middle East, and the internal struggles of civil war and iconoclasm, now positioned themselves to begin a period of war, re-conquest, and cultural renaissance under the Macedonian Dynasty for centuries to come. The burdens of empire had been shouldered in the east, and the infrastructure of eastern imperialism would remain alive into the nineteenth century.
*At this point, I have begun to make references to in-game developments, like the Nicaean Civil War, which did not actually occur historically. From hereon, gameplay results will be more the focus than the actual histories.
Last edited:
Aah, the first hint of game play! Well civil war was pretty endemic to the Empire after the death of Commodus, so it seems fitting a civil war is the first in-game event mentioned. In my head I also tend to think of Justinian as being the end of antiquity, the opponents generally looking back to the past, whereas the Lombards and Arabs were the foes of the future.
Kingdom of Nikaea? Hmm, there is actual gameplay coming soon as stnylan claims.
Well, the iconoclasts were against the worship of icons; the portrayal of people in pictures or icons is not against their dogma I would think.
Well, the iconoclasts were against the worship of icons; the portrayal of people in pictures or icons is not against their dogma I would think.
I had no idea that the ERE had gotten that large under Justinian. Sad it all fell apart afterwards.
Nice to see gameplay showing up now...time for history lessons with volksmarschal to turn into alt-history lessons
Nice to see gameplay showing up now...time for history lessons with volksmarschal to turn into alt-history lessons
I'm all caught up with this AAR now, volksmarschall. Fasinating read on subject matters that I do have some knowledge of.
I have come to the conclusion that you are the Grateful Dead of AAR writers, volksmarschall. As soon as I see your name on an AAR, I am there like the ever-reliable Dead Head.
I have come to the conclusion that you are the Grateful Dead of AAR writers, volksmarschall. As soon as I see your name on an AAR, I am there like the ever-reliable Dead Head.
The one fundamental truth about Roman and Byzantine history, civil war was guaranteed within a couple generations if not sooner! No surprise that within a decade of the gameplay, a major civil war/rebellion pops up in the Byzantine Empire...
Gameplay? What is this Gameplay? Do we have to pay extra for it?
Yes, the fee is one extra comment than usual from you Dr.Livingstone!
Kingdom of Nikaea? Hmm, there is actual gameplay coming soon as stnylan claims.
Well, the iconoclasts were against the worship of icons; the portrayal of people in pictures or icons is not against their dogma I would think.
Well, this is supposed to be an AAR, I had to get to it eventually because I wouldn't just write a "history" unless I was writing a paper for publication. Nicaea must be re-united with the empire!
The more radical iconoclasts wanted absolutely zero icons and images in church, as they thought their inclusion was part of idol worship. More moderate iconoclasts opposed the language of the elevation of icons, and were, generally, tolerant of such images in church from the sideline but objected to their central role emerging in the liturgy apropos the Catholic Church (theoretically, the Eastern and Latin Churches were not truly split until the Council of Florence when both sides officially excommunicated one another, after the "Great Schism" both the Eastern and Western Church(es) were still confused if they were in communion with one another.I had no idea that the ERE had gotten that large under Justinian. Sad it all fell apart afterwards.
Nice to see gameplay showing up now...time for history lessons with volksmarschal to turn into alt-history lessons
Byzantium under Justinian (popular lay position) or Byzantium under the Macedonians (Basil II usually listed, the favored position among professional Byzantinists) are considered to be the high moments of the empire's history. Since the starting ruler of Byzantium is the founder of the Macedonian Dynasty, we'll see how well Byzantium does from the games perspective!
I'm all caught up with this AAR now, volksmarschall. Fasinating read on subject matters that I do have some knowledge of.
I have come to the conclusion that you are the Grateful Dead of AAR writers, volksmarschall. As soon as I see your name on an AAR, I am there like the ever-reliable Dead Head.
Ha ha. That's pretty funny! Although I must admit, even with them being in the Rock Hall and all, I'm actually not a *huge* fan of their music, although I think they have a few good songs!
Thankfully for your sake, this AAR is going to be relegated to light "sideline" duties behind Decline and Fall and The Presidents: Redux!
Plus, I intend for this AAR to cover the entire game campaign. Actually, I doubt if I'll extend this beyond 1000 C.E.
