Judith Herrin. The Formation of Christendom. Princeton Univ Press. 1987
[from pg. 183]
Byzantium Confronted
by Islam
The Failure of Ecclesiastical Reconciliation
WHILE GREGORY the Great was laying the basis for a united Latin faith,
conscious of its own western identity and directed to its specific needs, Justinian's
successors in the East struggled to unite opposing factions within
the churches. The heritage of the Fifth Council and behind it the fourth,
at Chalcedon, cast a long shadow over the seventh century in all parts of
Christendom. Long after 553, the Nestorian (East Syrian), Monophysite
(West Syrian) and Istrian churches remained out of communion with both
Constantinopie and Rome. Debates were held, meetings arranged, and
tracts published, often at imperial or patriarchal initiative, with a view to
reconciling one or another dissident group, but none was crowned with notable
success. A fixed pattern inauspiciously similar to that of the late fifth
century seemed to condemn such efforts. When Zeno and Anastasios had
devised formulae to reunite obdurate opponents of Chalcedon, they had
achieved nothing but schism with Rome and had provoked eastern clerics
to take their appeals to the see of St. Peter, a dangerous precedent. This
procedure, however, was to be much used during the seventh century,
when individuals or whole sectors of the eastern churches who received an
unsympathetic hearing in Constantinople found it expedient ro seek support in the
West.
Christendom remained disunited, with non-observant and non-orthodox groups looking
more like a permanent feature than a temporary aberrance. The authorities in
Constantinople might choose to ignore rather
accept an entire hierarchy of Severan Syria, Mesopotamia, and parts
of Egypt. In its key period of creative theology (the early sixrh century), this
church had established an unshakeable hold on these areas, which effectively removed
them beyond the control of any other patriarch. Imperial
attempts to impose its own orthodox (i.e. Duophysite) leaders generally
foundered, partly no doubt because Antioch resisted the ecclesiastical pressure of
Constantinople, but also because the theological differences were
passionately held and vigorously defended. Anastasios of Antioch, Pope
Gregory's friend, tried actively to overcome these obstacles, promoting the
theory thar there was only one energy in the Word (Monoenergism). He
believed that on this basis some factions could be reconciled. But the position was
acceptable only to a few, as later Monotheletes (believers in one
will) were to find. A series of debates and exchanges between Neo-Chalcedonians and
leaders of various Monophysite sects, primarily the tritheites
(who held that there were three Gods within the Trinity) achieved little.
Loyalty to particular wordings and local clerics produced bitter hostility.
Not even greatly respected leaders like John the Faster or Domitian of Melitene could
make headway. Doctrinal divisions were apparently too ingrown for changes to be more
than a temporary accommodation. One
hundred and fifty years of opposition to the formulations of Chalcedon
could not be obliterated.
In addition, the central government faced problems of a different order,
which may be illustrated by a story recorded both by the Monophysite
chronicler, John of Ephesos, and by the Chalcedonian layman, Evagrios.
After the defeat of a revolt of Baalbek in ca. 579, certain "heathens" revealed under
torture the names of high-ranking of ficials involved in pagan
cults, including Anatolios, the governor of Edessa. As the governmental
party arrived to arrest him, the feast of Zeus was being celebrated in a private house.
When identified, one participant committed suicide on the
spot, but Anatolios himself fled to the local bishop, "to consult him on a
point of Scripture. " This ruse was uncovered, and he was arresred and taken
back to Antioch for questioning. Both the governor and his secretary there
implicated Gregory, patriarch of Antioch, and Eulogios, representative of
the patriarch of Alexandria, in human sacrifice. The deed had been held
responsible for an earthquake at Daphne, outside Anrioch, and popular disquiet about
the matter had allegedly prevented Gregory from celebrating
the liturgy during Holy Week.
Following these revelations, the whole matter was transferred to Constantinople.
Evagrios here presents an entirely different chronology, placing Gregory's visit to the
capital later and for reasons unconnected with
Anatolios. John, however, persists in the intimate association of the two
men and details the patriarch's method of perverting the course of justice.
He describes how Gregory arrived laden with gifts of gold, silver, costly
outfits, and other presents, which were distributed lavishly to the emperor
(now Maurice), leading men of the court, and people of influence. The
whole aristocracy was thus bought off and the patriarch returned to Antioch, not only
exonerated, but also in possession of funds for rhe construction of a hippodrome for
public entertainmenr there! Building a ''church of
Satan" was John of Ephesos's comment. Wherher Gregory had been correctly branded
as a pagan or not, his ability to sway the course of justice in
the capital indicates considerable independence. Anatolios had nothing
like the same power and was condemned to a most horrible death after his
trial. He was accused not only of celebrating the outlawed cults of the ancient gods, but
also of commissioning a portrait of Christ that actually represented Apollo. In this way
he would have maintained his devotion to the
old gods while appearing to venerate a Christian icon.
