a short history of the byzantine empire

Cover illustration: Emperor Constantine I (c. 274-337) the Great (mosaic), Byzantine,

San Marco, Venice, Italy (The Bridgeman Art

Library)

www.ibtauris.com

The Byzantine Empire was one of the most impressive imperial adventures in history. It ruled much of Europe and Anatolia for a remarkable eleven hundred years. From Constantine I’s establishment of Byzantium (renamed Constantinople) as his capital in 324 CE, until the fall of the city to the Ottomans in 1453, the Byzantines became a powerhouse of literature, art, theology, law and learning. Dionysios Stathakopoulos here tells a compelling story of military conquest, alliance and reversal, including the terrifying secret of Greek fire: of a state constantly at war, but not warlike, resorting wherever possible to a sophisticated diplomacy with its neighbours and enemies.

Breaking with outdated notions of Byzantium as an unchanging, theocratic state, Stathakopoulos uses the most recent research to explore its political, economic, social and cultural history. He evokes the dynamism of a people whose story is one of astonishing resilience and adaptability; and whose legacy, whether it be the bronze horses of the Hippodrome, or the very term ‘Byzantine’, everywhere endures.

Dionysios Stathakopoulos is Lecturer in Byzantine Studies at King’s College London.

‘an easy to read narrative history of the whole of the Byzantine Empire from AD 330 until it fell to the Ottomans in 1453. The author is an authoritative and reliable guide. This is a confident book by an established historian and teacher of Byzantine history.’AvErIl CAmErOn, DBE, FBA, PrOFESSOr OF lATE AnTIquE AnD ByzAnTInE HISTOry, unIvErSITy OF OxFOrD

‘To present Byzantium’s main features, internal dynamics and artistic feats consistently and concisely is no easy task. Dionysios Stathakopoulos has carried it off with panache.’JOnATHAn SHEPHArD, EDITOr OF The Cambridge hisTory of The byzanTine empire

A SHORT HISTORY OF THE

BYZANTINE EMPIREDionysios Stathakopoulos

THE

BYZA

NTIN

E EM

PIRE

Dionysios S

tathakopoulos

THE BYZANTINEEMPIRE

DIONYSIOS STATHAKOPOULOS

IBT056 – SH of Byzantine Empire prelim:Layout 1 20/3/14 10:58 Page iii

This one is definitely for Konstantin

Published in 2014 by I.B.Tauris & Co Ltd6 Salem Road, London W2 4BU175 Fifth Avenue, New York NY 10010www.ibtauris.com

Distributed in the United States and Canada Exclusively by PalgraveMacmillan, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York NY 10010

Copyright © 2014 Dionysios Stathakopoulos

The right of Dionysios Stathakopoulos to be identified as the authorof this work has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copy-right, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in a review, this book,or any part thereof, may not be reproduced, stored in or introducedinto a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, withoutthe prior written permission of the publisher.

Every attempt has been made to gain permission for the use of theimages in this book. Any omissions will be rectified in future editions.

ISBN: 978 1 78076 193 0 HBISBN: 978 1 78076 194 7 PB

A full CIP record for this book is available from the British LibraryA full CIP record is available from the Library of Congress

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: available

Typeset in Sabon by Ellipsis Digital Limited, GlasgowPrinted and bound by TJ International, Padstow, Cornwall

IBT056 – SH of Byzantine Empire prelim:Layout 1 20/3/14 10:58 Page iv

Contents

Acknowledgements ix

List of Maps and Illustrations xi

Introduction What is Byzantium 1

Timeline 20

Chapter 1: Becoming the Eastern Roman Empire, 330–491 26

Chapter 2: Masters of the Mediterranean, 491–602 47

Chapter 3: Negotiating Retraction, 602–717 68

Chapter 4: From Survival to Revival, 717–867 87

Chapter 5: Expansion and Radiance, 867–1056 108

Chapter 6: The Appearance of Strength 1056–1204 129

Chapter 7: The Legacy of Fragmentation, 1204–1341 150

Chapter 8: Heading for the Fall, 1341–1453 171

Chapter 9: Aftermath and Afterlife 191

Appendix 211

Further Reading 217

Index 230

IBT056 – SH of Byzantine Empire prelim:Layout 1 20/3/14 10:58 Page vii

Introduction

WHAT IS BYZANTIUM?

