Topics in Middle East History
Chapter 6: The Byzantine Empire from 650 to 1050
Copyright ©2010 by T. Pavlidis
The Aftermath of the Arab Conquests
The Roman empire that was left after the Arab conquest was a much smaller and poorer state. Still, its fate was better than that of the Persian Sassanid empire that had become part of the Arab caliphate. Figure 1 shows the extent of the Roman Empire about 50 years after the Arab conquests. (For more details see a map for the same period on p. 114 of [MW96].)
 |
Figure 1: Lands of the Roman Empire (in blue) in the early 700s. Not only Syria and Egypt have been lost to the Arabs, but also most of what is today Greece has been lost to Slavs and most of Italy to the Lombards. The losses in Greece were temporary, but most of the other losses were permanent. |
| Adapted from http://hobbit.ict.griffith.edu.au/~wiseman/Roman/19Maps.html#754 | |
The loss of Egypt was particularly painful because it was a rich agricultural land whose crops fed the population of the rest of the empire.
Heraclius had lived long enough (he died in 641) to see all the lands he gained from the Persians to be lost to the Arabs. His successors had to deal with repeated Arab attacks against the capital that were repulsed with the help of Greek fire (see Chapter 4.) The last emperor of the Heraclian dynasty was Justinian II. He was enthroned in 685 (at age 16) but he proved a cruel emperor and he was deposed in 695 by one of his generals. His life was spared but he was punished by having his nose cut off and thus he became known as Rhinotmetus. He was exiled to the Cherson, a Roman possession on the Crimean peninsula (see map of Figure 1). There he befriended the Khan of the Khazars and he married his sister who was baptized with the name Theodora, apparently after the name of the wife of Justinian I. Eventually, he enlisted the help of the Bulgarian Khan and at the head of an army of 15,000 men attacked Constantinople and recovered the throne in 705. He carried out a cruel revenge on his enemies killing them with slow tortures but six years later he was overthrown and killed and so was his young son Tiberius [EG, Chapter XLVIII, vol. 5, pp. 81-85]. The following six years saw three emperors each deposed after a coup until in 717 a general of Syrian origin became emperor as Leo III.
The Isaurian Emperors
Leo III is known as the Isaurian from the name of his native province near the Taurus mountains in the southern part of Asia Minor. No sooner had he ascended to the throne that there was another siege of Constantinople by the Arab fleet. Again they were soundly defeated. The Isaurian dynasty ruled for 150 years and included several capable emperors. They had to deal both with the Arabs and the Bulgarians. While the Romans were able to repulse Arab invasions of Asia Minor, the latter made advances elsewhere.
The Arabs invaded Sicily in 826 but it took them over a century to gain complete control of the island and they stayed there until 1072 when they were expelled by the Normans. Around 826 the Arabs also invaded and captured the island of Crete and stayed there until 960 when they were expelled by the Byzantines. In 846 the Arabs sacked St Peter's church in Rome that was outside the walls of the city. In 904 the Arabs sacked Thessalonica. (Chronology from [MW96, pp. xvi-xx].)
The Isaurians were able to defeat the Bulgarians in the Balkans and furthermore they convinced them to convert to Christianity around 865. The story of the Bulgarian conversion is quite intriguing because the Bulgarian king drove a hard bargain with the Byzantines by playing them against the Pope of Rome [MW96, pp. 282-285].
Probably, the best claim to fame of the Isaurian emperors is their stand as Iconoclasts.
History of the Icon Controversy
Icons have been objects of veneration in Christian churches and homes for centuries. This practice is known as iconolatry and its practitioners as iconolaters. The systematic destruction of such icons is called iconoclasm and its practitioners are called iconoclasts. The terms are Greek and the first one can be translated as icon worship while the latter means icon breaking. The terms came into prominence during the reign of Leo III and that of his successors because they attempted to stop the practice of iconolatry. The term iconodules, meaning servants of the icons, is also used as a synonym for iconolaters.
The very fact that emperors became deeply involved in a religious issue is a reminder of how close the connection between church and state was. In modern times we are familiar with case where religious leaders try to influence state policy. But in the Byzantine empire the state leader took active part in religious issues.