With such unreliable representatives of imperial authority in charge of
major centres like Antioch and Edessa, it is hardly surprising that Constantinople made
little headway in winning over regions with a long history of separatist tendencies.
Faced with such opposition, the central government began to make conformity to a
stricter canon of belief and
behaviour one of its prime demands. By the end of the seventh century,
Justinian II would have developed the means of obtaining at least a nominal conformity
from both civilian and ecclesiastical officials. But the
suppression of dissent and the generation of broader theological agreement
remained constant problems.
TERRITORIAL LOSSES
The traditional theory of a universal church protected by an empire that
also embraced the entire known world became increasingly unconvincing
towards the end of the sixth century. In the secular sphere, particularly, the
hollowness of New Rome's claims was underlined by the imperial government's failure
to check non-Roman advances and conquests of border regions. The reorganised
exarchate of Ravenna also failed to prevent the establishment of Lombard duchies in
central Italy and the southward advance
of those forces permanently settled in the Po valley, while in the Balkans,
repeated Avar and Slav devastation was followed by occupation. Against
these Sklaviniai, documented from the last two decades of the century, reinforcements
sent out from the capital were initially successful, but as a
never-ending stream of settlers crossed the Danube in search of fertile territory,
Byzantine forces began to falter. Military pressure was exacerbated
by financial problems, which made it necessary for Maurice to reduce military pay. In
his earlier and highly successful campaign against the Persians, the emperor had had
to face mutinies among the troops, provoked
by similar difficulties. His generals had been rejected, a rival emperor was
even proclaimed at one stage, but in the end (and in part due to the persuasion of
Gregory of Antioch, no less) the campaign was brought to a brilliant conclusion. In the
spring of 591, an "everlasting" peace between Byzantium and Persia was signed, and
Chosroes II assumed the Sasanian
throne as a grateful ally of the emperor.
A similar solution to the Balkan troubles was not possible. Not only
were the Avar-Slav invaders difficult to negotiate with, being loosely organised under
individual leaders, but in addition their very disparate nature meant constant
unpredictability and contradictory military thrusts.
Byzantine inability to adapt to this disorganised threat was symbolic of a
more general military and political weakness, which manifested itself in
dissatisfaction among the fighting forces. For a decade, from about 592 on,
as successful raids across the Danube were balanced or cancelled out by unexpected
Slavonic inroads, this frustration accumulated. Then in the autumn of 602, faced with
the prospect of another futile winter campaign
north of the Danube without bread rations and regular pay, certain army
detachments raised their commander, Phokas, on a shield. By this well-
established custom they thereby declared their lack of confidence in Emperor Maurice
and demanded a more effective leader. Phokas assumed the
title of exarch and began a triumphant march on the capital. News of the
coup provoked a popular uprising in Constantinople, where the circus factions of Blues
and Greens appear to have galvanised every element of opposition. Although they took
their names from the colours worn by the
teams that originally organised chariot racing in circuses and hippodromes
throughout the Roman world, by the early seventh century the two factions of
Constantinople had additional ceremonial and military duties.
They attended the emperor on certain pulic occasions and could be deployed as a
fighting force when necessary. In 602 Maurice entrusted them
with the defence of the city walls, but they betrayed him. The emperor
also sent his eldest son, Theodosios, to the Persians to request immediate
assistance and prepared for flight. But he and his family were caught and
returned to Constantinople, where Phokas had been welcomed as emperor.
It may have been a scuffle between Blue and Green partisans at a special
ceremony, which he clearly misunderstood, that provoked the new ruler's
determination to have Maurice and the imperial princes murdered. Constantina and the
daughters were confined to a nunnery, and the half-barbarian army officer, Phokas,
became undisputed emperor of the East.
The Reign of Phokas (602-610)
His brief reign symbolises the disintegration afflicting Byzantium in the
early seventh century. While his elevation followed a traditional military
path to the throne, Phokas was a singularly inept choice, devoid of strategic or
administrative capacities. Notable failures in both civilian government and military
activity quickly reduced the confidence of even his most
enthusiastic supporters, chiefly his fellow soldiers and members of the
Green faction. And almost from his accession, partisans of the late emperor
plotted with Constantina, utilising Chosroes's support and the threat of a
Persian invasion. Popular riots in 603 and 605, a revolt in Edessa, and an
alliance between Narses, the rebel commander, and the Persians, bear witness to the
immediate antagonism to Phokas. But the new ruler commanded enough loyalty to
uncover and repress these plots. Constantina
herself, tortured to name accomplices, was finally put to death together
with her three daughters and many senators, thus completing Phokas's
slaughter of the family. Numerous military officers had similarly been
mutilated, killed, or forced into ecclesiastical positions. Phokas employed
his brother, son-in-law, and few remaining supporters in unsuccessful campaigns
against the Persians, and tried to buy off the Avars with increased
tribute. But he failed to secure a greater measure of security for Thessalonike, and
after 604 many Slavs were able to settle unopposed in its environs.