For most people Byzantium is not a familiar world. In English theword ‘byzantine’ is routinely used to characterize something asexcessively complicated, while in French the expression ‘c’est Byzance’refers to something superb and luxurious. So words can be misleading,but what about bricks and stones? On the ground the remains ofByzantium fall largely into two categories: churches and walls.Churches are far more numerous and have received far more atten-tion. Their presence seems to corroborate the notion that Byzantiumwas a state for which the Church and matters of faith were absolutelycentral. The often sumptuous decoration of these churches withmosaics, frescoes, icons and colourful marbles fascinates visitors andtransports them to an almost timeless space focused on transcen-dence. Walls, by contrast, are usually overlooked. They are not verymuch to look at and they seem almost identical. A closer inspectionhowever, has its merits. Walls are the signs of a state with a verylong history in which constant warfare against enemies from alldirections was a defining trait. They were erected to protect impor-tant cities, torn down when these urban centres grew to make morespace and they were constantly repaired and adorned with inscrip-tions to commemorate those who built them. Walls remind us ofthe history of a state and its people that did a lot more than justpray.

This book’s modest aim is to put together a basic body of knowl-edge about this state, to challenge stereotypes about it by providinga straightforward and sober account and to place it firmly in the

1

IBT056 – SH of Byzantine Empire text:Layout 1 20/3/14 10:41 Page 1

context of both the European and Middle Eastern Middle Ages.Because Byzantium held for most of its existence a position betweenEast and West, partaking of both, but still following a different path,it is easy, even convenient, to overlook it. But, as I hope to show,Byzantium is an indispensable and fascinating part of Europeanhistory. It needs to be taken seriously.

Even in this short opening section we are faced with a problem.Names are extremely important, even if we sometimes fail to ques-tion them as a result of convention and habit. The problem, in ourcase, is the name Byzantium. It refers to an ancient city (Byzantionin Greek), a colony of Megara, near Athens. It was founded in theseventh century BCE on the spot of Constantinople and modern dayIstanbul. The actual term ‘Byzantine’ was coined in the sixteenthcentury (see chapter 9) to denote the historical state that is thesubject of this book. But this was a name that the citizens of thatstate would never have heard of, much less identified with. It is likecalling France the Lutetian state or the British Empire the Londinianone. The people we call Byzantines called themselves Romans. Intheir minds, there was no break in the political existence betweenAugustus’ empire and their own state, and this was true in manyways. This self-designation can be found, for example, in the waythat the rulers of the state called themselves emperors of the Romansin an unbroken line between the fourth and the fifteenth century.The eastern neighbours and enemies of this state adopted the term:both Seljuqs and Ottoman Turks referred to the state and its areasas Rum. In modern Greece, the self designation romios (Roman, butmeaning Greek) was current until at least the late twentieth century.However, a significant number of other states – both in the West aswell as in the Balkans – termed the Empire ‘Greek’. As far as theWest is concerned, it is easy to see why. Once an emperor of theRomans was crowned in Rome in 800 (see chapter 4), the otherempire could no longer be termed Roman as well; it was thereforecalled Greek or Constantinopolitan. Calling the Byzantine Empire‘Constantinopolitan’ is quite straightforward: it is meant to reducethe potential sphere of authority and influence to its capital, and todeny it the more universal claims that the adjective Roman wouldentail. The term ‘Greek’ is much more problematic. It is true that

Dionysios Stathakopoulos

2


Greek was the dominant language in the East, but the word itselfhad acquired negative connotations: it had come to mean pagan.Therefore, it would have been impossible for a Christian state toidentify itself with what basically amounted to a swear word.

The term ‘Byzantine’ took a long time to be universally accepted,but the real alternative, Roman, was thought to be misleading whenapplied to the period, say, after 300. Adjectives were introduced tomake the distinction clearer – East Roman, for example, whichsuggests a focus on the eastern Mediterranean world and the Levantand therefore excludes the long Byzantine presence in Italy. Morerecently, the term ‘Roman Orthodox’ (analogous to Roman Catholic)has been used, placing emphasis on religious dogma. The term isproblematic not least because it is anachronistic. Orthodoxy (whichmeans correct faith) was an attribute every single Christian churchclaimed for itself. The current use to denote largely Christians ineastern Europe and parts of the Middle East is a modern phenom-enon; it would be misleading to apply it to the medieval period.And so, in what follows, the conventional term ‘Byzantine’ or ‘Byzan-tium’ will be used to avoid complication, but readers should beaware of its problematic nature.