Theologically, the argument against icons is based on the second Commandment "You shall not make for yourself an idol ... " and, indeed, early Christians did not use icons because they were considered as signs of idolatry and explicitly condemned by a synod that took place around 300AD [EG, Chapter XLIX, vol. 5, pp. 142-143]. However, things changed quickly in the following centuries and the worship of icons spread widely. Miracles were often attributed to them (and they still do today).
It is probably no coincidence that the worship of icons spread roughly at the same time as Christianity was legislated to be the only religion of the Roman Empire. Pagans who converted to Christianity needed something concrete to replace their idols. There was even a connection between Greek deities and Biblical figures. In Greece churches dedicated to Prophet Elijah are built in mountain tops, the places where temples of Apollo used to stand. The connection between the Jewish prophet and the pagan god rests on the "chariots of fire". We may also note that Elijah is the only Jewish Prophet to have several churches dedicated to him in Greece. Similarly, temples of Athena were converted to churches of the Virgin Mary, the most notable being the Parthenon in Acropolis.
Jews and Muslims were quick to criticize icons worshiping Christians as idolaters and historians attribute such criticism as a motivating factor for Leo III (Gibbon [ibid, pp. 148-149], Whittow [MW96, p. 142]). Whittow [ibid] adds that the recent defeats of the Romans in the hands of the Arabs may have been seen as divine punishment for idolatry. Others point out that a major volcanic eruption at the island of Thera (modern Santorini) in 726 may have been seen as a sign of divine wrath [CM02, p. 155]. Because of the ultimate defeat of the iconoclasts, history has been written by their opponents and we do not know what other political factors may have been involved.
Leo III proceeded cautiously. First he had a council of senators and bishops legislate that icons should be displayed at a proper height so that people could see them but not touch them. Later he banned their display completely (Gibbon [ibid]). Later, his son Constantine V convened a council of 338 bishops that issued a unanimous decision that "image-worship was a corruption of Christianity and a renewal of Paganism" (Gibbon [ibid, p. 150]).
There was enormous opposition against the imperial policy. The leaders were clergy and monks with significant popular support. When Constantine V left the capital in an expedition against the Arabs his brother-in-law Artavasdes staged a coup, crowned himself emperor and restored the worship of the icons. Artavasdes reign was brief and Constantine came back to power but the incident is indicative of the strength of the opposition. The pope of Rome, who was beyond the reach of the emperor, was quite vociferous in his opposition to the iconoclasts and Gibbon considers such opposition as the start of the "papal monarchy" [ibid, pp. 151-154].
Eventually, the iconoclasts lost. When Leo IV (grandson of Leo III) died in 780 he was succeeded by his nine year old son Constantine VI with his mother emperor Irene serving as regent. Irene liked power and she did not want to give up the regency as her son reached legal age. Eventually, there was a coup against Constantine and in 797 Irene became officially empress. Constantine was blinded and he died from the injury. Immediately after her husband's death Irene started working for the restoration of the worship of the icons. Historians think that this was a calculated move for consolidation of her power. Because all those who might be rivals to her power were iconoclasts, Irene looked for a power base amongst the iconolaters [EG, Chapter XLIX, vol. 5, pp. 174-175, MW96, pp. 148-150]. A new synod was called and the worship of the icons was made part of orthodox faith in 787. For more on Irene see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irene_(empress).
Irene was overthrown in 802 and she died a year later. Leo V became emperor in 813 and he banned the worship of icons again but the ban did not last long. The widow of another emperor was responsible for their restoration. Theodora became regent in 842 and the next year she ended iconoclasm for good. The occasion is commemorated by the eastern churches in the "Sunday of Orthodoxy" that falls on the first Sunday of the Great Lent. (In 2010, it was on February 21.)
A concise and reasonably accurate history of Byzantine Iconoclasm can be found in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Iconoclasm.
What was Behind the Icon Worship Issue
Because the Iconoclasts lost we do not have their side of the story [MW96, pp. 155-159] and we can only surmise their true motives. Certainly the movement coincided with a major defeat of the Empire in the hands of the Arabs thus Iconoclasm can be seen as an effort for reform. We are told that amongst the "crimes" of the Iconoclasts were confiscation of monastic property and forced marriages for monks and nuns. We may speculate that Iconoclasm was, in essence, an attack on the practice and power of monasticism.