Only in the West did Phokas maintain successful relations with both
Byzantine administrators and foreign allies. And this was achieved largely
by concession. To the exarchate of Ravenna he appointed Smaragdus, who
had previously been removed for insanity. In the 580s this exarch had
mounted a punitive raid against the Istrian schismatics, which captured
the leading ecclesiastics under Severus of Grado, and forced them to accept
the imperial position. The return of such an of ficial can hardly have augured well for
the region, but it was accompanied by policies designed to
placate. Lombard aggression, provoked by rhe kidnapping of King Agilulf's daughter,
was assuaged by her return (603), and Roman hostility to
eastern patriarchal claims to the title "oecumenical" lessened by a confirmation of papal
primacy (607). During Phokas's reign the most isolated
Byzantine garrison at Cremona was withdrawn, and a series of truces left
Agilulf free to consolidate his northern kingdom. Smaragdus commemorated the
emperor by erecting his statue on a column in the Forum, but
none of his policies in the West would appear to justify such an honour.
The emperor's authority in Rome was, however, acknowledged by Pope
Boniface IV (608-615), who requested imperial permission to convert the
Pantheon into a Christian church dedicated to the Virgin and all martyrs.
This marks the beginning of an important process of creating more Christian
monuments in the predominantly pagan centre of Rome. But there is
no evidence that Phokas took the initiative in it. During his reign neither
the Istrian schism, nor the row over ecclesiastical ritles, nor the Lombard
threat was solved; rather, they all persisted and continued to dominate Byzantine
problems in the West.
The Senatorial Coup Against Phokas
After six years of terror, undirected government, unchecked Persian and
Slav raiding, manipulation of the church, and continuing economic decline, the Senate
of Constantinople took steps to remove the emperor. A
secret letter was sent to Herakleios, exarch of Carthage, asking for his direct
intervention. The invitation went in the name of Priskos, count of the
exkoubitors, who had married the emperor's daughter (thus becoming the
most likely successor) but now turned against him. By this appeal to an
elderly Armenian general, associated with the Emperor Maurice and with
a period of successful anti-Persian campaigning in the East, the metropolitan
aristocracy expressed its unprecedented dissatisfaction. No other military commander
could assist in this coup, for Theodoros, eparch of Cappadocia and the East, the
generals Narses, Germanos, and Philippikos, and
many other leaders had already been killed or removed by the emperor,
whose appointees governed Ravenna and the major eastern provinces. It
was therefore a last and slim chance, which indicates the desperation in
Constantinople. Senators were prepared to run the risk of treasonable activ-
ity and certain death if discovered.
The man to whom they appealed may have been appointed to the exarchate of Africa
by Maurice, possibly after the death of Gennadios, exarch
until ca. 598-99. (The fact that Herakleios was not apparently known to
Pope Gregory the Great, who corresponded with Gennadios and the prefect
Innocent, does not provide a decisive date.) Together with his brother
Gregory, Herakleios directed the joint civil and military administration of
the prosperous province. The export of natural foodstuffs (grain and oil)
as well as manufactured objects (pottery) testify to Africa's continuing role
in the traditional sea-borne Mediterranean economy. It was certainly by
withholding the annual grain fleet in 60 that Herakleios registered his
agreement with the senatorial plot. At that time his wife and future
daughter-in-law were in fact in Constanrinple, perhaps in touch with his
allies. Instead of participating in the plan himself, however, the exarch appointed his
son, also called Herakleios, consul, thus designating him as
leader of the Senate, a position traditionally held by a consul. In this way
the younger Herakleios became a rival to Phokas with the highest title in
the imperial hierarchy after that of ruler. In Carthage coins were struck
with portraits of the two, father and son, exarch and consul. Whether or
not this constitutional move was actually suggested by those in the capital,
it established the young Herakleios's claim and gave him a formal position,
from which he could be elevated to the throne. The 610 coup was thus
quite different from Phokas's; it was achieved primarily by the Senate with
military cooperation, not by a forceful revolt of dissatisfied soldiers.