Last edited:
Chapter 3: Byzantine Triumphs and Survival
The beginnings of the Byzantine Empire’s most incredible dynasty is the story of Basil I, born to a family of peasants of the Byzantine theme Macedonia [1]. As the founder of the most successful and impressive dynasty in Byzantine, if not Roman, history, the fact that he came from among the lowest rungs of Byzantine society was a major cause of concern for the more well-established noble families of Rome, particularly the western transplants into Greece who felt they had more legitimate claimants.
Growing up, Basil had little to his name (more appropriately, his family had little to their name), but his talents were quickly recognized and he made his way to the great city of Constantinople. He gravitated to the politics and ceremonies and games centered at the Hippodrome, the center of the city despite the ever elegant presence of the cities many palaces and the Cathedral of Holy Wisdom (The Hagia Sophia). It was here that Basil’s fortunes changed and he began his slow movement up the rigid Byzantine hierarchy to eventually becoming emperor of Byzantium.
Basil was quite the competent administrator which was noted by the previous Byzantine Emperor Michael III, who saw the quick rise of an otherwise lowly peasant up the ranks of Byzantine society as something remarkable and evidence of Basil’s future abilities. As a result, Michael III adopted Basil as his own son and later made him the junior co-emperor. This should have provided Basil with the legitimacy of being emperor once Michael III died, as this practice was not too uncommon in Roman history. Although Gaius Octavius (Augustus) had been born into the lower rungs of the Roman nobility, his adoption by Gaius Julius Caesar secured his legitimate succession to power by proclaiming himself to be the heir of Caesar and the continuation of the Caesaric legacy.
A Greek manuscript depicting the coronation of Basil I as Emperor of the Romans.
Naturally however, the more conservative aristocrats in Byzantine society saw the ascendency of Basil, and now having born a legitimate son, as a major problem for their ambitions, interests, and some might say – the future of the empire itself. The Duchy of Nicaea and the iconoclasts who had been driven underground were now re-emerging in reaction to Basil’s ascendency. These two principal rebellious factions would emerge as the leading revolutionaries against Basil, although the strength and spread of the popular uprisings against Basil were more widespread and included all elements of Byzantine society: the poor, the merchants, and the nobility. Although it is also equally true to say that the poor, merchants, and nobility also supported his ascension (at least the pro-Macedonian factions in Byzantine society).
The Byzantine Empire in the late ninth century was in a far more precarious position than under Justinian. Although still possessing the world’s largest economy and having a monopoly over trade in the eastern Mediterranean – as almost all trade passed through the gates of Constantinople and either into the hands of the Byzantine state or taxed by the Byzantine state on route to Western Europe. There is matter of contention however as to the dominance of Byzantine trade at this point in their history, as Byzantium was constantly on the defensive against imperialist powers in the east and the west that were slowly chipping away at their hegemony.
The once feared “Roman” lake that was the Mediterranean was no longer applicable after the Battle of the Masts in which the Arab navies dealt a stunning and shocking blow to the power and prestige of the Byzantine navy – at the time, the world’s foremost maritime power. While it is true that the Byzantine navy still had dominance in the Greek seas, its power certainly did not extend into the modern day confines of the Middle East which was dominated by the Abbasid Caliphate.
To make matters worse, the revolutionary sentiment against “Basil the Usurper” was growing. The Byzantine military, away in Sicily fighting off the Muslim “invaders” was also a serious concern for the Byzantine State, as they had few accessible soldiers to quell the possible serious anti-government sentiment that was sweeping across the empire, not limited to the Duchy of Nicaea but even situated in mainland Greece and Asia Minor – the two traditional heartlands of Byzantium.
While Basil attempted to mediate the rising tensions between angered aristocrats and the displaced and oppressed peasantry, who had long bore the brunt of the oppressiveness and complexity of Byzantine law and ritual that solidified the power and wealth of the upper echelon of their society: the twin pillars of the aristocracy and the Orthodox Church, his attempts were in vain and he himself may have been fooled into thinking that the unity of the empire was still to be preserved.