We may remark that Protestant churches reject both icon worship and monasticism, but that movement came several centuries after the Byzantine Iconoclasm. The Roman Catholic church allows both icons and statues while the Orthodox churches allow icons but not statues. The tradition of miraculous icons is widespread amongst the Orthodox but it is also encountered amongst Roman Catholics, especially in Italy. In the early 1990s a crying icon in a Greek church in Queens made the news. The then mayor of New York, David Dinkins, did not miss the opportunity to court the votes of the iconodules and visited the church to witness the "miracle."
Some writers credit the Protestant work ethic for the industrial revolution and economic development of the 19th century. It is true that the United Kingdom, Germany, Holland, the Scandinavians countries, the United States, Canada, and Switzerland had all a strong Protestant culture. France, while Catholic, had limited the influence of the church significantly after the 1789 revolution. (We may also note that even today the five problematic countries in the Euro zone, Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy, and Ireland are either Catholic or Orthodox.) Many Greeks like to use that observation as the basis for arguing that if the Iconoclasts emperors had succeeded, the Byzantine empire would have fared much better and the industrial revolution might have started in the East. However, the parallel to the Protestant Reformation is disputed by some scholars who also claim that Iconoclasm was not the dominant issue that other historians claim to be (Patricia Karlin-Hayter in [CM02, pp. 153-162]).
Gibbon provides another argument against drawing too close parallels with the Protestant Reformation by stating that "the seventh and eighth centuries were a period of discord and darkness". He describes the Iconoclasts as anti-intellectuals and enemies of antiquity and he adds that they abolished the royal college and burned its library. It was only under Michael III and by the initiative of his uncle Caesar Bardas that a school was opened in mid-ninth century [EG, Chapter LVIII, vol. 5, pp. 482-483]. Treadgold describes in some detail the decline of education under Heraclius and the Isaurians [WT97, pp. 395-399] and points out that most religious writers in Greek lived in the Arab Caliphate [ibid, p. 398].
The Macedonian Emperors
The last emperor of the Isaurian dynasty was Michael III whose mother Theodora had restored Orthodoxy. He reigned until 867 when the throne passed to Basil I, the founder of the Macedonian dynasty. Basil was born in Macedonia in a humble family that may have been Armenian. His first job in the capital was as a groom to a relative of the emperor. Basil managed to ingratiate himself with Michael III becoming eventually becoming co-emperor. In the meantime Michael III persuaded Basil to divorce his wife and marry instead Michael's mistress Eudokia. At the end Basil arranged for Michael's assassination and he became the sole emperor [EG, Chapter XLVIII, vol. 5, pp. 101-105]. Basil I became one of most successful emperors of the Byzantine and Gibbon summarizes his career by the phrase: "he dissembled his ambition and even his virtues, and grasped, with the bloody hand of an assassin, the empire which he ruled with the wisdom and tenderness of a parent." [ibid, p. 103].
Basil had four sons with Eudokia, but since the latter had been the mistress of Michael III there are claims that the first three sons were Michael's [WT97, p. 455]. It is also reported that Basil had the youngest of the three, Stephen, "castrated and dedicated to the Church" [ibid]. Basil was succeeded by the eldest who reigned as Leo VI. Leo's son Constantine VII died from apparent poisoning and he was succeeded by his son who reigned as Romanos II. The poisoning was attributed to Romanos wife Theophano. According to Gibbon she was of base origin and had scandalous manners and he holds her responsible for Romanos II death after a reign of only four years [ibid, p. 110-111] . Theophano married a prominent general, Nikephoros Phocas who became emperor. Phocas had achieved remarkable successes against the Arabs by taking Crete from them and by sacking the Syrian city of Aleppo. As Nikephoros II he reigned for only six years. Early on Theophano had taken as lover another general, John Tzimiskes. (According to Gibbon Theophano had numerous lovers [ibid, p. 112].) Tzimiskes killed Nikephoros with his own hands [ibid, 112-113]. Tzimiskes reigned as John I during 969-976. On the insistence of the patriarch of Constantinople he banished Theophano from the palace. Gibbon thinks that Tzimiskes welcome the demand of the patriarch [ibid].