The exarch appreciated the problems involved in mounting a coup from
such a distance and planned the approach to Constantinople carefully. First
his nephew Niketas (son of Gregory) was sent with the land forces of the
exarchate to occupy Tripoli and the Pentapolis (modern Libya) and then
Egypt. Only when Alexandria had been taken after fierce fighting with
Phokas's general Bonosos, and the Egyptian fleet brought under control
(November 609), was it possible for Herakleios the consul to embark for
the capital. He commanded the fleets of Mauretania and Africa manned
by Maroi, local Berbers, and protected by the Virgin, whose icon was displayed on their
mastheads. Constantinople had not only been deprived of
grain from Africa and Egypt after 609, but the winter of 608-609 had been
unusually harsh, causing bad harvests, famine, and even freezing the sea.
Phokas's murders and high-handed treatment of ecclesiastics compounded
with shortages of bread and food made the capital rebellious. Few stood by
the emperor as Herakleios's fleet approached. At Abydos, the southern-
most point of the Propontis, the consul was welcomed by customs officials
and informally crowned by the metropolitan of Kyzikos before sailing on
to the city. There Phokas was found defenceless and alone in one of the palace
churches by two senators, who arrested him. A legendary conversation
between the two emperors on board ship may preserve some echo of a personal
confrontation, in which the consul accused Phokas of gross mismanagement, and the
latter replied, "You do better!" But Herakleios met no
organised opposition and was soon raised from the position of consul to emperor,
crowned by Patriarch Sergios and acclaimed by the Senate, factions,
and people in St. Sophia. After this traditional Byzantine accession, he was
also reunited with Fabia/Eudokia, his fiancee, who was crowned empress
immediately after their marriage. One treasury official was killed with
Phokas and burned in the bronze ox at the Forum Tauri, traditionally used
for the cremation of tyrants and criminals. Phokas's brother, Domentziolos, and
General Bonosos also died, while s'ymbols of the Blues and the exarch of the city were
burned in the Hippodrome with a portrait or statue
(eikon) of the deceased emperor. Phokas had adopted the habit of having his
image paraded in the Hippodrome for people to make their obeisance.
Problems Facing Herakleios
The coup was thus completely successful. But from the provinces, opposition flared up.
A general identified as another brother of Phokas marched
his loyal troops towards Constantinople and was only checked by an Armenian
assassin. In ItalyJohn Lemigios replaced Smaragdus as exarch but
was unable to prevent a revolt against new taxes. Herakleios's new exarch,
Eleutherios, was initially more successful. Only a few years later, however,
the same official rebelled (619) and was in turn killed by the Roman militia. While the
African exarchate, now governed by the new emperor's uncle, Gregory, remained calm
and proud of their own consul's success, Ravenna displayed a tendency to
independence, which increased throughout
the seventh century. In conflicts with both Constantinople and with Rome,
its metropolitans and local nobility attempted to win more autonomy.
The same hostility to Byzantine control was manifested by certain sectors
of the eastern population, who welcomed the Persians into their cities.
Economic pressures and differences of belief may account for some of this
opposition. But in addition, traditional imperial administration, civil,
military, and ecclesiastical, was clearly failing to sustain the loyalties of
many groups and sects. Naturally, external enemies determined to take advantage of
the situation.
Coming from Carthage and with a tradition of military leadership in his
Armenian family, Herakleios represented the provincial aristocracy rather
than the senatorial leaders of the capital, who had promoted him. He appears to have
accepted a greater degree of guidance from the Senate than
was usual, as well as its participation in government, perhaps in order to
share responsibility for the weakened state of which he now had charge.
The contrast between Africa and the East must have been striking. In Constantinople
there was hunger, inadequate funds to finance the court and
administration, and a lack of regular troops. On 20 April 611, a great
earthquake shook the city, a terrifying event that had to be mitigated by
special litanies and prayers. In Asia Minor the Persians were capturing
major cities like Caesarea while the Avars devastated Europe. Herakleios,
then about 35 years old, had no previous experience of central government;
his chief allies were his cousin, Niketas, who arrived from Egypt after the
coronation, and his brother Theodore, both young men from Africa like
himself. Hardly a single competent general was available to assist him, so
he probably needed senatorial advice and help. At this time the Constantinopolitan
Senate probably included representatives of the provincial aristocracy who sought
refuge in the capital from rural disorders. Priskos;
who had issued the original suggestion to Herakleios, might have been a
most useful ally. But the emperor distrusted his designs on the throne and
sent him off to recapture Caesarea. Patriarch Sergios, on the other hand,
put his authority behind Herakleios, and it was to prove very important.
One of the emperor's first legal acts concerned the clergy attached to the
Great Church (of St. Sophia, Holy Wisdom); their numbers and ranks were
clearly established.
