Chapter XVII
John X Becomes Emperor, His Creation of a new Imperial Guard
The death of Theodoras and the end of his reign marks the beginning of a brief renaissance in the Roman Empire. As I have mentioned in the past, the 1490s-1510s welcomed in a great era of culture, art, and religion known as the Greek Renaissance. It was not necessarily because Theodoras was a bad ruler who stymied the proliferation and promotion of these subjects, but more because his successor – John X, was a great patron of the arts and culture, and the wealth found in his conquests and plunders, namely in the sacking of Venice, 1524, in which the stolen Triumphal Quadriga, “The Horses of Saint Mark”, which donned the Old Hippodrome, were dragged down from St. Mark’s Cathedral Basilica in the city and restored to furnish the New Hippodrome that John commissioned to be built.
Before then however, Manuel Phokas, one of the leading conspirators against Theodoras, along with Empress Annia, marched the liberating forces back to Constantinople and were greeted as heroes who had just overthrown a tyrant. Like Caligula, Theodoras was utterly despised and hated by his subjects, who yearned for freedom and liberty likes day gone by – and in the new Regency and the new emperor, John X, they hoped that such days would return. Of course, they didn’t, John was a much an emperor as he was a tyrant – like most of the Roman emperors were. However, this was tempered by his concern and love for the people, even if it was from a purely paternalistic impulse that he knew what was best for them. I think, perhaps, this is the case with any government of any party. The Liberal Party Government asserts this one-size fits all brand of Enlightenment liberalism, even onto the far reaches of the British Empire. I am reminded what the great philosopher and historian Edmund Burke once said – that the British Empire and the British East India Company are unfairly subjugated the Indian people and taking away their freedom by bringing them “freedom and civilization” and betrayed the very principles of pluralism and diversity that arrogantly proclaimed to uphold while trampling over the peoples of the Subcontinent.[1] The Conservative Party Government, which, under Disraeli, enacted the greatest amount of social reform in this country’s history, did so more out of not a well-intentioned concern for the poor than the fear of two nations – rich and poor, threatening to destabilize the politics of the country.[2] In any case, I would say that John falls more into the conservative purview of paternalism than the hypocrisy of the former. Naturally, his motivations may have also been influenced from what he had experienced in the past few years of his life – Theodoras’s descent into madness, threats against his life, and a noble rebellion against the emperor himself (even if John was the beneficiary of the death and overthrowing of Theodoras from the throne). While he may have wanted the best for his subjects, John would remain constantly suspicious of the powers of the Roman nobility, the despotates, and later in his reign, after a series of brutal wars with the Mohammedan Turks, their allies, the Italians, and French were in behind him – he set about centralizing the empire and taking away the power of the nobles, although his untimely death prevented this from happening.
And yet, before all of this, there is the awkward regency of Manuel Phokas and Empress Annia, who – while seemingly having the intention of holding the throne for John until he came of age, were not as well as they might have anticipated. Within a few months, rumors ran through the streets that the two were lovers who had conspired against Theodoras, and that they were plotting to keep the throne for themselves and the illegitimate heir of Annia. For whatever reason, they never countered the assertion that they were now conspiring against John. As I have stated, these rumors were false.
Constantinople was in the need of rebuilding, and the animosity towards the two regents probably reflects the fact they did little, in one and half years, to further the social and economic standing of the subjects they did rule over as regents. The fabled city of Constantine, dubbed by him Nova Roma – the New Rome, was never really a New Rome. The city never surpassed 500,000 people, while Rome, at its peak, was twice that size. By 1450, the population of the city had dwindled to 50,000 people. Now, it had partially recovered to about 90,000, but many of the people were still poor, the merchants horded the wealth of the city – and many of them were foreigners not subject to the same tax laws of the Roman merchants. While trade was bustling, one of the reasons for the city’s partial recovery – I think it should be pointed out that Manuel and Annia probably could have done little even if they tried.
A map of the city of Constantinople, around the time of John's reign. The city had been depopulated over the past few centuries, and was in dire need of rebuilding. Something that the new and energetic emperor was up to doing.
The War with Venice and the civil war had drained the financial resources of the empire. Any hope of helping the people was immediately halted if the two had opened the coffers of the Imperial treasury and found it empty. It would also be dishonest of me to critique them for not helping the suffering masses, for many rulers, and many governments even to this day – do little in helping their poor and impoverished. Here, the political leaders of the present should take lessons from the past and learn, if politics is about power, and politics is about power – keeping the masses happy is key to retaining power. So, in the backdrop of civil war and court politicking and intrigue, and a suffering population that was gleeful in Theodoras’s overthrow but still needing great social and economic reform, is the world in which John grew up in and inherited. I am a believer that culture and environment are important in the formation of an individual – and this is certainly the case with John.