Wasting no time in allowing an advantageous situation go to waste, the nobles in Nicaea declared their jurisdictional independence from the Byzantines, proclaiming an independent Kingdom of Nicaea that was no longer subject to the laws and rules of the emperor in Constantinople. This alarmed Basil to the core, as did it his supporters. Byzantine-Abassid relations were rocky at best, and the best defense against future Muslim aggression was the rich and highly fortified territories of Asia Minor, if not only for their good defensible landscape than the fact that Asia Minor was the most productive recruiting ground for the Byzantine military.
The loss of Nicaea, the most important epicenter of empire in Asia Minor, which was also home to two ecumenical Church councils, the most important being the Council of Nicaea which formulated the unity of Christian orthodoxy under Constantine, was now under the control of a true usurper. Diplomatic tensions with the Muslims in Sicily were immediately calmed to restore the turmoil engulfing the empire back home. The boldness of the Duchy of Nicaea to proclaim itself independence was the spark that shot through empire’s veins, giving life to the underclass and dispossessed to rise up in arms against their overlords.
The Byzantine Army was now found between a rock and a hard place. The armies of the stylized “Kingdom of Nicaea” posed a serious threat to the empire’s southern borders. Rebellious sentiment had broken out across the entirety of the empire’s geography: the Balkans, Greece, and Asia Minor. Outnumbered and, more than likely, underfunded, the crisis that beset the Byzantine Empire at the onset of the reign of Basil I was the most challenging and dramatic in Late Antiquity. Almost immediately, the Byzantine army attempted to cross from the Golden Horn back to Asia Minor, and at Nicomedia, the Byzantine army was pushed back by the armies of the Kingdom of Nicaea.
The defeat of the Byzantines prompted greater worry that minority ethnic groups, such as the Bulgarians, would also rise up and seek to join with the Empire of Bulgaria, which was long a rival to Byzantine power in the southeastern Balkans. The empire that Basil had come to inherit was now up in flames.
The extent of the turmoil and civil wars rampaging through the Byzantine Empire by the beginning of 871 C.E. The Kingdom of Nicaea has declared its independence and rebel factions have control of territory from Greece to Asia Minor.
[1] The Theme was the political administrative and economic jurisdictions of the Byzantine Empire. At first ingenious and part of the empire’s power and revival in Late Antiquity, it fell into decay and obsolescence under the Komnenoi and became a blight upon the empire. In dire need of reform, those reforms never happened. Many scholars believe the corruption of the theme system and the lack of later reforms was a principle cause for the empire’s historical collapse.
Chapter 3: Byzantine Triumphs and Survival
The beginnings of the Byzantine Empire’s most incredible dynasty is the story of Basil I, born to a family of peasants of the Byzantine theme Macedonia [1]. As the founder of the most successful and impressive dynasty in Byzantine, if not Roman, history, the fact that he came from among the lowest rungs of Byzantine society was a major cause of concern for the more well-established noble families of Rome, particularly the western transplants into Greece who felt they had more legitimate claimants.
Growing up, Basil had little to his name (more appropriately, his family had little to their name), but his talents were quickly recognized and he made his way to the great city of Constantinople. He gravitated to the politics and ceremonies and games centered at the Hippodrome, the center of the city despite the ever elegant presence of the cities many palaces and the Cathedral of Holy Wisdom (The Hagia Sophia). It was here that Basil’s fortunes changed and he began his slow movement up the rigid Byzantine hierarchy to eventually becoming emperor of Byzantium.
Basil was quite the competent administrator which was noted by the previous Byzantine Emperor Michael III, who saw the quick rise of an otherwise lowly peasant up the ranks of Byzantine society as something remarkable and evidence of Basil’s future abilities. As a result, Michael III adopted Basil as his own son and later made him the junior co-emperor. This should have provided Basil with the legitimacy of being emperor once Michael III died, as this practice was not too uncommon in Roman history. Although Gaius Octavius (Augustus) had been born into the lower rungs of the Roman nobility, his adoption by Gaius Julius Caesar secured his legitimate succession to power by proclaiming himself to be the heir of Caesar and the continuation of the Caesaric legacy.
A Greek manuscript depicting the coronation of Basil I as Emperor of the Romans.