The Alliance Between Church and State
The scale of problems facing the new emperor may perhaps be gauged by
the fact that during the first decade of his reign he contemplated moving
his capital to Carthage, a plan vigorously opposed by the metropolitan
population and the patriarch. Sergios's argument against leaving Constantinople may
have been supported by the promise of ecclesiastical assistance for the depleted
financial resources of the empire. Although no
agreement is recorded officially, every known action of the patriarch appears to confirm
this decision to help Herakleios in his daunting tasks.
The alliance appears to have been based on a close friendship, which was
tested by a disaster in the emperor's family. In August 612 Empress Fabia-
Eudokia died and was buried in the imperial mausoleum at the Holy Apostles. For the
court ceremonies to be continued, the little princess Epiphaneia
(then aged 15 months) was crowned empress, but the emperor quickly
sought another bride. Unfortunately, his choice of Martina, his own
niece, provoked popular protest at a marriage deemed incestuous and declared
uncanonical by Sergios. However, once it became evident that Herakleios could not be
moved, despite his recognition of the prohibited degree of consanguinity, the patriarch
decided to make the best of the
situation and stood by the emperor. He duly blessed the couple, crowned
Martina as empress, and baptised their son, Constantine, born one year
later.
Another element in the new alliance was welded in 619, when the Avars
raided the suburbs of Constantinople, causing great terror and panic
among the local population. Sergios agreed to a loan of church plate to pro-
vide silver for a new coin, struck to buy a peace treaty with the Chagan.
At this time supplies of other metals, even bronze in the form of antique
statues, were collected and melted down to be minted as coin. But normally the gold
and silver in church liturgical vessels was only sold to ransom Christian prisoners, and
Sergios's innovation clearly represented an
unusual measure of support for secular matters. It was probably during the
same Avar threat that the patriarch arranged for the precious relic of the
Virgin's robe, which was kept at Blachernai outside the city walls, to be
transferred to St. Sophia for safe-keeping. Once peace returned, Sergios
had the church at Blachernai restored and devised a ceremony involving the
emperor, as his "assistant," the clergy, and the entire population of Constantinople in
the relic's return. First it was transferred to the church of
St. Lawrence, where an all-night vigil was held. Then, on the appointed
day, a procession set out carrying the precious casket to Blachernai, where
its seals were broken and the relic itself displayed, "completely intact,
whole and indestructible," although the imperial purple silk in which it
was wrapped had perished. Once it had been reinstalled in the shrine, a
service was held and a new festival decreed to commemorate the event,
which confirmed popular conviction that the Virgin ensured the city's defence. The
episode prefigured the highly successful mobilisations that Sergios would organise
later, which constituted a significant part of the new
alliance between church and state.
The patriarch also revealed his support for the emperor in a practical
fashion when the traditional free distributions of bread had to be abandoned, a highly
unpopular measure. After the loss of Egypt in 619, the
price of a loaf was set at three folleis (bronze coins). When the of ficial in
charge of the new system, John (nicknamed "the Earthquake") tried to
more than double the price to eight folleis, a crowd of protesters, led by
some of the palace guards (scholai), advanced to St. Sophia in riotous ill humour.
Sergios got to the bottom of the problem quickly; he ordered the
city prefect to arrest John and take over bread distribution at the old price,
thus preventing a serious popular revolt.
THE PERSIAN MILITARY CHALLENGE: THE CAPTURE OFJERUSALEM
While the Avaro-Slav menace to the European provinces of the empire
preoccupied the emperor during the first decade of his reign--indeed, it
nearly resulted in his death at Herakleia--his period was marked by an
even more dangerous Persian assault. Chosroes II, to whom Maurice had
appealed in 602, continued to use this as a pretext for expansion into imperial territory
in the East. Neither Phokas nor Herakleios were able to
check these advances, which resulted in a severe defeat for the new emperor
in 613 and the loss of Antioch. In the following year, a two-pronged attack
against Syria and Armenia routed imperial defences; Damascus and then
Jerusalem fell, with the catastrophic destruction of Christian monuments
and the removal of the True Cross from its shrine in the church of the Holy
Sepulchre. An eyewitness account by Strategikos, a monk of the Mar Sabas
monastery, describes the slaughter, looting, and burning and the patriarch's efforts to
console and strengthen those who remained alive and faced
exile in their captors' homeland: "When the holy Zacharias saw the con-
gregation of people in this lamentation . . . he said to them, 'Blessed is the
Lord, who makes this chastisement to come upon us.... Do not lament,
my children, because of this captivity, for even I, the sinner Zacharias,
your father, am with you in captivity.... Behold we have His cross in our
protection and He, who is exalted over us is with us, the True Father who
inhabits the heavens.... And now, lift up your voice and call upon the
Lord and do not cease from prayer, that he may save us from the hands of
your enemies....' As the Persians began to drive them away from the
Mount of Olives, where this sermon was given, Zacharias bade farewell to
Jerusalem: 'Peace to you, Sion, bride of Christ, peace to you, Jerusalem,
holy city; peace to you, Holy Anastasis, illuminated by the Lord . . . this
is the last peace and my final greeting to you; may I have hope and length
of days that I may eventually gain your vision again?' " Then the column
of prisoners moved off, 35 ,000 according to the Armenian bishop Sebeos,
leaving behind many thousands of dead. Sebeos says 57,000; Strategikos,
relying on Thomas, one of the unfortunate survivors who had to bury the
bodies, claims 66,509, and gives a detailed breakdown of the figures by
location. To contemporaries, the capture of the holy places by the pagan
Zoroastrians was an unparalleled disaster. For the Persians, however, Jerusalem
constituted the base from which Egypt could be conquered, and
from 619 the entire province passed under Persian rule for almost a decade.