John, ever since a young age, and his tutelage from the Church, was a very well-learned man and highly articulate, let alone ambitious. He may have seen himself in the lineage of King David, and his mastery of the Holy Writ, and other great pieces of philosophy and history, even as a young man is certainly awe-inspiring. If there was a philosopher-king of the Romans, John would have been it. He would surround himself with the best and the brightest of the Roman intellectuals. As I mentioned, he championed the arts and sciences during his rule, at such an important age in history – the transition of the medieval period into the Renaissance era which laid the foundations for the modern world. This of course, did not lead to outright prosperity or good decision making in every instance. Yet, as a man who was otherwise not that impressive in terms of physical stature – he was rather small and scrawny; he was not devoid of courage. When just 16 years old, he would lead the Roman Armies against the Turks in battle.
I have promised to provide and social and political overview of the empire’s very nature, and its people – and I hope to accomplish, by the end of John’s reign, this promise of my preface. For, as Thomas Carlyle said about great men and their being the agents of history – for a twenty-seven year period, John X was the one great man in the entire world whose soul was filled with the spirit of the times, and he did not diminish himself in the face of greatness, struggle, and despair, but welcomed it!
The disposition and disloyalty of the Imperial Army that abandoned their emperor (Theodoras) in his time of need also loomed over John. One of his first acts in the reforming of the Roman Imperial Army was the creation of an elite bodyguard in the same manner as the slave-soldiers of the Mamelukes. The new Imperial bodyguard, the first since the old Varangian Guard, was assembled among the orphans in Constantinople and elsewhere, who otherwise had little life attachment to other persons. Granting them great pay, residence, and a new lease on life – John demanded one promise of them, to keep their new standing in Roman society, they would swear eternal loyalty to the emperor himself, defend him and follow his orders until their death, or his. Naturally, this created a resolute guard of about 1,000 soldiers – but it also had its drawbacks. Namely, upon the death of the emperor, these slave-soldier guards’ loyalty oath no longer applied to the next emperor. Even if the new emperor promised a similar upholding of their social standing, the zeal would not be the same toward the new emperor as the old, and an entirely new crop would have to be mustered. Incidentally, just as the Praetorian Guard, in their politicking and murder and drive for power back in Rome – the new Imperial Guard created by John, while serving him faithfully and devoutly, would nonetheless create problems for the future emperors.
One might suggest that this was a form of idol cult worship. And I would agree, at least in the principle of it. The emperor was the attention and focus of the guardsmen fondest devotion. From taking their oaths and swearing eternal loyalty to him, to their constant graveling and honoring the emperor wherever he went certainly made the image of cult worship of the emperor. Yet, it made sense concerning what had recently transpired between the army and emperor Theodoras, who was betrayed by those who were serving him and expected to serve him. Since John had a great distrust, not only of the nobility, but also the Roman Army, his guard would become the nexus upon which his power was secured and built. It is even rumored that the guardsmen would wake at 5 o'clock in the morning, and pray to the emperor. This however, was a result of the later religious conflicts between John and the ecclesiastic authorities. Properly, they were likely praying for protection and constant intercession
for the emperor, to whom these men were dependent upon for their livelihood.
At left, a manuscript showing some of the new Imperial Guardsmen. They were foreigners or orphans, hired or chosen by the emperor himself to swear eternal loyalty to him and to him only. At right, the Mamluks. A major power in the Mediterranean and their soldiers, the slave-warriors, served as the inspiration for John's new guard.
In the midst of John’s rise to power as emperor, it is important to remember that he had ascended to the throne as heir of the Caesars from a civil war that always loomed in the foreground of his thought and person. Certainly, a man whose position should have commanded the power and authority of the less aristocracy which still wielded the de-facto power of the empire was a threat to his own rule. John would never forget this. In some fashion, his future reforms would be based upon a system of loyal meritocracy. Those loyal and supportive of John would receive beneficial standing and support from the emperor, and generally, there positions were a reflection of their ability. As emperor, John had the seemingly insurmountable task of rebuilding a ruined empire which had fooled itself into thinking it had an aura of invincibility in the recent victories against the Mohammedans, but had failed to reform the superstructure of the Roman Empire and civilization, which was still spiraling out of control.
[1]You can read the excerpts of Burke’s famous denunciation of the empire and the British East India Company, “Speech on Mr. Fox’s East India Bill” (1783).
[2]Cf. Benjamin Disraeli,
One-Nation Toryism. That statement of course, is meant as a reflection that this "AAR" was written before Clement Attlee's post-war government. One-Nation Toryism was a political philosophy developed by Disraeli and the Conservative Party (UK) which saw "two nations" forming in Britain: one rich, and one poor. Rather than attempt to win over the liberal middle-class, Disraeli allied the rich with the poor to pass a sweeping series of social reforms to help improve the standing of the poor, also a political tool to court and retain the votes of the working-class poor. Politically, the rise of welfarism (under Disraeli, Bismark, and Hamilton - in America, were all initially sponsored and supported by the "conservative" parties as opposed to the liberal parties. Bismark's creation of the first modern welfare state was in reaction to the fear that the socialists would win the support of the German working class, hence, it was necessary to enact social and welfare reform to keep their support. A similar pattern is found in Disraeli's motivations according to most political historians and philosophers). Some observers call this "paternalism" (paternalistic welfarism). This idea, loosely speaking of benevolent paternalism, will form the basis for much of John X's reforms.