Tzimiskes was able to achieve victories against the Russians as well as the Arabs but in his last return from Syria he observed that the best lands of the new provinces had been taken over by the palace eunuchs. He voiced his displeasure and his death at age 50 may be the result of poisoning by the eunuchs [ibid]. Whittow [MW96, pp. 310-357] devotes a chapter to this period titled "The Age of Reconquest: 863-976" that includes information about the military organization as well as the names of some of the eunuchs who held power in the palace. The eunuch Joseph Bringas was the dominant figure during Romanos reign but he lost power after he opposed the new emperor Nikephoros. He was then replaced by another eunuch, Basil Lekapenos who is the main suspect for the poisoning of Tzimiskes [ibid, p. 348-349]. The Lekapeni were a wealthy and influential family in the Byzantine empire and one of its members became emperor as Romanos I. That one of its members was also a eunuch suggests that castration was performed on members of influential families in order to increase their access to the palace. (See also [WT97, p. 551].)
When Tzimiskes died in 976 the general Bardas Skleros (one of the main backers of Tzimiskes) expected to become co-emperor and be the actual ruler instead of the young heirs of the Macedonian dynasty. These were the sons of Romanos II and Theophano, Basil II (18 years old) and Constantine VIII (16 years old) and had been named co-emperors by their father when they were still infants. However, the eunuch Basil Lekapenos did not go along and, instead, supported Basil II. As a result Skleros raised the standard of rebellion and he was acclaimed emperor in the eastern Asia Minor region of Melitene [MW96, p. 361]. There was a clear split in the empire. Constantinople and the European parts were supporting Basil II as emperor while most of the Asian parts supported Skleros. Constantinople tried to get to their side the Phokas family and indeed troops of the latter defeated Skleros, but then Bardas Phocas wanted be emperor himself. A civil war raged for 13 years detailed by Whittow [ibid, pp. 361-373] and summarized by Gibbon [ibid, pp. 113-115]. Eventually Basil II won with help from the newly Christianized Russians. The prince of Kiev Vladimir I was baptized in 988 and had his subjects also baptized, apparently following the precedent of the Roman emperor Theodosius who had obligated his subjects to follow his own religion (Chapter 3). Vladimir also married Basil's sister Anna starting a connection between the Russian and Byzantine empires that lasted till modern times. When the Byzantine empire fell to the Ottomans, the Russian rulers claimed for themselves the role of protectors of the Orthodox Christian subjects of the Ottoman sultans.
Basil II went on to more victorious campaigns against the enemies of the empire. His major accomplishment was the destruction of the Bulgarian kingdom and he became known as the Bulgar-slayer (Βουλγαροκτονος in Greek). Gibbon rates that the result as the most important accomplishment of the Roman arms since the time of Belisarius [ibid, pp. 113-115]. Whittow devotes a whole chapter on him [MW96, pp. 358-390]. Basil II died in 1025 and he was succeeded by his brother Constantine IX who reigned only for three years. Basil never married and his brother had only daughters. One of them, Zoe took the throne and she married three times, with each of her husbands becoming emperor. The second, Michael IV was of humble origin but his brother John was a eunuch in the palace. John introduced Michael to Zoe and the two of them killed Zoe's husband with Michael becoming emperor (Gibbon [ibid, pp. 115-116]). The end of the Macedonian dynasty came in 1054 with the death of Zoe's third husband.
 |
Figure 2: Lands of the Roman Empire (in blue) in 1040 at the end of the Macedonian dynasty. The label on the right spells Manzikert, a place that will play a fateful role 30 years later. |
| Adapted from http://hobbit.ict.griffith.edu.au/~wiseman/Roman/GreekPerspective.html | |
During the Macedonian dynasty the Roman/Byzantine empire achieved its greatest extent since Justinian's time as shown in Figure 2. However the seeds of decline had been planted and we shall discuss them in Chapter 7.
First Posted: February 23, 2010. Latest Revision: March 14, 2010.