Imperial resistance was not effective, and Chosroes repeatedly spurned the
embassies sent by Herakleios to negotiate a peace settlement. Nor was Asia
Minor spared, for it was during the long campaign of 613-19 that many of
the oldest urban centres were overrun. The classical way of life was brought
to an abrupt end; survivors took refuge in citadels and new mountain set-
tlements more like fortihed villages than ancient cities.
Faced with destruction on this scale, and with the appearance of the Persians as far
west as the Bosphoros on more than one occasion, Herakleios
set about reorganising and training Byzantine military forces. Among the
professional troops, the exkotbitors represented a capable regiment, but it
was commanded by Priskos, whom Herakleios had reason to distrust as
Phokas's son-in-law. After the debacle at Caesarea, when the Persians
broke through the Byzantine siege and made good their retreat after a 12-
month occupation, Priskos was summoned to stand trial before the Senate
of Constantinople. The emperor stripped him of his wealth and titles and
forced him to enter a monastery. His personal retainers, however, were enrolled as
soldiers of the state, and issued with the traditional army rations of grain, though bread
was in short supply. At the
same time Herakleios appointed his cousin Niketas to lead the exkobitors
and placed other supporters in key military positions: Philippikos, one of
his father's associates and Maurice's brother-in-law, was brought out of a
monastery to assume the title of count, and Theodore, the emperor's
brother, was named kouropalates, the highest imperial position, and sent to
replace Priskos. The chief reform of Byzantine forces, however, concerned
the regrouping of palarine soldiers as a fighting force called the Opsikion.
It seems to have been effective by 615, when a count of Opsikion is recorded in the
position previously held by the count of the domestics (comes
domesticorm). The Opsikion troops probably accompanied the emperor on
his military campaigns in the East and formed the nucleus of a new regiment later
based in Birhynia, the westernmost point of Asia Minor, opposite Constantinople.
By making military recovery his priority, Herakleios intensifed those
currents tending towards an increasing militarisation of the empire. All exploitable
institutions and resources were used, even when their subjection
to military ends produced economic hardship and popular opposition. Thelengths to
which the emperor was prepared to go may be illustrated by the
decision to abolish free distributions of bread. After attempts to raise the price, the new
principle was imposed, not without trouble. But at the same time, grain was sent to
Thessalonike under siege (617-
19). To bring an end to the Avar threat to the Balkans, a truce was purchased in the
new silver coin struck from church treasures. The same coin
was also forced onto the administration, even though it represented an effective salary
cut of 50%. The other metals melted down for coinage went
to finance the treasury of the exkobitors, who were responsible for recruitment, and to
the pay packets of new recruits. In thus putting Byzantine
society on a war footing, Herakleios secured a more centralised mobilisation of the
entire population during the 620s. He also prepared for the offensive against Persia by
studying military manuals and strategy, for like
Maurice, Herakleios was determined to lead his own forces into battle.
Although this personal involvement of the emperor was deplored by
some members of the Senate, there can be no doubt that it was Herakleios's
leadership that guaranteed a greater measure of success than could have
been anticipated in 622 when he left the capital. After the peace treaty with
the Avars (620), he had transferred what remained of the imperial troops
in Europe to Asia, despite evident Slavonic activity. New recruits had been
enrolled in the lists, armed, trained, instructed as to their Christian role
and prepared for serious action. But to the contemporary poet, George of
Pisidia, it was the emperor's piety and faith that proved decisive in the defeat of the
pagan Chosroes. Carrying icons of Christ and the Virgin, a
mark of Byzantine belief and a guarantee of holy protection, the troops advanced into
Asia Minor, where they trained for several months under their
supreme commander. Thus strengthened, they then marched east, deep
into Armenia, achieving a notable victory in the winter of 622-23. For
the next five years Herakleios remained in the East, even during the 626
Persian campaign, which advanced nearly to the walls of his capital. The
decisive victory finally occurred late in 627, when Byzantine forces met
Persian near the ancient city of Nineveh: the Zoroastrians suffered a total
defeat. Early in 628, Chosroes was forced to flee from Dastagerd deep inside his
empire. The humiliation provoked a coup in which he was killed
and his son proclaimed ruler. Through the peace that followed immediately, Herakleios
regained all the disputed eastern territory occupied during the previous 15 years. The
Persian challenge was finally and decisively
answered, but in the same process, both Iran and Byzantium were left
weakened and ill-prepared to meet further external threats.
The Siege of 626
Prior to his departure from Constantinople at Easter 622, the emperor had
made arrangements to secure its safety. These reflect the alliance between
church and state and the degree to which Herakleios respected Sergios's advice. For
the emperor entrusted his young son to the care of the patriarch
and a general, Bonos, who were to form a council of regency in his ab-
sence. He also relied on Sergios to plan the ceremonies that preceded the
army's departure: sermons emphasising the crusading mission against the
fire-worshipping Persians and the most holy task of returning the Cross to
Jerusalem, and blessings on the soldiers who marched behind an icon of
Christ "not made by human hands." This trust was not misplaced. When
the regents were faced by major problems during the emperor's long cam-
paign in the East, they did not falter.
In 625-26 a large force of Avars and Slavs, led by the Avar Chagan in
person, advanced through Thrace towards the capital, while a Persian army
approached Chalcedon, the Asiatic city on the Bosphoros opposite Constantinople.
The threat of a combined and coordinated siege became clear
after the failure of several diplomatic initiatives; this time the enemy was
confident of victory. With the Slavs poised to ferry the Persians to the European side of
the Bosphoros, the city was in a precarious state. Patriarch
Sergios nonetheless addressed the besiegers with confidence: 'Oh strange
peoples and daimonic hoards, you have undertaken this whole war against
these {places} of ours. But the Lady Theotokos will put an end to your presumption and
arrogance by her single command. For she is truly the
mother of Him who immersed the Pharaoh and all his army in the middle
of the Red Sea, and who will prove this daimonic hoard listless and feeble." He took a
major part in the defence, organising processions of icons
of Christ and the Virgin, which were carried round the walls accompanied
by the city population, now increased by large numbers of refugees. They
chanted hymns and prayers for divine intervention, while General Bonos
led military sorties and planned the naval attack that destroyed the Slav
ships (monoxyles, single-trunk canoes). This energetic mobilisation of the
ordinary people undoubtedly contributed to the city's success in withstanding a brief but
terrifying siege, when the emperor was hundreds of
miles away in Armenia. After eleven days, the Avaro-Slav forces retired;
their failure to capture the Queen City provoked a crisis within the alliance
and eventually the collapse of the Danubian Empire of the Avars. The Persians
remained encamped on the Bosphoros, within sight of their objective
but unable to cross over to it, until the winter of 626-27.
In the folklore of Constantinople, this double victory held a very special
place: according to a contemporary source, the Virgin herself had been seen
fighting from the walls beside the defenders, a belief that increased common faith in her
protective powers. This faith in the Virgin was enhanced
by the introduction of her four feasts into the calendar of the Constantinopolitan church.
Sergios certainly took the initiative in encouraging the
cult, which confirmed popular belief in the "God-guarded" character of
Constantinople. He also introduced a separate feast for the elevation of the
True Cross when Herakleios returned it in triumph from the East. In addition, during the
emperor's absence, two new liturgies were adopted,
probably to mark victories in the East. In 624, Sergios's new hymn for the
celebration of the Eucharist was first sung, and two years later a new liturgy
of the Presanctified, a rite for Lent, which later spread to other seasons.
In this way the patriarch not only contributed to the belief that Constantinople was
destined to wirhstand attack because divine powers had ordained that it should remain
a Christian bulwark against non-believers; he
also composed new riruals that marked the Constantinopolitan church off
from others, reinforcing the sense of its historic role.
The patriarch's personal contribution to the city's defence was highlighted when
General Bonos died (in May 627) and Sergios remained sole
regent and effective head of government. His success in this civilian role
conformed to the emperor's high expectations. It was thus as the hero of
the siege that Sergios accompanied young Herakleios-Constantine to welcome his
father home in 628. The victorious emperor entered his capital in
triumph and celebrated the Christian empire's supremacy over its pagan
enemies with the patriarch beside him. Herakleios later returned the True
Cross to Jerusalem, a symbol both of God's favour to devout believers and
of restored Byzanrine authority in the East Mediterranean world.