Once the question of the name is settled, we are faced withanother important problem: chronology. It is simpler to start fromthe end: in May 1453, Constantinople was captured by the Ottomans,marking the end of the Byzantine Empire. Its beginnings are muchless clear and are still hotly debated. Those who adopt a long-termperspective (as I do) set the beginnings of the Empire with the reignof Constantine I (324–37). In this we are following the self-percep-tion of the Byzantines. Since Constantine founded Constantinopleand the city became quickly the capital of the Empire, remaining inthis role until its conquest in 1453, I see little reason to place thestart of Byzantine history at a later date. This by no means impliesthat the state of the fourth century remained unchanged in its millen-nium of existence – nothing could be further from the truth. However,in my mind, the changes that the Empire underwent were never asradical as to produce a completely different state: until the end ofthe Empire, for example, the legal system was largely based on law going back to the Roman imperial period. The capital, its

Introduction

3


monuments, the imperial office, its institutions and ceremonial alwaysconsciously retained core elements that linked them to the past. IfConstantine I embarked on a time machine and visited the lastByzantine emperor, his namesake Constantine XI, he would certainlybe startled with the sad condition of the state and his capital, buthe would still have been able to find plenty of familiar elements,not least a number of landmarks in the city he had founded.

States exist not only in time, but also in space. The geographicalextent of the Byzantine Empire underwent considerable fluctuationduring its long history. We can compare its broad outlines to themovement of a wave. From a vast Roman Empire encompassing anarea of almost four million square kilometres and extending fromBritain to modern day Algeria and from Portugal to Mesopotamia,it was divided administratively into an eastern and western part in395 with the eastern part encompassing an area of around 1.4million square kilometres and stretching roughly east of a line goingfrom Belgrade to modern day Libya (see map 1). The division becamepermanent, due to political developments, but it was reversed for ashort period under Justinian I in the sixth century when the Mediter-ranean became an internal lake once more as a result of the warsof reconquest which re-integrated Italy, a strip in southern Spainand the areas of modern day Tunisia, Algeria and Libya. This wasa period of demographic and economic expansion in the East. Inthe period following Justinian’s death in 565, large parts of Italy aswell as the holdings in Spain were lost, and from the second decadeof the seventh century so were Egypt, Syria and Palestine – first tothe Persians and after the 630s permanently to the Arabs – whilethe southern Balkans and especially Greece had largely slipped outof the effective control of Constantinople. By the end of the seventhcentury North Africa had been conquered as well, leaving the Empirewith some areas in Italy (Sardinia, Calabria and Sicily, Naples andRome with their hinterland, and a thin arch of land from Riminiall the way to the Dalmatian coast; see map 2) and otherwise a clearfocus on both sides of the Aegean – the Empire had effectively lostalmost half of its territory. In the course of the following threecenturies Byzantium gradually managed first to stem the Arabonslaught and more or less fix a frontier zone, then to recover its


4


dominion on the Balkans and finally to push towards the east andsouth in Anatolia and Syria. The territorial gains were neither spec-tacular nor very stable (see map 3). The emergence of two formidableenemies from the second half of the eleventh century, the Normansin Italy and the Seljuqs in the East, ate away at the margins of thestate, forcing it once more to a core in the southern Balkans andparts of Anatolia. The First Crusade (1096–99) changed the land-scape in the Levant and on its coattails Byzantium managed to expandin Anatolia and Syria, but this was definitely checked in 1204, whenthe armies of the Fourth Crusade captured Constantinople and frag-mented the territory of the Byzantine Empire into dozens of smallerstates. Reconquest came fairly fast in 1261, but for the last twocenturies of its existence the Byzantine Empire was constantlyshrinking: Anatolia was the first to go, most of it captured by theOttoman Turks in the first half of the fourteenth century; the Balkanprovinces quickly followed suit and by the last 50 years of its exis-tence Byzantium merely consisted of a few city states, disjointed andconnected to each other only by sea (see map 4).

THE PHYSICAL WORLD

It is clear that some areas (modern Greece and Turkey) belonged tothe core of the state while others either formed part of it for prolongedperiods of time (southern Italy) or became marginal within the longhistory of its existence because they were lost at a fairly early stage(Egypt, Palestine, Syria and North Africa). The landscapes in theseregions obviously shaped a variety of aspects in the life of the Byzan-tine state: its defence, agricultural regime and production, networksof exchange and communications. As such, it is important to exploretheir characteristics in a brief overview.

The western and southern parts of Anatolia were the most fertileand densely populated, with a number of rivers providing water foragriculture. Both the north and the south flanks were defined by longmountain ranges: the Pontic Alps and the Taurus–Anti Taurus respec-tively. The largest central area, the Anatolian plateau, is for its mostpart semi arid; however, some areas (Cappadocia, for example) lentthemselves to settlement and agriculture. The south and north

Introduction

5


were fairly well protected by the mountain ranges, whereas a corridorfrom the south-east leading to Iran was more vulnerable; this is theroute that invaders largely followed into the region. Bithynia, acrossthe water from Constantinople, and the hinterland of the capital inThrace, on the European side, formed a large metropolitan area asa result of the pull of the capital. Bithynia linked Constantinople tothe plateau, and Thrace and the Roman highways linked it to theinner part of the Balkans and Italy. Two Roman highways connectedConstantinople with Thrace and the Balkans. The Via Egnatia cutacross Macedonia to the Albanian coast, providing an easy link toItaly across the water. The Via Traiana, the military highway, con-nected Constantinople with Adrianople/Edirne, Serdica/Sofia andSingidunum/Belgrade. Constantinople itself was strategically placedwith connections to the Aegean via the Sea of Marmara, and to theBlack Sea through the Bosporus. The south and south-eastern partsof the Crimea were particularly fertile while the west and northernshores of the Black Sea provided connections through the riverinesystems of the Danube, the Dniester, the Dnieper and the Don tocentral and northern Europe and to Scandinavia.

The Aegean sea was always an internal lake for Byzantium aroundthe shores of Greece and western Anatolia. The very large numberof islands fostered close connections to the mainland on either side.West of the Aegean, mainland Greece is a largely mountainous terri-tory with some plains in the otherwise very fragmented landscape.Towards the north, there is a large, fairly unprotected corridorbetween mountain ranges (Pindos and the Dinaric Alps in the west,Rhodope and the Balkan range in the north-east) which provides aconnection to the Hungarian plains. The Danube functioned as anatural frontier between Roman territory and the various nomadsof the steppes. From the western coast of the Adriatic there was aneasy connection to southern Italy. This area, largely Calabria andApulia, remained under Byzantine control for long periods up tothe last quarter of the eleventh century. Both regions were connectedto Rome through an ancient network of roads. Calabria’s positionnext to Sicily with its access to the Tyrrhenian sea was strategicallyimportant.

Syria, Palestine, and the North African coast share some common


6


physical aspects: settlements and agricultural production are concen-trated on coastal strips of land (in the case of Syria extending tosome 100–150 km) with their backs to the desert. On the otherhand Egypt, economically speaking, was the desert surrounding theNile and its Delta. The rich alluvial deposits of the river made Egyptthe single most productive Roman province: more than a third ofthe fiscal revenue, including the vast quantities of grain required tofeed the growing needs of Constantinople, came from this region.The Nile also connected sites along its course, from as far south asmodern Aswan to the Mediterranean coast, while also providinglinks through auxiliary roads to the Red Sea and through this toIndia.

Other areas were only rarely under direct Byzantine lordship, butthe Empire often extended its influence there through the use ofdiplomacy and the establishment of client rulers. This applies fore-most to Armenia and the Caucasus, the primary field of conflictsbetween Byzantium and first Persia, then the Caliphate and ulti-mately the Turks, over interregional jurisdiction and control ofneighbouring areas beyond the Caucasus, such as Iberia (modernGeorgia).

When it comes to the demography and settlement density of theByzantine Empire it is important to stress from the outset that wecan only operate with guesswork; for no time of its existence is itpossible to produce exact figures. Demography, obviously, followedterritorial fluctuation, but there were other important factors affectingit such as the outbreaks of plague pandemics (from 541 to 750 andagain from 1347 to 1453 and beyond) and warfare – which bothdirectly claimed human lives, but also created confusion and inse-curity, significantly affecting reproduction rates as well as sparkingmigration. Roughly speaking we may begin with a positive demo-graphic trend in late Antiquity in the Eastern Mediterranean: urbancentres and the countryside were both flourishing. Constantinoplebecame the biggest city in Europe, reaching a population of 400,000or more up to the outbreak of the plague. Other cities were equallypopulous: Antioch (150,000–200,000), Alexandria (200,000–300,000); by contrast, Rome suffered a severe demographicbreakdown in the fifth century, remaining a shadow of its imperial

Introduction

7


self at around 100,000 – and yet it was still the largest city by farin the West. The combination of plague and warfare (against thePersians and then the Arabs) led to demographic decline – the popu-lation was most probably halved by the late eighth century. Therewas an influx of Slavic populations settling south of the Danubefrom the late sixth century onwards; with the exception of Bulgaria,these populations were gradually assimilated (that is, they becameChristian and adopted the Greek language in large numbers). Thesame period saw specific population groups (for example Arme-nians or Slavs) moved around either for political or military reasonsor to repopulate certain regions. Recovery from around 800 wasslow, but steady, and sustained a positive trend up to the early four-teenth century. Despite the loss of territory, the Empire experienceda demographic and economic boom, particularly visible in the twelfthcentury, with the proliferation of cities – perhaps reaching a stagecomparable to the conditions before the sixth century. CertainlyConstantinople had become again a vast metropolis. The traumaticevents of the Fourth Crusade in 1204 did not stop this positivetrend, but the combination of plague and warfare – both civil warsand widespread enemy incursions – in the fourteenth century ledto demographic breakdown, but by then the state was in rapiddecline anyway. The last centuries of the Empire saw the influx ofvarious ethnic groups: after 1204 a significant number of West-erners (mostly French and Italians) settled in various parts of Greece,but their overall presence paled in comparison with the Albanianand then Turkish migrations to Greece after the mid fourteenthcentury.

These demographic changes had clear repercussions in the linguisticlandscape of the Empire. Up to the loss of the eastern territories inthe seventh century, Byzantium was a clearly multi-ethnic and there-fore multilingual empire. Greek was the dominant language sincethe Hellenistic period, but large areas had their own languages thatwere not just spoken among the inhabitants, but were also used toproduce a wide variety of literary genres: Syriac in Syria and Pales-tine, Coptic in Egypt. Latin was dominant in the West, but remainedimportant in the East in the imperial administration, especially inlaw and the army, until the seventh century. It was equally the


8


principal language in Italy, although Sicily and southern Italy hadimportant communities of Greek speakers. When the Empire wason its way to becoming an increasingly homogenous state after theseventh century, the supremacy of Greek was almost absolute.However, this must be nuanced: at least from the eleventh centuryonwards numerous foreigners settled permanently in Byzantium –especially in the large urban centres and particularly in Constan-tinople. Though their numbers were never very large, they formedcommunities (often with their own churches and mosques) andcontributed to the cosmopolitan character of their place of residence.

As in most pre-modern societies, the majority of the Byzantineslived off the land. Agricultural production and animal husbandryprovided food and fiscal revenues for the state. The agriculturalregime was defined by a command of natural resources in breadthand not in depth – climatic fluctuations could have extremely nega-tive results on production especially if prolonged (that is, affectingmore than one harvest cycle) or combined (for example droughtfollowed by excessive rainfall). Roughly speaking the climatic condi-tions in the Byzantine world were not very different to those oftoday. The coastal areas were characterized by temperate climateswith hot, dry summers and moderate winters without snow or frost,while the mainland, where more often than not mountains acted asbarriers to the sea, experienced colder winters with snowfall andmore precipitation. The most densely settled areas over time werethose with coastal climates that favoured agricultural production;marginal areas were settled in times of demographic expansion whenthe need for more land made populations eager to engage with moretaxing environmental conditions.

Finally, we should recognize that a number of landscapes of theByzantine world have changed considerably and look quite differentin our times. Erosion, deforestation, the silting of ports or modernlarge-scale hydrological projects (such as the dredging of lakes andmarshes or the creation of dams and artificial lakes) have made amajor impact. Classe, the port of Ravenna, dried up by the eighthcentury. The large-scale building of dams in southern Turkeysubmerged a number of important Byzantine frontier cities, whiledeforestation as a result of the use of timber for shipbuilding, mining,

Introduction

9


smelting and heating has changed the coastal areas of Dalmatia,Cyprus and the modern Lebanon.

FROM CRISIS TO CONSTANTINE I

The reign of Constantine I (sole Emperor: 324–37), the chosen pointof departure for the exploration of the Byzantine Empire, and thelong-lasting developments it generated, must be placed within thecontext of the period that preceded it. This can be divided into twomain phases: the so-called ‘crisis’ of the third century (235–84) andits successful termination which brought about some major trans-formative changes in the empire (284–337).

The term ‘crisis of the third century’ is conventionally applied tothe troubled era between 235 (the usurpation of Maximinus, anarmy officer of equestrian rank) and the ascent of Diocletian (anotherarmy officer) to the throne in 284. During this short period some51 individuals were proclaimed Roman emperors, of which themajority either fell in battle, or most commonly, were killed by theirown armies when the tide was turning towards one of their adver-saries. The period is generally marked by constant warfare, oftenon many fronts at the same time: in the east against Persia, in thesouth against nomadic raiders in North Africa and in the West andNorth against Germanic tribes on the Rhine and Danube. Dealingwith multiple enemies stretched the capacities of the Empire almostto breaking point: campaigns were very expensive and often promptedrulers to increase taxation (as expected, an unpopular and muchresisted measure). The coinage was constantly debased, leading tohoarding and inflation. Furthermore, as the majority of these short-lived emperors came from the military, they faced an almost impossibletask: to effectively counter enemy threats at the margins of theempire while not neglecting the powerful centre, Rome and itsSenate. The city was obviously still very important; its millenniumwas celebrated in 246 and emperors, as a rule, tried to control thecity and be acclaimed and recognized in it. However, the constantcampaigns made it necessary to spend considerable time in variousother cities that were much closer to the theatres of war: for example,Sirmium (in northern Serbia) for the Danube front, or Trier (in


10


The Byzantine Empire was one of the most impressive imperial adventures in history. It ruled much of Europe and Anatolia for a remarkable eleven hundred years. From Constantine I’s establishment of Byzantium (renamed Constantinople) as his capital in 324 CE, until the fall of the city to the Ottomans in 1453, the Byzantines became a powerhouse of literature, art, theology, law and learning. Dionysios Stathakopoulos here tells a compelling story of military conquest, alliance and reversal, including the terrifying secret of Greek fire: of a state constantly at war, but not warlike, resorting wherever possible to a sophisticated diplomacy with its neighbours and enemies.

Breaking with outdated notions of Byzantium as an unchanging, theocratic state, Stathakopoulos uses the most recent research to explore its political, economic, social and cultural history. He evokes the dynamism of a people whose story is one of astonishing resilience and adaptability; and whose legacy, whether it be the bronze horses of the Hippodrome, or the very term ‘Byzantine’, everywhere endures. His new short history is above all a narrative of individuals: of powerful rulers like Justinian I, who recovered Italy from the vandals and oversaw construction of Hagia Sofia (completed in 537); of his notorious queen Theodora, a courtesan who rose improbably to the highest office of imperial first lady; of the charismatic but cuckolded general Belisarius; and of the religious leaders Arius and Athanasius, whose conflicting ideas about Christ and doctrine shook the Empire to its core.

Dionysios Stathakopoulos is Lecturer in Byzantine Studies at King’s College London. He is the author of Famine and Pestilence in the Late Roman and Byzantine Empire (2004).

Also availablewww.sHoRT-HIsToRIEs.coM

a short history of the byzantine empire

Documents

teacher of byzantine

byzantine studies

term byzantine

comthe byzantine empire

cambridge history

cultural history

narrative history

confident book