The Byzantine Empire in the late ninth century was in a far more precarious position than under Justinian. Although still possessing the world’s largest economy and having a monopoly over trade in the eastern Mediterranean – as almost all trade passed through the gates of Constantinople and either into the hands of the Byzantine state or taxed by the Byzantine state on route to Western Europe. There is matter of contention however as to the dominance of Byzantine trade at this point in their history, as Byzantium was constantly on the defensive against imperialist powers in the east and the west that were slowly chipping away at their hegemony.
The once feared “Roman” lake that was the Mediterranean was no longer applicable after the Battle of the Masts in which the Arab navies dealt a stunning and shocking blow to the power and prestige of the Byzantine navy – at the time, the world’s foremost maritime power. While it is true that the Byzantine navy still had dominance in the Greek seas, its power certainly did not extend into the modern day confines of the Middle East which was dominated by the Abbasid Caliphate.
To make matters worse, the revolutionary sentiment against “Basil the Usurper” was growing. The Byzantine military, away in Sicily fighting off the Muslim “invaders” was also a serious concern for the Byzantine State, as they had few accessible soldiers to quell the possible serious anti-government sentiment that was sweeping across the empire, not limited to the Duchy of Nicaea but even situated in mainland Greece and Asia Minor – the two traditional heartlands of Byzantium.
While Basil attempted to mediate the rising tensions between angered aristocrats and the displaced and oppressed peasantry, who had long bore the brunt of the oppressiveness and complexity of Byzantine law and ritual that solidified the power and wealth of the upper echelon of their society: the twin pillars of the aristocracy and the Orthodox Church, his attempts were in vain and he himself may have been fooled into thinking that the unity of the empire was still to be preserved.
Wasting no time in allowing an advantageous situation go to waste, the nobles in Nicaea declared their jurisdictional independence from the Byzantines, proclaiming an independent Kingdom of Nicaea that was no longer subject to the laws and rules of the emperor in Constantinople. This alarmed Basil to the core, as did it his supporters. Byzantine-Abassid relations were rocky at best, and the best defense against future Muslim aggression was the rich and highly fortified territories of Asia Minor, if not only for their good defensible landscape than the fact that Asia Minor was the most productive recruiting ground for the Byzantine military.
The loss of Nicaea, the most important epicenter of empire in Asia Minor, which was also home to two ecumenical Church councils, the most important being the Council of Nicaea which formulated the unity of Christian orthodoxy under Constantine, was now under the control of a true usurper. Diplomatic tensions with the Muslims in Sicily were immediately calmed to restore the turmoil engulfing the empire back home. The boldness of the Duchy of Nicaea to proclaim itself independence was the spark that shot through empire’s veins, giving life to the underclass and dispossessed to rise up in arms against their overlords.
The Byzantine Army was now found between a rock and a hard place. The armies of the stylized “Kingdom of Nicaea” posed a serious threat to the empire’s southern borders. Rebellious sentiment had broken out across the entirety of the empire’s geography: the Balkans, Greece, and Asia Minor. Outnumbered and, more than likely, underfunded, the crisis that beset the Byzantine Empire at the onset of the reign of Basil I was the most challenging and dramatic in Late Antiquity. Almost immediately, the Byzantine army attempted to cross from the Golden Horn back to Asia Minor, and at Nicomedia, the Byzantine army was pushed back by the armies of the Kingdom of Nicaea.
The defeat of the Byzantines prompted greater worry that minority ethnic groups, such as the Bulgarians, would also rise up and seek to join with the Empire of Bulgaria, which was long a rival to Byzantine power in the southeastern Balkans. The empire that Basil had come to inherit was now up in flames.
The extent of the turmoil and civil wars rampaging through the Byzantine Empire by the beginning of 871 C.E. The Kingdom of Nicaea has declared its independence and rebel factions have control of territory from Greece to Asia Minor.
[1] The Theme was the political administrative and economic jurisdictions of the Byzantine Empire. At first ingenious and part of the empire’s power and revival in Late Antiquity, it fell into decay and obsolescence under the Komnenoi and became a blight upon the empire. In dire need of reform, those reforms never happened. Many scholars believe the corruption of the theme system and the lack of later reforms was a principle cause for the empire’s historical collapse.
Last edited: