East Roman: Wikis

Advertisements

Note: Many of our articles have direct quotes from sources you can cite, within the Wikipedia article! This article doesn't yet, but we're working on it! See more info or our list of citable articles.

Encyclopedia

Advertisements
(Redirected to Byzantine Empire article)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ῥωμανία
Rhōmanía
Romania
Imperium Romanum
Roman Empire

330–1453
Flag of the late Empire (ca. 1350) Imperial Emblem during the Palaiologos dynasty
Territorial development of the Empire
Capital Constantinople1
Language(s) Latin (until the seventh century), Greek
Religion Roman paganism until 391, Orthodox Catholicism (Eastern Orthodoxy) thereafter
Government Autocracy
Emperor
 - 306–337 Constantine the Great
 - 1449–1453 Constantine XI
Legislature Byzantine Senate
Historical era Late Antiquity-Late Middle Ages
 - Diocletian splits imperial administration between east and west 285
 - Foundation of Constantinople2 May 11, 330
 - The deposition of Romulus Augustulus, nominal emperor in the west, brings formal division of the Roman Empire to an end 476
 - Pope Leo III, hostile to the rule of the Empress Irene, attempts to confer imperial authority on the Frankish king Charlemagne 800
 - East-West Schism 1054
 - Fall of Constantinople to the Fourth Crusade 1204
 - Fall of Constantinople3 May 29, 1453
 - Fall of Trebizond 1461
Population
 - 4th cent4 est. 34,000,000 
 - 8th cent (780 AD) est. 7,000,000 
 - 11th cent4 (1025 AD) est. 12,000,000 
 - 12th cent4 (1143 AD) est. 10,000,000 
 - 13th cent (1281 AD) est. 5,000,000 
Currency Solidus, Hyperpyron
1 Constantinople (330–1204 and 1261–1453). The capital of the Empire of Nicaea, the empire after the Fourth Crusade, was at Nicaea, present day İznik, Turkey.
2 Establishment date traditionally considered to be the re-founding of Constantinople as the capital of the Roman Empire (324/330) although other dates are often used.[1]
3Date of end universally regarded as 1453, despite the temporary survival of remnants in Morea and Trebizond.[1]
4 See Population of the Byzantine Empire for more detailed figures taken provided by McEvedy and Jones, "Atlas of world population history", 1978, as well as Angeliki E. Laiou, "The Economic History of Byzantium", 2002.

The Byzantine Empire or Eastern Roman Empire, was the Roman Empire during the Middle Ages, centered on the capital of Constantinople, and ruled by Byzantine emperors. It was called the Roman Empire, and also as Romania (Greek: Ῥωμανία, Rhōmanía), by its inhabitants and its neighbours. As the distinction between "Roman Empire" and "Byzantine Empire" is purely a modern convention, it is not possible to assign a date of separation, but an important point is the Emperor Constantine I's transfer in 324 of the capital from Nicomedia (in Anatolia) to Byzantium on the Bosphorus, which became Constantinople (alternatively "New Rome").[n 1]

The Empire remained one of the most powerful economic, cultural, and military forces in Europe, despite setbacks and territorial losses, especially during the Roman–Persian and Byzantine–Arab Wars. The Empire recovered during the Macedonian dynasty, rising again to become the pre-eminent power in the Eastern Mediterranean by the late tenth century. After 1071, however, much of Asia Minor, the Empire's heartland, was lost to the Seljuk Turks. The Komnenian restoration regained some ground and briefly re-established dominance in the twelfth century, but declined again under their successors. The Empire received a mortal blow in 1204 by the Fourth Crusade, when it was dissolved and divided into competing Byzantine Greek and Latin realms. Despite the eventual recovery of Constantinople and re-establishment of the Empire in 1261, under the Palaiologan emperors, successive civil wars in the fourteenth century further sapped the Empire's strength. Most of its remaining territory was lost in the Byzantine–Ottoman Wars, culminating in the Fall of Constantinople and its remaining territories to the Muslim Ottoman Turks in the fifteenth century.

Contents

Nomenclature

The designation of the Empire as "Byzantine" began in Western Europe in 1557, when German historian Hieronymus Wolf published his work Corpus Historiæ Byzantinæ, a collection of Byzantine sources. "Byzantine" itself comes from "Byzantium", the name of the city of Constantinople before it became the capital of Constantine. This older name of the city would rarely be used from this point onward except in historical or poetic contexts. The publication in 1648 of the Byzantine du Louvre (Corpus Scriptorum Historiæ Byzantinæ), and in 1680 of Du Cange's Historia Byzantina further popularized the use of Byzantine among French authors, such as Montesquieu.[3] It was not until the nineteenth century, however, with the birth of modern Greece, that the term "Byzantine" came into general use in the Western world. Before this time Greek had been used for the Empire and its descendants within the Ottoman Empire.

The Empire was known to its inhabitants as the Roman Empire, the Empire of the Romans (Latin: Imperium Romanum, Imperium Romanorum, Greek: Βασιλεία τῶν Ῥωμαίων, Basileía tôn Rhōmaíōn), Romania[n 2] (Ῥωμανία, Rhōmanía), Roman Republic (Latin: Res Publica Romana, Greek: πολιτεία Ῥωμαίων, politeίa Rhōmaíōn),[5] and also as Rhōmaís (Ῥωμαΐς).[6]

Although Byzantium had a multi-ethnic character during most of its history,[7] it preserved Romano-Hellenistic traditions[8] and was usually known to most of its western and northern contemporaries as the Empire of the Greeks[n 3] due to the increasing predominance of the Greek element.[9] The use of the term Empire of the Greeks (Latin: Imperium Graecorum) in the West to refer to the Eastern Roman Empire also implied a rejection of the empire's claim to be the Roman Empire.[10] The claims of the Eastern Roman Empire to Roman inheritance had been actively contested in the West at the time of the Roman Empress Irene of Athens, due to the coronation of Charlemagne as Holy Roman Emperor year 800, by Pope Leo III, who needing help against enemies in Rome, saw the throne of the Roman Empire as vacant (lacking a male occupant). Whenever the Popes or the rulers of the West made use of the name Roman to refer to the eastern Roman Emperors, they preferred the term Imperator Romaniæ instead of Imperator Romanorum, a title that Westerners maintained applied only to Charlemagne and his successors.[11]

By contrast, in the Persian, Islamic, and Slavic worlds, the Empire's Roman identity was generally accepted. In the Islamic world it was known primarily as روم (Rûm "Rome").[12][13]

In modern historical atlases, the Empire is usually called the Eastern Roman Empire in maps depicting the empire during the period AD 395 to AD 610, after the new emperor Heraclius changed the official language from Latin to Greek (already the language known by the great majority of the population); in maps depicting the Empire after AD 610, the term Byzantine Empire usually appears.

History

History of the Byzantine Empire
Imperial Emblem of the Byzantine Empire
This article is part of a series
Early Byzantine period
Byzantium under the Constantinian and Valentinian dynasties
Byzantium under the Theodosian Dynasty
Byzantium under the Leonid Dynasty
Byzantium under the Justinian Dynasty
Middle Byzantine period
Byzantium under the Heraclians
Byzantium under the Isaurians
Byzantium from the fall of Irene to the ascension of Basil I
Byzantium under the Macedonians
Late Byzantine period
Byzantium under the Komnenoi
Byzantium under the Angeloi
Byzantium under the Palaiologoi
Topics
Art
Government
Economy
Army
Navy

Byzantine Empire Portal
 v • d • e 

Early History of the Roman Empire

The Roman army succeeded in conquering a vast collection of territories covering the entire Mediterranean region and much of Western Europe. These territories consisted of many different cultural groups, ranging from primitive to highly sophisticated. Generally speaking, the eastern Mediterranean provinces were more urbanized and socially developed, having previously been united under the Macedonian Empire and Hellenized by the influence of Greek culture. In contrast, the western regions had mostly remained independent from any single cultural or political authority, and were still largely rural and less developed. This distinction between the long-established, Hellenized East and the younger, Latinized West would persist and become increasingly important in later centuries.

Division of the Roman Empire

Diocletian created a new administrative system (the tetrarchy).[14] He associated himself with a co-emperor, or Augustus. Each Augustus was then to adopt a young colleague, or Caesar, to share in the rule and eventually to succeed the senior partner. After the abdication of Diocletian and Maximian, however, the tetrachy collapsed, and Constantine I replaced it with the dynastic principle of hereditary succession.[15]

The Baptism of Constantine painted by Raphael's pupils (1520–1524, fresco, Vatican City, Apostolic Palace). Eusebius of Caesaria records that, as was customary among Christian converts at the time, Constantine delayed receiving baptism until shortly before his death.[16]

Constantine moved the seat of the Empire, and introduced important changes into its civil and religious constitution.[17] In 330, he founded Constantinople as a second Rome on the site of Byzantium, which was well-positioned astride the trade routes between East and West.

Constantine built upon the administrative reforms introduced by Diocletian.[14][18] He stabilized the coinage (the gold solidus that he introduced became a highly prized and stable currency),[18] and made changes to the structure of the army. Under Constantine, the Empire had recovered much of its military strength and enjoyed a period of stability and prosperity.

Under Constantine, Christianity did not become the exclusive religion of the state, but enjoyed imperial preference, since the Emperor supported it with generous privileges. Constantine established the principle that emperors should not settle questions of doctrine, but should summon general ecclesiastical councils for that purpose. The Synod of Arles was convened by Constantine, and the First Council of Nicaea showcased his claim to be head of the Church.[19]

The state of the Empire in 395 may be described in terms of the outcome of Constantine's work. The dynastic principle was established so firmly that the emperor who died in that year, Theodosius I, could bequeath the imperial office jointly to his sons: Arcadius in the East and Honorius in the West. Theodosius was the last emperor to rule over the full extent of the empire in both its halves.[20]

The Eastern Empire was largely spared the difficulties faced by the West in the third and fourth centuries, due in part to a more established urban culture and greater financial resources, which allowed it to placate invaders with tribute and pay foreign mercenaries. Theodosius II further fortified the walls of Constantinople, leaving the city impervious to most attacks; the walls were not breached until 1204. To fend off the Huns of Attila, Theodosius gave them subsidies (purportedly 300 kg (700 lb) of gold).[21] Moreover, he favored merchants living in Constantinople who traded with the Huns and other foreign groups.

His successor, Marcian, refused to continue to pay this exorbitant sum. However, Attila had already diverted his attention to the Western Roman Empire.[22] After he died in 453, his empire collapsed and Constantinople initiated a profitable relationship with the remaining Huns, who would eventually fight as mercenaries in Byzantine armies.[23]

After the fall of Attila, the Eastern Empire enjoyed a period of peace, while the Western Empire collapsed (its end is usually dated in 476 when the Germanic Roman general Odoacer deposed the titular Western Emperor Romulus Augustulus, but declined to replace him with another puppet).

Eastern Roman Empire, c. AD 480.

To recover Italy, the emperor Zeno could only negotiate with the Ostrogoths of Theodoric, who had settled in Moesia. He sent the gothic king to Italy as magister militum per Italiam ("commander in chief for Italy"). After the fall of Odoacer in 493, Theodoric, who had lived in Constantinople during his youth, ruled Italy on his own. Thus, by suggesting that Theodoric conquer Italy as his Ostrogothic kingdom, Zeno maintained at least a nominal supremacy in that western land while ridding the Eastern Empire of an unruly subordinate.[20]

In 491, Anastasius I, an aged civil officer of Roman origin, became emperor, but it was not until 498 that the forces of the new emperor effectively took the measure of Isaurian resistance.[20] Anastasius revealed himself to be an energetic reformer and an able administrator. He perfected Constantine I's coinage system by definitively setting the weight of the copper follis, the coin used in most everyday transactions.[24] He also reformed the tax system, and permanently abolished the hated chrysargyron tax. The State Treasury contained the enormous sum of 145,150 kg (320,000 lbs) of gold when he died.

Reconquest of the Western provinces

Justinian I depicted on one of the famous mosaics of the Basilica of San Vitale, Ravenna.

Justinian I, who assumed the throne in 527, oversaw a period of recovery of former territories. Justinian, the son of an Illyrian peasant, may already have exerted effective control during the reign of his uncle, Justin I (518–527).[25] In 532, attempting to secure his eastern frontier, Justinian signed a peace treaty with Khosrau I of Persia agreeing to pay a large annual tribute to the Sassanids. In the same year, Justinian survived a revolt in Constantinople (the Nika riots) which ended with the death of (allegedly) thirty thousand rioters. This victory solidified Justinian's power.[26] Pope Agapetus I was sent to Constantinople by the Ostrogoths king Theodahad, but failed in his mission to sign a peace with Justinian. However, he succeeded in having the Monophysite Patriarch Anthimus I of Constantinople denounced, despite Empress Theodora's support.

The western conquests began in 533, as Justinian sent his general Belisarius to reclaim the former province of North Africa from the Vandals with an army of about 15,000 men. Success came with surprising ease, but it was not until 548 that the major local independent tribes were subdued.[26] In Ostrogothic Italy, the deaths of Theodoric the Great, his nephew and heir Athalaric, and his daughter Amalasuntha had left her murderer Theodahad on the throne despite his weakened authority. In 535, a small Byzantine expedition sent to Sicily met with easy success, but the Goths soon stiffened their resistance, and victory did not come until 540, when Belisarius captured Ravenna, after successful sieges of Naples and Rome.[27]

Byzantine expansion during Justinian's reign.

Nevertheless, the Ostrogoths were soon reunited under the command of Totila and captured Rome on 17 December 546; Belisarius was eventually recalled by Justinian in early 549.[28] The arrival of the Armenian eunuch Narses in Italy (late 551) with an army of some 35,000 men marked another shift in Gothic fortunes. Totila was defeated and died at the Battle of Busta Gallorum. His successor, Teias, was likewise defeated at the Battle of Mons Lactarius (October 552). Despite continuing resistance from a few Goth garrisons and two subsequent invasions by the Franks and Alamanni, the war for the Italian peninsula was at an end.[29] In 551, a noble of Visigothic Hispania, Athanagild, sought Justinian's help in a rebellion against the king, and the emperor dispatched a force under Liberius, who, although elderly, proved himself a successful military commander. The Byzantine empire held on to a small slice of the Spania coast until the reign of Heraclius.[30]

In the east, Roman-Persian Wars continued until 561 when Justinian's and Khosrau's envoys agreed on a 50-year peace. By the mid-550s, Justinian had won victories in most theaters of operation, with the notable exception of the Balkans, which were subjected to repeated incursions from the Slavs. In 559, the Empire faced a great invasion of Kutrigurs and Sclaveni. Justinian called Belisarius out of retirement, but once the immediate danger was over, the emperor took charge himself. The news that Justinian was reinforcing his Danube fleet made the Kutrigurs anxious, and they agreed to a treaty which gave them a subsidy and safe passage back across the river.[26]

Justinian became universally famous because of his legislative work, remarkable for its sweeping character.[31] In 529, a ten-man commission chaired by John the Cappadocian revised the ancient Roman legal code, creating the new Corpus Juris Civilis, a collection of laws that came to be referred to as "Justinian's Code".

During the sixth century, the traditional Greco-Roman culture was still influential in the Eastern empire with prominent representatives such as the natural philosopher John Philoponus. Nevertheless, the Christian philosophy and culture were in the ascendant and began to dominate the older culture. Hymns written by Romanos the Melode marked the development of the Divine Liturgy, while architects and builders worked to complete the new Church of the Holy Wisdom, Hagia Sophia, designed to replace an older church destroyed in the course of the Nika revolt. Hagia Sophia stands today as one of the major monuments of architectural history.[20] During the sixth and seventh centuries, the Empire was struck by a series of epidemics, which would greatly devastate the population, contributing to a significant economic decline and weakening of the Empire.[32] Thus, some historians trace to the period between Justinian's death and the accession of Heraclius the transformation of Classical civilization into Eastern Orthodox civilization.

After Justinian died in 565, his successor, Justin II refused to pay the large tribute to the Persians. Meanwhile, the Germanic Lombards invaded Italy; by the end of the century only a third of Italy was in Byzantine hands. Justin's successor, Tiberius II, choosing between his enemies, awarded subsidies to the Avars while taking military action against the Persians. Though Tiberius' general, Maurice, led an effective campaign on the eastern frontier, subsidies failed to restrain the Avars. They captured the Balkan fortress of Sirmium in 582, while the Slavs began to make inroads across the Danube. Maurice, who meanwhile succeeded Tiberius, intervened in a Persian civil war, placed the legitimate Khosrau II back on the throne and married his daughter to him. Maurice's treaty with his new brother-in-law brought a new status-quo to the east territorially, enlarged to an extent never before achieved by the empire in its six century history, and much cheaper to defend during this new perpetual peace – millions of solidi were saved by the remission of tribute to the Persians alone. After his victory on the eastern frontier, Maurice was free to focus on the Balkans, and by 602 after a series of successful campaigns he had pushed the Avars and Slavs back across the Danube.[20]

The shrinking borders

Heraclian dynasty

After Maurice's murder by Phocas, Khosrau used the pretext to reconquer the Roman province of Mesopotamia.[33] Phocas, an unpopular ruler who was invariably described in Byzantine sources as a "tyrant", was the target of a number of senate-led plots. He was eventually deposed in 610 by Heraclius, who sailed to Constantinople from Carthage with an icon affixed to the prow of his ship.[34] Following the ascension of Heraclius, the Sassanid advance pushed deep into Asia Minor, also occupying Damascus and Jerusalem and removing the True Cross to Ctesiphon.[35] The counter-offensive of Heraclius took on the character of a holy war, and an acheiropoietos image of Christ was carried as a military standard.[36] Similarly, when Constantinople was saved from an Avar siege in 626, the victory was attributed to the icons of the Virgin which were led in procession by Patriarch Sergius about the walls of the city.[37] The main Sassanid force was destroyed at Nineveh in 627, and in 629 Heraclius restored the True Cross to Jerusalem in a majestic ceremony.[38] The war had exhausted both the Byzantine and Sassanid Empire, and left them extremely vulnerable to the Arab forces which emerged in the following years.[39] The Romans suffered a crushing defeat at the Battle of Yarmuk in 636, and Ctesiphon fell in 634.[40]

Byzantine Empire by 650; by this year it lost all of its southern provinces except the Exarchate of Carthage.

The Arabs, now firmly in control of Syria and the Levant, sent frequent raiding parties deep into Anatolia, and between 674 and 678 laid siege to Constantinople itself. The Arab fleet was finally repulsed through the use of Greek fire, and a thirty-years' truce was signed between the empire and caliphate.[41] The Anatolian raids continued unabated, and accelerated the demise of classical urban culture, with the inhabitants of many cities either refortifying much smaller areas within the old city walls, or relocating entirely to nearby fortresses.[42] The void left by the disappearance of the old semi-autonomous civic institutions was filled by the theme system, which entailed the division of Anatolia into "provinces" occupied by distinct armies which assumed civil authority and answered directly to the imperial administration. This system may have had its roots in certain ad hoc measures taken by Heraclius, but over the course of the seventh century it developed into an entirely new system of imperial governance.[43]

The Greek fire was first used by the Byzantine Navy during the Byzantine-Arab Wars (from the Madrid Skylitzes, Biblioteca Nacional de España, Madrid).

The withdrawal of massive numbers of troops from the Balkans to combat the Persians and then the Arabs in the east opened the door for the gradual southward expansion of Slavic peoples into the peninsula, and, as in Anatolia, many cities shrank to small fortified settlements.[44] In the 670s, the Bulgars were pushed south of the Danube by the arrival of the Khazars, and in 680 Byzantine forces which had been sent to disperse these new settlements were defeated. In the next year Constantine IV signed a treaty with the Bulgar khan Asparukh, and the new Bulgarian state assumed sovereignty over a number of Slavic tribes which had previously, at least in name, recognized Byzantine rule.[45] In 687–688, the emperor Justinian II led an expedition against the Slavs and Bulgars which made significant gains, although the fact that he had to fight his way from Thrace to Macedonia demonstrates the degree to which Byzantine power in the north Balkans had declined.[46]

The final Heraclian emperor, Justinian II, attempted to break the power of the urban aristocracy through severe taxation and the appointment of "outsiders" to administrative posts. He was driven from power in 695, and took shelter first with the Khazars and then with the Bulgars. In 705 he returned to Constantinople with the armies of the Bulgar khan Tervel, retook the throne, and instituted a reign of terror against his enemies. With his final overthrow in 711, supported once more by the urban aristocracy, the Heraclian dynasty came to an end.[47]

Isaurian dynasty to the ascension of Basil I

The Byzantine Empire at the accession of Leo III, c. 717. Striped land shows land raided by the Arabs. Click on the image for names of provinces.

Leo III the Isaurian, turned back the Muslim assault in 718, and achieved victory with the major help of the Bulgarian khan Tervel,who killed 32,000 Arabs with his army, at the expense of the Arabs in 740. He also addressed himself to the task of reorganizing and consolidating the themes in Asia Minor. His successor, Constantine V, won noteworthy victories in northern Syria, and thoroughly undermined Bulgar strength.

In 826, the Arabs captured Crete, and successfully attacked Sicily, but on 3 September 863, general Petronas attained a huge victory against Umar al-Aqta, the emir of Melitene. Under the leadership of Krum the Bulgar threat also reemerged, but in 814 Krum's son, Omortag, arranged a peace with the Byzantine Empire.[48]

The eighth and ninth centuries were also dominated by controversy and religious division over Iconoclasm. Icons were banned by Leo and Constantine, leading to revolts by iconodules (supporters of icons) throughout the empire. After the efforts of Empress Irene, the Second Council of Nicaea met in 787, and affirmed that icons could be venerated but not worshipped. Irene is said to have endeavored to negotiate a marriage between herself and Charlemagne, but, according to Theophanes the Confessor, the scheme was frustrated by Aetios, one of her favourites.[49] In 813, Leo V the Armenian restored the policy of iconoclasm, but in 843 Empress Theodora restored the veneration of the icons with the help of Patriarch Methodios.[50] Iconoclasm played its part in the further alienation of East from West, which worsened during the so-called Photian Schism, when Pope Nicholas I challenged Photios' elevation to the patriarchate.

Macedonian dynasty and resurgence

Wars against the Muslims

The Byzantine Empire, c. 867 AD.

By 867, the empire had re-stabilised its position in both the east and the west, and the efficiency of its defensive military structure enabled its emperors to begin planning wars of reconquest in the east.

The process of reconquest began with variable fortunes. The temporary reconquest of Crete (843) was followed by a crushing Byzantine defeat on the Bosporus, while the emperors were unable to prevent the ongoing Muslim conquest of Sicily (827–902). Using present day Tunisia as their launching pad, the Muslims conquered Palermo in 831, Messina in 842, Enna in 859, Syracuse in 878, Catania in 900 and the final Byzantine stronghold, the fortress of Taormina, in 902.

These drawbacks were later counterbalanced by a victorious expedition against Damietta in Egypt (856), the defeat of the Emir of Melitene (863), the confirmation of the imperial authority over Dalmatia (867), and Basil I's offensives towards the Euphrates (870s). Unlike the deteriorating situation in Sicily, Basil I handled the situation in southern Italy well enough and the province would remain in Byzantine hands for the next 200 years.

The military successes of the tenth century were coupled with a major cultural revival, the so-called Macedonian Renaissance. Miniature from the Paris Psalter, an example of Hellenistic-influenced art.

In 904, disaster struck the empire when its second city, Thessaloniki, was sacked by an Arab fleet led by the Byzantine renegade Leo of Tripoli. The Byzantine military responded by destroying an Arab fleet in 908, and sacking the city of Laodicea in Syria two years later. Despite this revenge, the Byzantines were still unable to strike a decisive blow against the Muslims, who inflicted a crushing defeat on the imperial forces when they attempted to regain Crete in 911.

The situation on the border with the Arab territories remained fluid, with the Byzantines alternatively on the offensive or defensive. The Varangians, who attacked Constantinople for the first time in 860, constituted another new challenge. In 941 they appeared on the Asian shore of the Bosporus, but this time they were crushed, showing the improvements in the Byzantine military position after 907, when only diplomacy had been able to push back the invaders. The vanquisher of the Varangians was the famous general John Kourkouas, who continued the offensive with other noteworthy victories in Mesopotamia (943): these culminated in the reconquest of Edessa (944), which was especially celebrated for the return to Constantinople of the venerated Mandylion.

The soldier-emperors Nikephoros II Phokas (reigned 963–969) and John I Tzimiskes (969–976) expanded the empire well into Syria, defeating the emirs of north-west Iraq and reconquering Crete and Cyprus. At one point under John, the empire's armies even threatened Jerusalem, far to the south. The emirate of Aleppo and its neighbours became vassals of the empire in the east, where the greatest threat to the empire was the Fatimid caliphate.[51] After much campaigning, the last Arab threat to Byzantium was defeated when Basil II rapidly drew 40,000 mounted soldiers to relieve Roman Syria. With a surplus of resources and victories thanks to the Bulgar and Syrian campaigns, Basil II planned an expedition against Sicily to re-take it from the Arabs there. After his death in 1025, the expedition set off in the 1040s and was met with initial, but stunted success.

Wars against the Bulgarian Empire

Emperor Basil II the Bulgar Slayer (976–1025).

The traditional struggle with the See of Rome continued, spurred by the question of religious supremacy over the newly Christianized Bulgaria. This prompted an invasion by the powerful Tsar Simeon I in 894, but this was pushed back by the Byzantine diplomacy, which called on the help of the Hungarians. The Byzantines were in turn defeated, however, at the Battle of Bulgarophygon (896), and obliged to pay annual subsides to the Bulgarians. Later (912), Simeon even had the Byzantines grant him the crown of basileus (emperor) of Bulgaria and had the young emperor Constantine VII marry one of his daughters. When a revolt in Constantinople halted his dynastic project, he again invaded Thrace and conquered Adrianople.[51]

A great imperial expedition under Leo Phocas and Romanos Lekapenos ended again with a crushing Byzantine defeat at the Battle of Acheloos (917), and the following year the Bulgarians were free to ravage northern Greece as far as Corinth. Adrianople was captured again in 923 and in 924 a Bulgarian army laid siege to Constantinople. The situation in the Balkans improved only after Simeon's death in 927. In 968, Bulgaria was overrun by the Rus' under Sviatoslav I of Kiev, but three years later, the emperor John I Tzimiskes defeated the Rus' and re-incorporated eastern Bulgaria into the Empire.

The Empire under Basil II.

Bulgarian resistance revived under the rule of the Cometopuli dynasty, but the new emperor Basil II (reigned 976–1025) made the submission of the Bulgarians his primary goal. Basil's first expedition against Bulgaria however resulted in a humiliating defeat at the Gates of Trajan. For the next few years, the emperor would be preoccupied with internal revolts in Anatolia, while the Bulgarians expanded their realm in the Balkans. The war was to drag on for nearly twenty years. The Byzantine victories of Spercheios and Skopje decisively weakened the Bulgarian army, and in annual campaigns, Basil methodically reduced the Bulgarian strongholds. Eventually, at the Battle of Kleidion in 1014 the Bulgarians were completely defeated.[52] The Bulgarian army was captured, and it is said that 99 out of every 100 men were blinded, with the remaining hundredth man left with one eye so as to lead his compatriots home. When Tsar Samuil saw the broken remains of his once gallant army, he died of shock. By 1018, the last Bulgarian strongholds had surrendered, and the country became part of the Byzantine empire. This victory restored the Danube frontier, which had not been held since the days of the emperor Heraclius.[51]

Relations with the Kievan Rus'

Kievan Rus' under the walls of Constantinople (860).

Between 850 and 1100, the Empire developed a mixed relationship with a new state that emerged to the north across the Black Sea, that of the Kievan Rus'. This relationship would have long-lasting repercussions in the history of East Slavs. Byzantium quickly became the main trading and cultural partner for Kiev, but relations were not always friendly. The most serious conflict between the two powers was the war of 968–971 in Bulgaria, but several Rus' raiding expeditions against the Byzantine cities of the Black Sea coast and Constantinople itself are also recorded. Although most were repulsed, they were concluded by trade treaties that were generally favourable to the Rus'.

Rus'-Byzantine relations became closer following the marriage of the porphyrogenita Anna to Vladimir the Great, and the subsequent Christianization of the Rus': Byzantine priests, architects and artists were invited to work on numerous cathedrals and churches around Rus', expanding Byzantine cultural influence even further. Numerous Rus' served in the Byzantine army as mercenaries, most notably as the famous Varangian Guard.

The apex

The Byzantine Empire then stretched from Armenia in the east to Calabria in Southern Italy in the west.[51] Many successes had been achieved, ranging from the conquest of Bulgaria, to the annexation of parts of Georgia and Armenia, to the total annihilation of an invading force of Egyptians outside Antioch. Yet even these victories were not enough; Basil considered the continued Arab occupation of Sicily to be an outrage. Accordingly, he planned to reconquer the island, which had belonged to the Roman world since the First Punic War. However, his death in 1025 put an end to the project.[51]

The eleventh century was also momentous for its religious events. In 1054, relations between the Eastern and Western traditions within the Christian Church reached a terminal crisis. Although there was a formal declaration of institutional separation, on 16 July, when three papal legates entered the Hagia Sophia during Divine Liturgy on a Saturday afternoon and placed a bull of excommunication on the altar, the so-called Great Schism was actually the culmination of centuries of gradual separation.

Crisis and fragmentation

Byzantium soon fell into a period of difficulties, caused to a large extent by the undermining of the theme system and the neglect of the military. Nikephoros II (963–969), John Tzimiskes and Basil II changed the military divisions (τάγματα, tagmata) from a rapid response, primarily defensive, citizen army into a professional, campaigning army increasingly manned by mercenaries. Mercenaries, however, were expensive and as the threat of invasion receded in the tenth century, so did the need for maintaining large garrisons and expensive fortifications.[53] Basil II left a burgeoning treasury upon his death, but neglected to plan for his succession. None of his immediate successors had any particular military or political talent and the administration of the Empire increasingly fell into the hands of the civil service. Efforts to revive the Byzantine economy only resulted in inflation and a debased gold coinage. The army was now seen as both an unnecessary expense and a political threat. Therefore, native troops were cashiered and replaced by foreign mercenaries on specific contract.[54]

At the same time, the Empire was faced with new, ambitious enemies. Byzantine provinces in southern Italy faced the Normans, who arrived in Italy at the beginning of the eleventh century. During a period of strife between Constantinople and Rome which ended in the East-West Schism of 1054, the Normans began to advance, slowly but steadily, into Byzantine Italy.[55]

It was in Asia Minor, however, that the greatest disaster would take place. The Seljuq Turks made their first explorations across the Byzantine frontier into Armenia in 1065 and in 1067. The emergency lent weight to the military aristocracy in Anatolia who, in 1068, secured the election of one of their own, Romanos Diogenes, as emperor. In the summer of 1071, Romanos undertook a massive eastern campaign to draw the Seljuks into a general engagement with the Byzantine army. At Manzikert, Romanos not only suffered a surprise defeat at the hands of Sultan Alp Arslan, but was also captured. Alp Arslan treated him with respect, and imposed no harsh terms on the Byzantines.[54] In Constantinople, however, a coup took place in favor of Michael Doukas, who soon faced the opposition of Nikephoros Bryennios and Nikephoros Botaneiates. By 1081, the Seljuks expanded their rule over virtually the entire Anatolian plateau from Armenia in the east to Bithynia in the west and founded their capital at Nicaea, just 55 miles (88 km) from Constantinople.[56]

Komnenian dynasty and the crusaders

Alexios I and the First Crusade

The Byzantine Empire and the Sultanate of Rûm before the Crusades.

After Manzikert, a partial recovery (referred to as the Komnenian restoration) was made possible by the efforts of the Komnenian dynasty.[57] The first emperor of this dynasty was Isaac I (1057–1059) and the second Alexios I. At the very outset of his reign, Alexios faced a formidable attack by the Normans under Robert Guiscard and his son Bohemund of Taranto, who captured Dyrrhachium and Corfu, and laid siege to Larissa in Thessaly. Robert Guiscard's death in 1085 temporarily eased the Norman problem. The following year the Seljuq sultan died, and the sultanate was split by internal rivalries. By his own efforts, Alexios defeated the Pechenegs; they were caught by surprise and annihilated at the Battle of Levounion on 28 April 1091.[20]

Having achieved stability in the West, Alexios could turn his attention to the severe economic difficulties and the disintegration of the empire's traditional defences.[58] However, he still did not have enough manpower to recover the lost territories in Asia Minor and to advance against the Seljuks. At the Council of Piacenza in 1095, Alexios' envoys spoke to Pope Urban II about the suffering of the Christians of the East, and underscored that without help from the West they would continue to suffer under Muslim rule. Urban saw Alexios' request as a dual opportunity to cement Western Europe and enhance papal power.[59] On 27 November 1095, Pope Urban II called together the Council of Clermont, and urged all those present to take up arms under the sign of the Cross and launch an armed pilgrimage to recover Jerusalem and the East from the Muslims. The response in Western Europe was overwhelming.[20]

The very brief first coinage of the Thessaloniki mint, which Alexios opened as he passed through in September 1081 on his way to confront the invading Normans under Robert Guiscard.

Alexios had anticipated help in the form of mercenary forces from the West, but was totally unprepared for the immense and undisciplined force which soon arrived in Byzantine territory. It was no comfort to Alexios to learn that four of the eight leaders of the main body of the Crusade were Normans, among them Bohemund. Since the crusade had to pass through Constantinople, however, the Emperor had some control over it. He required its leaders to swear to restore to the empire any towns or territories they might conquer from the Turks on their way to the Holy Land. In return, he gave them guides and a military escort.[60] Alexios was able to recover a number of important cities and islands, and in fact much of western Asia Minor. Nevertheless, the crusaders believed their oaths were invalidated when Alexios did not help them during the siege of Antioch (he had in fact set out on the road to Antioch, but had been persuaded to turn back by Stephen of Blois, who assured him that all was lost and that the expedition had already failed).[61] Bohemund, who had set himself up as Prince of Antioch, briefly went to war with the Byzantines, but agreed to become Alexios' vassal under the Treaty of Devol in 1108, which marked the end of Norman threat during Alexios' reign.[62]

John II, Manuel I and the Second Crusade

Medieval manuscript depicting the Capture of Jerusalem during the First Crusade.

Alexios' son John II Komnenos succeeded him in 1118, and was to rule until 1143. John was a pious and dedicated emperor who was determined to undo the damage his empire had suffered at the Battle of Manzikert, half a century earlier.[63] Famed for his piety and his remarkably mild and just reign, John was an exceptional example of a moral ruler, at a time when cruelty was the norm.[64] For this reason, he has been called the Byzantine Marcus Aurelius. In the course of his twenty-five year reign, John made alliances with the Holy Roman Empire in the West, decisively defeated the Pechenegs at the Battle of Beroia,[65] and personally led numerous campaigns against the Turks in Asia Minor. John's campaigns fundamentally changed the balance of power in the east, forcing the Turks onto the defensive and restoring to the Byzantines many towns, fortresses and cities right across the peninsula.[66] He also thwarted Hungarian, and Serbian threats during the 1120s, and in 1130 allied himself with the German emperor Lothair III against the Norman King Roger II of Sicily.[67] In the later part of his reign, John focused his activities on the East. He defeated the Danishmend emirate of Melitene, and reconquered all of Cilicia, while forcing Raymond of Poitiers, Prince of Antioch, to recognize Byzantine suzerainty. In an effort to demonstrate the Byzantine emperor's role as the leader of the Christian world, John marched into the Holy Land at the head of the combined forces of Byzantium and the Crusader states; yet despite the great vigour with which he pressed the campaign, John's hopes were disappointed by the treachery of his Crusader allies.[68] In 1142 John returned to press his claims to Antioch, but he died in the spring of 1143 following a hunting accident. Raymond was emboldened to invade Cilicia, but he was defeated and forced to go to Constantinople to beg mercy from the new emperor.[69]

Byzantine Empire in purple, c.1180, at the end of the Komnenian period.

John's chosen heir was his fourth son, Manuel I Komnenos, who campaigned aggressively against his neighbours both in the west and in the east. In Palestine, he allied himself with the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem and sent a large fleet to participate in a combined invasion of Fatimid Egypt. Manuel reinforced his position as overlord of the Crusader states, with his hegemony over Antioch and Jerusalem secured by agreement with Raynald, Prince of Antioch, and Amalric, King of Jerusalem respectively.[70] In an effort to restore Byzantine control over the ports of southern Italy, he sent an expedition to Italy in 1155, but disputes within the coalition led to the eventual failure of the campaign. Despite this military setback, Manuel's armies successfully invaded the Kingdom of Hungary in 1167, defeating the Hungarians at the Battle of Sirmium. By 1168, nearly the whole of the eastern Adriatic coast lay in Manuel's hands.[71] Manuel made several alliances with the Pope and Western Christian kingdoms, and successfully handled the passage of the Second Crusade through his empire.[72]

In the east, however, Manuel suffered a major defeat at the Battle of Myriokephalon, in 1176, against the Turks. Yet the losses were quickly made good, and in the following year Manuel's forces inflicted a defeat upon a force of "picked Turks".[73] The Byzantine commander John Vatatzes, who destroyed the Turkish invaders at the Battle of Hyelion and Leimocheir, not only brought troops from the capital but also was able to gather an army along the way; a sign that the Byzantine army remained strong and that the defensive program of western Asia Minor was still successful.[74]

Twelfth century Renaissance

John and Manuel pursued active military policies, and both deployed considerable resources on sieges and on city defenses; aggressive fortification policies were at the heart of their imperial military policies.[75] Despite the defeat at Myriokephalon, the policies of Alexios, John and Manuel resulted in vast territorial gains, increased frontier stability in Asia Minor, and secured the stabilization of the empire's European frontiers. From c.1081 to c.1180, the Komnenian army assured the empire's security, enabling Byzantine civilization to flourish.[76]

This allowed the Western provinces to achieve an economic revival which continued until the close of the century. It has been argued that Byzantium under the Komnenian rule was more prosperous than at any time since the Persian invasions of the seventh century. During the twelfth century, population levels rose and extensive tracts of new agricultural land were brought into production. Archaeological evidence from both Europe and Asia Minor shows a considerable increase in the size of urban settlements, together with a notable upsurge in new towns. Trade was also flourishing; the Venetians, the Genoese and others opened up the ports of the Aegean to commerce, shipping goods from the Crusader kingdoms of Outremer and Fatimid Egypt to the west and trading with the Byzantine Empire via Constantinople.[77]

In artistic terms, there was a revival in mosaic, and regional schools of architecture began producing many distinctive styles that drew on a range of cultural influences.[78] During the twelfth century the Byzantines provided their model of early humanism as a renaissance of interest in classical authors. In Eustathius of Thessalonica Byzantine humanism found its most characteristic expression.[79]

Decline and disintegration

Dynasty of the Angeloi

Manuel's death on 24 September 1180 left his 11-year-old son Alexios II Komnenos on the throne. Alexios was highly incompetent at the office, but it was his mother, Maria of Antioch, and her Frankish background that made his regency unpopular.[80] Eventually, Andronikos I Komnenos, a grandson of Alexios I, launched a revolt against his younger relative and managed to overthrow him in a violent coup d'état. Utilizing his good looks and his immense popularity with the army, he marched on to Constantinople in August 1182, and incited a massacre of the Latins.[81] After eliminating his potential rivals, he had himself crowned as co-emperor in September 1183; he eliminated Alexios II and even took his 12-year-old wife Agnes of France for himself.[81]

Andronikos began his reign well; in particular, the measures he took to reform the government of the empire have been praised by historians. According to George Ostrogorsky, Andronikos was determined to root out corruption: Under his rule the sale of offices ceased; selection was based on merit, rather than favoritism; officials were paid an adequate salary so as to reduce the temptation of bribery. In the provinces Andronikos' reforms produced a speedy and marked improvement.[82] The aristocrats were infuriated against him, and to make matters worse, Andronikos seems to have become increasingly unbalanced; executions and violence became increasingly common, and his reign turned into a reign of terror.[83] Andronikos seemed almost to seek the extermination of the aristocracy as a whole. The struggle against the aristocracy turned into wholesale slaughter, while the emperor resorted to ever more ruthless measures to shore up his regime.[82]

Despite his military background, Andronikos failed to deal with Isaac Komnenos, Béla III who reincorporated Croatian territories into Hungary, and Stephen Nemanja of Serbia who declared his independence from Byzantium. Yet none of these troubles would compare to William II of Sicily's invasion force of 300 ships and 80,000 men, arriving in 1185.[84] Andronikos mobilized a small fleet of 100 ships to defend the capital but other than that he was indifferent to the populace. He was finally overthrown when Isaac Angelos, surviving an imperial assassination attempt, seized power with the aid of the people and had Andronikos killed.[85]

Iconium was won by the Third Crusade.

The reign of Isaac II, and, still more, that of his brother Alexios III, saw the collapse of what remained of the centralized machinery of Byzantine government and defense. Although, the Normans were driven out of Greece, in 1186 the Vlachs and Bulgars began a rebellion that was to lead to the formation of the Second Bulgarian Empire. The internal policy of the Angeloi was characterized by the squandering of the public treasure, and the fiscal maladministration. Byzantine authority was severely weakened, and the growing power vacuum at the center of the empire encouraged fragmentation. There is evidence that some Komnenian heirs had set up a semi-independent state in Trebizond before 1204.[86] According to Alexander Vasiliev, "the dynasty of the Angeloi, Greek in its origin, [...] accelerated the ruin of the Empire, already weakened without and disunited within."[87]

Fourth Crusade

The Entry of the Crusaders into Constantinople, by Eugène Delacroix (1840).

In 1198, Pope Innocent III broached the subject of a new crusade through legates and encyclical letters.[88] The stated intent of the crusade was to conquer Egypt, now the centre of Muslim power in the Levant. The crusader army that arrived at Venice in the summer of 1202 was somewhat smaller than had been anticipated, and there were not sufficient funds to pay the Venetians, whose fleet was hired by the crusaders to take them to Egypt. Venetian policy under the aging and blind but still ambitious Doge Enrico Dandolo was potentially at variance with that of the Pope and the crusaders, because Venice was closely related commercially with Egypt.[89] The crusaders accepted the suggestion that in lieu of payment they assist the Venetians in the capture of the (Christian) port of Zara in Dalmatia (vassal city of Venice, which had rebelled and placed itself under Hungary's protection in 1186).[90] The city fell in November 1202 after a brief siege.[91] Innocent, who was informed of the plan but his veto disregarded, was reluctant to jeopardize the Crusade, and gave conditional absolution to the crusaders—not, however, to the Venetians.[89]

After the death of Theobald III, Count of Champagne, the leadership of the Crusade passed to Boniface of Montferrat, a friend of the Hohenstaufen Philip of Swabia. Both Boniface and Philip had married into the Byzantine imperial family. In fact, Philip's brother-in-law, Alexios Angelos, son of the deposed and blinded emperor Isaac II Angelos, had appeared in Europe seeking aid and had made contacts with the crusaders. Alexios offered to reunite the Byzantine church with Rome, pay the crusaders 200,000 silver marks, and join the crusade with 200,000 silver marks and all the supplies they needed to get to Egypt.[92] Innocent was aware of a plan to divert the Crusade to Constantinople and forbade any attack on the city, but the papal letter arrived after the fleets had left Zara.

Map to show the partition of the empire following the Fourth Crusade, c. 1204.

The crusaders arrived at the city in the summer of 1203, Alexios III fled from the capital, and Alexios Angelos was elevated to the throne as Alexios IV along with his blind father Isaac. However, Alexios IV and Isaac II were unable to keep their promises and were deposed by Alexios V. Eventually, the crusaders took the city on 13 April 1204. Constantinople was subjected by the rank and file to pillage and massacre for three days. Many priceless icons, relics, and other objects later turned up in Western Europe, a large number in Venice. According to Choniates, a prostitute was even set up on the Patriarchal throne.[93] When Innocent III heard of the conduct of his crusaders, he castigated them in no uncertain terms. But the situation was beyond his control, especially after his legate, on his own initiative, had absolved the crusaders from their vow to proceed to the Holy Land.[51][89] When order had been restored, the crusaders and the Venetians proceeded to implement their agreement; Baldwin of Flanders was elected emperor and the Venetian Thomas Morosini chosen patriarch. The lands parcelled out among the leaders did not include all the former Byzantine possessions. The Byzantine rule continued in Nicaea, Trebizond, and Epirus.[89]

Fall

Empire in exile

After the sack of Constantinople in 1204 by Latin Crusaders, two Byzantine successor states were established: the Empire of Nicaea, and the Despotate of Epirus. A third one, the Empire of Trebizond was created a few weeks before the sack of Constantinople by Alexios I of Trebizond. Of these three successor states, Epirus and Nicaea stood the best chance of reclaiming Constantinople. The Nicaean Empire struggled, however, to survive the next few decades, and by the mid-thirteenth century it lost much of southern Anatolia.[94] The weakening of the Sultanate of Rûm following the Mongol Invasion in 1242–43 allowed many Beyliks and ghazis to set up their own principalities in Anatolia, weakening the Byzantine hold on Asia Minor.[95] In time, one of the Beys, Osman I, created an empire that would conquer Byzantium. However, the Mongol Invasion also gave Nicaea a temporary respite from Seljuk attacks allowing it to concentrate on the Latin Empire only north of its position.

Reconquest of Constantinople

The Byzantine Empire c. 1263

The Empire of Nicaea, founded by the Laskarid dynasty, managed to reclaim Constantinople from the Latins in 1261 and defeat Epirus. This led to a short-lived revival of Byzantine fortunes under Michael VIII Palaiologos, but the war-ravaged empire was ill-equipped to deal with the enemies that now surrounded it. In order to maintain his campaigns against the Latins, Michael pulled troops from Asia Minor, and levied crippling taxes on the peasantry, causing much resentment.[96] Massive construction projects were completed in Constantinople to repair the damages of the Fourth Crusade, but none of these initiatives was of any comfort to the farmers in Asia Minor, suffering raids from fanatical ghazis.

Rather than holding on to his possessions in Asia Minor, Michael chose to expand the Empire, gaining only short- term success. To avoid another sacking of the capital by the Latins, he forced the Church to submit to Rome, again a temporary solution for which the peasantry hated Michael and Constantinople.[97] The efforts of Andronikos II and later his grandson Andronikos III marked Byzantium's last genuine attempts in restoring the glory of the empire. However, the use of mercenaries by Andronikos II would often backfire, with the Catalan Company ravaging the countryside and increasing resentment towards Constantinople.[98]

Rise of the Ottomans and fall of Constantinople

The siege of Constantinople in 1453 according to a fifteenth century French miniature.

Things went worse for Byzantium during the civil wars that followed after Andronikos III died. A six-year long civil war devastated the empire, and an earthquake at Gallipoli in 1354 devastated the fort, allowing the Ottomans (who were hired as mercenaries during the civil war by John VI Kantakouzenos) to establish themselves in Europe.[99] By the time the Byzantine civil wars had ended, the Ottomans had defeated the Serbians and subjugated them as vassals. Following the Battle of Kosovo, much of the Balkans became dominated by the Ottomans.[100]

Eastern Mediterranean just before the fall of Constantinople.

The Emperors appealed to the west for help, but the Pope would only consider sending aid in return for a reunion of the Eastern Orthodox Church with the See of Rome. Church unity was considered, and occasionally accomplished by imperial decree, but the Orthodox citizenry and clergy intensely resented the authority of Rome and the Latin Rite.[101] Some western troops arrived to bolster the Christian defence of Constantinople, but most Western rulers, distracted by their own affairs, did nothing as the Ottomans picked apart the remaining Byzantine territories.[102]

Constantinople by this stage was underpopulated and dilapidated. The population of the city had collapsed so severely that it was now little more than a cluster of villages separated by fields. On 2 April 1453, Sultan Mehmed's army of some 80,000 men and large numbers of irregulars laid siege to the city.[103] Despite a desperate last-ditch defense of the city by the massively outnumbered Christian forces (c. 7,000 men, 2,000 of whom were foreign[102]), Constantinople finally fell to the Ottomans after a two-month siege on 29 May 1453. The last Byzantine emperor, Constantine XI Palaiologos, was last seen casting off his imperial regalia and throwing himself into hand-to-hand combat after the walls of the city were taken.[104]

Aftermath

Mehmed II went on to conquer the Greek statelets of Mistra in 1460 and Trebizond in 1461. The nephew of the last Emperor, Constantine XI, Andreas Palaeologos had inherited the defunct title of Byzantine Emperor and used it from 1465 until his death in 1503.[11] By the end of the fifteenth century, the Ottoman Empire had established its firm rule over Asia Minor and parts of the Balkan peninsula. Mehmed II and his successors continued to consider themselves proper heirs to the Byzantine Empire until the demise of the Ottoman Empire in the early twentieth century. Meanwhile, the Danubian Principalities harboured Orthodox refugees, including some Byzantine nobles.

At his death, the role of the emperor as a patron of Eastern Orthodoxy was claimed by Ivan III, Grand Duke of Muscovy. He had married Andreas' sister, Sophia Paleologue, whose grandson, Ivan IV, would become the first Tsar of Russia (tsar, or czar, meaning caesar, is a term traditionally applied by Slavs to the Byzantine Emperors). Their successors supported the idea that Moscow was the proper heir to Rome and Constantinople. The idea of the Russian Empire as the new, Third Rome was kept alive until its demise with the Russian Revolution of 1917.[105]

Culture

Economy

Window St Nicholas.jpg
Byzantine Culture
ArtArchitectureGardens
LiteratureMusic
Aristocracy &
Bureaucracy
Diplomacy
EconomyLaw
ArmyNavy
CalendarCoinageCuisine
DanceDress
MedicineScience

The Byzantine economy was among the most advanced in Europe and the Mediterranean for many centuries. Europe, in particular, was unable to match Byzantine economic strength until late in the Middle Ages. Constantinople was a prime hub in a trading network that at various times extended across nearly all of Eurasia and North Africa, in particular being the primary western terminus of the famous silk road. Some scholars argue that, up until the arrival of the Arabs in the seventh century, the Empire had the most powerful economy in the world. The Arab conquests, however, would represent a substantial reversal of fortunes contributing to a period of decline and stagnation. Constantine V's reforms (c. 765) marked the beginning of a revival that continued until 1204. From the tenth century until the end of the twelfth, the Byzantine Empire projected an image of luxury, and the travelers were impressed by the wealth accumulated in the capital. All this changed with the arrival of the Fourth Crusade, which was an economic catastrophe.[106] The Palaiologoi tried to revive the economy, but the late Byzantine state would not gain full control of either the foreign or domestic economic forces. Gradually, it also lost its influence on the modalities of trade and the price mechanisms, and its control over the outflow of precious metals and, according to some scholars, even over the minting of coins.[107]

One of the economic foundations of the empire was trade. Textiles must have been by far the most important item of export; silks were certainly imported into Egypt, and appeared also in Bulgaria, and the West.[108] The state strictly controlled both the internal and the international trade, and retained the monopoly of issuing coinage. The government exercised formal control over interest rates, and set the parameters for the activity of the guilds and corporations, in which it had a special interest. The emperor and his officials intervened at times of crisis to ensure the provisioning of the capital, and to keep down the price of cereals. Finally, the government often collected part of the surplus through taxation, and put it back into circulation, through redistribution in the form of salaries to state officials, or in the form of investment in public works.[109]

Science, medicine, law

The frontispiece of the Vienna Dioscurides, which shows a set of seven famous physicians.

The writings of Classical antiquity never ceased to be cultivated in Byzantium. Therefore, Byzantine science was in every period closely connected with ancient philosophy, and metaphysics.[110] Although at various times the Byzantines made magnificent achievements in the application of the sciences (notably in the construction of the Hagia Sophia), after the sixth century Byzantine scholars made few novel contributions to science in terms of developing new theories or extending the ideas of classical authors.[111] Scholarship particularly lagged during the dark years of plague and the Arab conquests, but then during the so-called Byzantine Renaissance at the end of the first millennium Byzantine scholars re-asserted themselves becoming experts in the scientific developments of the Arabs and Persians, particularly in astronomy and mathematics.[112]

In the final century of the Empire, Byzantine grammarians were those principally responsible for carrying, in person and in writing, ancient Greek grammatical and literary studies to early Renaissance Italy.[113] During this period, astronomy and other mathematical sciences were taught in Trebizond; medicine attracted the interest of almost all scholars.[114]

In the field of law, Justinian I's reforms had a clear effect on the evolution of jurisprudence, and Leo III's Ecloga influenced the formation of legal institutions in the Slav world.[115]

Religion

As a symbol and expression of the universal prestige of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, Justinian built the Church of the Holy Wisdom of God, Hagia Sophia, which was completed in the short period of four and a half years (532–537).

According to Joseph Raya, "Byzantine culture and Orthodoxy are one and the same."[116] The survival of the Empire in the East assured an active role of the Emperor in the affairs of the Church. The Byzantine state inherited from pagan times the administrative, and financial routine of administering religious affairs, and this routine was applied to the Christian Church. Following the pattern set by Eusebius of Caesarea, the Byzantines viewed the Emperor as a representative or messenger of Christ, responsible particularly for the propagation of Christianity among pagans, and for the "externals" of the religion, such as administration and finances. The imperial role, however, in the affairs of the Church never developed into a fixed, legally defined system.[117]

It is a popular misconception that Christianity was ever fully united or that even Christians in the Byzantine Empire were united throughout the Empire's history. The imperial Roman Church, what came to be known as the Eastern Orthodox Church, never represented all Christians in the Empire. Nestorianism, a view promoted the Nestorius, a fifth century Patriarch of Constantinople, split from the imperial Church leading to what is today the Assyrian Church of the East. In a greater schism during the sixth century the Oriental Orthodox churches split from the imperial Church over the declarations of the Council of Chalcedon. Aside from these communions, Arianism and other Christian sects existed in the early Empire, although by the time of Rome's fall in the fifth century Arianism was mostly confined to the Germanic peoples of Western Europe. By the Empire's late stages, though, Eastern Orthodoxy represented most Christians in what remained of the Empire. Jews were a significant minority in the Empire throughout its history. Despite periods of persecution, they were generally tolerated, if not always embraced, during most periods.

With the decline of Rome, and internal dissension in the other Eastern patriarchates, the church of Constantinople became, between the sixth and eleventh centuries, the richest and most influential center of Christendom.[118] Even when the Empire was reduced to only a shadow of its former self, the Church, as an institution, had never exercised so much influence both inside and outside of the imperial frontiers. As George Ostrogorsky points out:

The Patriarchate of Constantinople remained the center of the Orthodox world, with subordinate metropolitan sees and archbishoprics in the territory of Asia Minor and the Balkans, now lost to Byzantium, as well as in Caucasus, Russia and Lithuania. The Church remained the most stable element in the Byzantine Empire.[119]

Art and literature

Miniatures of the sixth century Rabula Gospel display the more abstract and symbolic nature of Byzantine art.

Byzantine art is almost entirely concerned with religious expression and, more specifically, with the impersonal translation of carefully controlled church theology into artistic terms. Byzantine forms were spread by trade and conquest to Italy and Sicily, where they persisted in modified form through the twelfth century, and became formative influences on Italian Renaissance art. By means of the expansion of the Eastern Orthodox church, Byzantine forms spread to eastern European centers, particularly Russia.[120] Influences from Byzantine architecture, particularly in religious buildings, can be found in diverse regions from Egypt and Arabia to Russia and Romania.

In Byzantine literature, therefore, four different cultural elements are to be reckoned with: the Greek, the Christian, the Roman, and the Oriental. Byzantine literature is often classified in five groups: historians and annalists, encyclopedists (Patriarch Photios, Michael Psellos, and Michael Choniates are regarded as the greatest encyclopedists of Byzantium) and essayists, and writers of secular poetry (The only genuine heroic epic of the Byzantines is the Digenis Acritas). The remaining two groups include the new literary species: ecclesiastical and theological literature, and popular poetry. Of the approximately two to three thousand volumes of Byzantine literature that survive, only three hundred and thirty consist of secular poetry, history, science and pseudo-science.[121] While the most flourishing period of the secular literature of Byzantium runs from the ninth to the twelfth century, its religious literature (sermons, liturgical books and poetry, theology, devotional treatises etc.) developed much earlier with Romanos the Melodist being its most prominent representative.[122]

Government and bureaucracy

The themes c. 650.
The themes c. 950.

In the Byzantine state, the emperor was the sole and absolute ruler, and his power was regarded as having divine origin.[11] By the end of the eighth century, a civil administration focused on the court was formed as part of a large-scale consolidation of power in the capital (the rise to pre-eminence of the position of sakellarios is related to this change).[123] The most important reform of this period is the creation of themes, where civil and military administration is exercised by one person, the strategos.[11]

Despite the occasionally derogatory use of the word "Byzantine", the Byzantine bureaucracy had a distinct ability for reinventing itself in accordance with the Empire's situation. The Byzantine system of titulature and precedence makes the imperial administration look like an ordered bureaucracy to modern observers. Officials were arranged in strict order around the emperor, and depended upon the imperial will for their ranks. There were also actual administrative jobs, but authority could be vested in individuals rather than offices.[124] In the eighth and ninth centuries, civil service constituted the clearest path to aristocratic status, but, starting in the ninth century, the civil aristocracy was rivaled by an aristocracy of nobility. According to some studies of Byzantine government, eleventh century politics were dominated by competition between the civil and the military aristocracy. During this period, Alexios I undertook important administrative reforms, including the creation of new courtly dignities and offices.[125]

Diplomacy

After the fall of Rome, the key challenge to the Empire was to maintain a set of relations between itself and its neighbors. When these nations set about forging formal political institutions, they often modeled themselves on Constantinople. Byzantine diplomacy soon managed to draw its neighbors into a network of international and inter-state relations.[126] This network revolved around treaty making, and included the welcoming of the new ruler into the family of kings, and the assimilation of Byzantine social attitudes, values and institutions.[127] Whereas classical writers are fond of making ethical and legal distinctions between peace and war, Byzantines regarded diplomacy as a form of war by other means.[128] For example, a Bulgar threat could be countered by providing money to the Kievian Rus.[128] The Bureau of Barbarians was the first foreign intelligence agency, gathering information on the empire's rivals from every imaginable source.[128]

Byzantines availed themselves of a number of diplomatic practices. For example, embassies to the capital would often stay on for years. A member of other royal houses would routinely be requested to stay on in Constantinople, not only as a potential hostage, but also as a useful pawn in case political conditions where he came from changed. Another key practice was to overwhelm visitors by sumptuous displays.[126] According to Dimitri Obolensky, the preservation of civilization in Eastern Europe was due to the skill and resourcefulness of Byzantine diplomacy, which remains one of Byzantium's lasting contributions to the history of Europe.[129]

Language

The Mudil Psalter, the oldest complete psalter in the Coptic language (Coptic Museum, Egypt, Coptic Cairo).

The original language of the government of the Empire, which owed its origins to Rome, had been Latin and this continued to be its official language until the seventh century AD when it was effectively changed to Greek by Heraclius. Scholarly Latin would rapidly fall into disuse among the educated classes although the language would continue to be at least a ceremonial part of the Empire's culture for some time.[130] Additionally, Vulgar Latin continued to be a minority language in the Empire, and among the Thraco-Roman populations it gave birth to the (Proto-)Romanian language.[131] Likewise, on the coast of the Adriatic Sea, another neo-Latin vernacular developed, which would later give rise to the Dalmatian language. In the Western Mediterranean provinces temporarily acquired under the reign of Justinian I, Latin continued to be used both as a spoken language and the language of scholarship.

Apart from the Imperial court, administration and military, the primary language used in the eastern Roman provinces even before the decline of the Western Empire had always been Greek, having been spoken in the region for centuries before Latin.[132] Indeed early on in the life of the Roman Empire, Greek had become the common language in the Christian Church, the language of scholarship and the arts, and, to a large degree, the lingua franca for trade between provinces and with other nations.[133] The language itself for a time gained a dual nature with the primary spoken language, Koine, existing alongside an older literary language with Koine eventually evolving into the standard dialect.[134]

Many other languages existed in the multi-ethnic Empire as well, and some of these were given limited official status in their provinces at various times. Notably, by the beginning of the Middle Ages, Syriac and Aramaic had become more widely used by the educated classes in the far eastern provinces.[135] Similarly Coptic, Armenian, and Georgian became significant among the educated in their provinces,[136] and later foreign contacts made the Slavonic, Vlach, and Arabic languages important in the Empire and its sphere of influence.[137]

Aside from these, since Constantinople was a prime trading center in the Mediterranean region and beyond, virtually every known language of the Middle Ages was spoken in the Empire at some time, even Chinese.[138] As the Empire entered its final decline the Empire's citizens became more culturally homogeneous and the Greek language became integral to their identity and their religion.[139]

Legacy

King David in robes of a Byzantine Emperor. Miniature from the Paris Psalter.

As the only stable long-term state in Europe during the Middle Ages, Byzantium isolated Western Europe from newly emerging forces to the East. Constantly under attack, it distanced Western Europe from Persians, Arabs, Seljuk Turks, and for a time, the Ottomans. The Byzantine-Arab Wars, for example, are recognized by some historians as being a key factor behind the rise of Charlemagne,[140] and a huge stimulus to feudalism and economic self-sufficiency.

For centuries, western historians used the terms Byzantine and Byzantinism as bywords for decadence, duplicitous politics and complex bureaucracy, and there was a strongly negative assessment of Byzantine civilization and its legacy in Southeastern Europe.[141] Byzantinism in general was defined as a body of religious, political, and philosophical ideas which ran contrary to those of the West.[142] The twentieth and twenty-first centuries, however, have seen attempts by historians in the West to understand the Empire in a more balanced and accurate fashion including its influences on the West, and as a result the complex character of Byzantine culture has received more attention and a more objective treatment than previously.[142]

See also

Lists:

Annotations

  1. ^ The first instance of the designation "New Rome" in an official document is found in the canons of the First Council of Constantinople (381), where it is used to justify the claim that the patriarchal seat of Constantinople is second only to that of Rome.[2]
  2. ^ Romania (or Rhōmanía) was a popular name of the empire[4] used unofficially, meaning "land of the Romans". It does not refer to modern Romania.
  3. ^ "Imperium Graecorum", "Graecia", "Yunastan", etc, other western names used were "the empire of Constantinople" (imperium Constantinopolitanum) and "the empire of Romania" (imperium Romaniae)

Notes

  1. ^ a b Kazhdan 1991, p. 344.
  2. ^ Benz 1963, p. 176.
  3. ^ Fox, What, If Anything, Is a Byzantine?.
  4. ^ Fossier & Sondheimer 1997, p. 104.
  5. ^ Nation and Liberty: the Byzantine Example
  6. ^ Cinnamus 1976, p. 240.
  7. ^ Ahrweiler & Laiou 1998, p. 3; Mango 2002, p. 13.
  8. ^ Gabriel 2002, p. 277.
  9. ^ Ahrweiler & Laiou 1998, p. vii; Davies 1996, p. 245; Moravcsik 1970, pp. 11–12; Lapidge, Blair & Keynes 1998, p. 79; Winnifrith & Murray 1983, p. 113; Gross 1999, p. 45; Hidryma Meletōn Chersonēsou tou Haimou 1973, p. 331.
  10. ^ Franks, Romans, Feudalism and Doctrine.
  11. ^ a b c d "Hellas, Byzantium". Encyclopaedia The Helios. .
  12. ^ Tarasov 2004, p. 121.
  13. ^ El-Cheikh 2004, p. 22.
  14. ^ a b Bury 1923, p. 1.
  15. ^ Gibbon (1906), Part II Chapter 14: 200.
  16. ^ Eusebius, IV, lxii.
  17. ^ Gibbon 1906, III, 168 PDF (2.35 MB).
  18. ^ a b Esler 2004, p. 1081.
  19. ^ Bury 1923, p. 63.
  20. ^ a b c d e f g "Byzantine Empire". Encyclopædia Britannica. .
  21. ^ Nathan, Theodosius II (408–450 AD)
  22. ^ Treadgold 1995, p. 193.
  23. ^ Alemany 2000, p. 207; Treadgold 1997, p. 184.
  24. ^ Grierson 1999, p. 17.
  25. ^ "Byzantine Empire". Encyclopædia Britannica. ; Evans, Justinian (AD 527–565).
  26. ^ a b c Evans, Justinian (AD 527–565)
  27. ^ Bury 1923, 180–216.
  28. ^ Bury 1923, 236–258
  29. ^ Bury 1923, 259–281
  30. ^ Bury 1923, 286–288
  31. ^ Vasiliev, The Legislative Work of Justinian and Tribonian.
  32. ^ Bray 2004, pp. 19–47; Haldon 1990, pp. 110–111; Treadgold 1997, pp. 196–197.
  33. ^ Foss 1975, p. 722.
  34. ^ Haldon 1990, p. 41; Speck 1984, p. 178.
  35. ^ Haldon 1990, pp. 42–43.
  36. ^ Grabar 1984, p. 37; Cameron 1979, p. 23.
  37. ^ Cameron 1979, pp. 5–6, 20–22.
  38. ^ Haldon 1990, p. 46; Baynes 1912, passim; Speck 1984, p. 178.
  39. ^ Foss 1975, pp. 746–47.
  40. ^ Haldon 1990, p. 50.
  41. ^ Haldon 1990, pp. 61–62.
  42. ^ Haldon 1990, pp. 102–114.
  43. ^ Haldon 1990, pp. 208–215; Kaegi 2003, pp. 236, 283.
  44. ^ Haldon 1990, pp. 43–45, 66, 114–115.
  45. ^ Haldon 1990, pp. 66–67.
  46. ^ Haldon 1990, p. 71.
  47. ^ Haldon 1990, pp. 70–78, 169–171; Haldon 2004, pp. 216–217; Kountoura-Galake 1996, pp. 62–75.
  48. ^ "Byzantine Empire". Encyclopædia Britannica. ; "Hellas, Byzantium". Encyclopaedia The Helios. 
  49. ^ Garland 1999, p. 89.
  50. ^ Parry 1996, pp. 11–15.
  51. ^ a b c d e f Norwich 1998.
  52. ^ Angold 1997.
  53. ^ Treadgold 1997, pp. 548–549.
  54. ^ a b Markham, The Battle of Manzikert.
  55. ^ Vasiliev, Relations with Italy and Western Europe.
  56. ^ "Byzantine Empire". Encyclopædia Britannica. 2002. ; Markham, The Battle of Manzikert.
  57. ^ Magdalino 2002, p. 124.
  58. ^ Birkenmeier 2002.
  59. ^ Harris 2003; Read 2000, p. 124; Watson 1993, p. 12.
  60. ^ Komnene 1928, X, 261.
  61. ^ Anna Komnene, XI, 291
  62. ^ Anna Komnene, XIII, 348–358; Birkenmeier 2002, p. 46.
  63. ^ Norwich 1998, p. 267.
  64. ^ Ostrogorsky 1969, p. 377.
  65. ^ Birkenmeier 2002, p. 90.
  66. ^ Stone, John II Komnenos
  67. ^ "John II Komnenos". Encyclopædia Britannica. 
  68. ^ Harris 2003, p. 84.
  69. ^ Brooke 2008, p. 326.
  70. ^ Magdalino 2002, p. 74; Stone, Manuel I Comnenus.
  71. ^ Sedlar 1994, p. 372.
  72. ^ Magdalino 2002, p. 67.
  73. ^ Birkenmeier 2002, p. 128.
  74. ^ Birkenmeier 2002, p. 196.
  75. ^ Birkenmeier 2002, pp. 185–186.
  76. ^ Birkenmeier 2002, p. 1.
  77. ^ Day 1977, pp. 289–290; Harvey 2003.
  78. ^ Diehl, Byzantine Art
  79. ^ Tatakes & Moutafakis 2003, p. 110.
  80. ^ Norwich 1998, p. 291.
  81. ^ a b Norwich 1998, p. 292.
  82. ^ a b Ostrogorsky 1969, p. 397.
  83. ^ Harris 2003, p. 118.
  84. ^ Norwich 1998, p. 293.
  85. ^ Norwich 1998, pp. 294–295.
  86. ^ Angold 1997; Paparrigopoulos & Karolidis 1925, p. 216.
  87. ^ Vasiliev, Foreign Policy of the Angeloi.
  88. ^ Norwich 1998, p. 299.
  89. ^ a b c d "The Fourth Crusade and the Latin Empire of Constantinople". Encyclopædia Britannica. 
  90. ^ Britannica Concise, 9383275/Siege-of-Zara Siege of Zara.
  91. ^ Geoffrey of Villehardouin 1963, p. 46.
  92. ^ Norwich 1998, p. 301.
  93. ^ Choniates, The Sack of Constantinople.
  94. ^ Kean 2006; Madden 2005, p. 162; Lowe-Baker, The Seljuks of Rum.
  95. ^ Lowe-Baker, The Seljuks of Rum.
  96. ^ Madden 2005, p. 179; Reinert 2002, p. 260.
  97. ^ Reinert 2002, p. 257.
  98. ^ Reinert 2002, p. 261.
  99. ^ Reinert 2002, p. 268.
  100. ^ Reinert 2002, p. 270.
  101. ^ Runciman 1990, pp. 71–72.
  102. ^ a b Runciman 1990, pp. 84–85.
  103. ^ Runciman 1990, pp. 84–86.
  104. ^ Hindley 2004, p. 300.
  105. ^ Seton-Watson 1967, p. 31.
  106. ^ Magdalino 2002, p. 532, [1].
  107. ^ Matschke 2002, pp. 805–806, [2].
  108. ^ Laiou 2002, p. 723, [3].
  109. ^ Laiou 2002, pp. 3–4, [4].
  110. ^ Anastos 1962, p. 409.
  111. ^ Cohen 1994, p. 395; Dickson, Mathematics Through the Middle Ages.
  112. ^ King 1991, pp. 116–118.
  113. ^ Robins 1993, p. 8.
  114. ^ Tatakes & Moutafakis 2003, p. 189.
  115. ^ Troianos & Velissaropoulou-Karakosta 1997, p. 340.
  116. ^ Raya, The Byzantine Church and Culture.
  117. ^ Meyendorff 1982, p. 13.
  118. ^ Meyendorff 1982, p. 19.
  119. ^ Meyendorff 1982, p. 130.
  120. ^ "Byzantine Art". Encyclopædia Britannica. 
  121. ^ Mango 2005, pp. 233–234.
  122. ^ "Byzantine Literature". Catholic Encyclopedia. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03113a.htm. 
  123. ^ Louth 2005, p. 291; Neville 2004, p. 7.
  124. ^ Neville 2004, p. 34.
  125. ^ Neville 2004, p. 13.
  126. ^ a b Neumann 2006, pp. 869–871.
  127. ^ Chrysos 1992, p. 35.
  128. ^ a b c Antonucci 1993, pp. 11–13.
  129. ^ Obolensky 1994, p. 3.
  130. ^ Apostolides 1992, pp. 25–26; Wroth 1908, Introduction, section 6
  131. ^ Sedlar 1994, pp. 403–440.
  132. ^ Millar 2006, p. 279
  133. ^ Bryce 1901, p. 59; McDonnell 2006, p. 77; Millar 2006, pp. 97–98.
  134. ^ Greek Language, Encyclopædia Britannica
  135. ^ Beaton 1996, p. 10; Jones 1986, p. 991; Versteegh 1977, Chapter 1.
  136. ^ Campbell 2000, p. 40; Hacikyan et al. 2002, Part 1.
  137. ^ Baynes 1907, p. 289; Gutas 1998, Chapter 7, Section 4; Shopen 1987, p. 129.
  138. ^ Beckwith 1986, p. 171; Halsall 2006.
  139. ^ Kaldellis 2008, Chapter 6; Nicol 1993, Chapter 5.
  140. ^ Pirenne, Henri
    • Mediaeval Cities: Their Origins and the Rivival of Trade (Princeton, New Jersey, 1925). ISBN 0691007608
    • See also Mohammed and Charlemagne (London 1939) Dover Publications (2001). ISBN 0-486-42011-6.
  141. ^ Angelov 2001, p. 1.
  142. ^ a b Angelov 2001, pp. 7–8.

References

Primary sources

Secondary sources

Further reading

  • Ahrweiler, Helene (2000). Les Europeens. Paris: Herman. 
  • Haldon, John (2001). The Byzantine Wars: Battles and Campaigns of the Byzantine Era. Stroud: Tempus Publishing. ISBN 0752417959. 
  • Hussey, J. M. (1966). The Cambridge Medieval History, Volume IV — The Byzantine Empire Part I, Byzantium and its Neighbors. Cambridge University Press. 
  • Runciman, Steven (1966). Byzantine Civilisation. Edward Arnold (Publishers). ISBN 1566195748. 
  • Runciman, Steven (1990). The Emperor Romanus Lecapenus and his Reign. University Press (Cambridge). 
  • Toynbee, Arnold J. (1972). Constantine Porphyrogenitus and His World. Oxford University Press. ISBN 019215253X. 

External links

Byzantine studies, resources and bibliography

Miscellaneous


Advertisements






Got something to say? Make a comment.
Your name
Your email address
Message