Herakleios's Innovations
While George of Pisidia may have been confident in the emperor alone,
twentieth-century historians must ask how such a remarkable reversal of
Byzantine fortunes was realised. In particular, what meaning should be
given to the terms nea strateia ("new army") and tas ton theinaton choras ("the
lands of the themes"), descriptions that occur for the first time in the
much commentary. Do they indicate some major reform undertaken by
the emperor prior to his departure on the Persian campaign?
Although the precise meaning to be attached to strateia is disputed, in
this context it seems reasonable to identify this new army with the body of
recruits enrolled by the emperor's of ficers and exkobitors at this time. The
evidence of temporary provincial mints, coupled with the imperial decision
to increase funds by a variety of measures (as mentioned above), confirms
the importance of this recruiting drive and indicates one area in which Herakleios's
reorganisation had lasting effects, namely currency reform. By
making additional money available, a large number of new soldiers could
be enlisted. But this inexperienced force must have been stiffened by mercenaries
hired for the campaign, such as the Lombards who participated. In
addition, the regular troops attached to the armies of the Orient, Armenia, Thrace, and
the Obsequium also took part. This motley collection of troops was trained by the
emperor personally prior ro the departure from central Asia Minor. While it proved
quickly successful, the key
role in defeating the Persians may have been played by Herakleios's foreign
allies, the Khazars. The new army, assembled before the campaign, is
never again referred to as a separate unit and presumably dispersed on its
return to Byzantium in 628.
As far as the term thena is concerned, an even greater obscurity surrounds its origin
and meaning. Later in the seventh century, the themata are known as administrative
units in Asia Minor, designed to centralise large areas under military command,
somewhat in the manner of the western exarchates. The development from "the lands
of the themes" to these well-documented "provinces" endowed with their own fighting
forces is what causes such problems, although nearly every aspect of the history of
themata is difficult. One area of agreement concerns the origin of the forces attached
to the four original themata of Asia Minor: this origin is to be sought in the four chief
armies of Late Roman times (of the Orient, Armenia, Thrace, and the Obsequium). But
was Herakleios responible for their transformatino into military contingents settled in
specific regions to which they gave their names? In particular, could such a
reorganisation have been undertaken before 622 and did it contribute to the success of
the campaign?
After the campaign of 622-28, Byzantine forces proved singularly ineffectual, and no
troops identified as those of themata appear active. But Herakleios did undertake a
reform of the Obsequium force, which he later settled in northwestern Asia Minor, a
region known as the thema of Opsikion, in about 640. This move may well have
provided the model for the dispersal of other units in different areas.
Herakleios was the emperor who defeated the Zoroastrian fire-worshippers, regained
the True Cross, and returned it to Jerusalem. His example of military leadership,
personal training, and involvement was to prove an important one for later Byzantine
rulers. And behind this informed direction of the defence of the empire lies the
emperor's subordination of all imperial resources to military purposes. The variety of
means used to increase monetary supplies, the centralisation of economic control, and
the use of provincial mints to facilitate recruitment and pay, all reflect Herakleios's
innovation in the issue of coinage. Currency reform may have been the factor on which
all other changes turned.
The Effects of the Persian Invasion
Despite the final victory in 628, when the Byzantine forces marched back to
Constantinople they traversed areas of the empire that had been permanently and
severely affected by the Persian campaign of 613-19. In particular, the spacious
classical cities of antiquity had been destroyed and abandoned, marking a complete
change in living patterns. The same process had taken place in the European
provinces, producing new settlements. Other communities fled from their cities to
islands. According to the Chronicle of Monemvasia, the bishop of Patras arranged for
his flock to sail to safety in Sicily, where they remained for over 200 years. Only in the
early ninth century did they return to Greece. While urban communities sometimes
managed to preserve a certain cohesion, even as refugees, many fled in disorder.
Everywhere life was ruralised, localised, and restricted. Provincial nobles and wealthy
landowners may have sought refuge behind the walls of their fortified villas; those with
houses in the capital maintained their aristocratic ways and added to the permanent
membership of the Senate. In the confusion that afflicted the countryside, tied serfs
and slaves probably tried to break free from their owners' estates, to become
independent in new village or castle communities, where they could occupy and farm
their own lands. The disruption of large-scale estate cultivation and regular agricultural
activity, plus the lack of contact between different regions, gradually reduced the
economy to a subsistence one. In place of organised exchange through markets with
important goods available for sale, self-sufficiency became close to the norm - in
manufactured goods as well as foodstuffs.
Even in a reduced state, some cities continued to exist. Thessalonike resisted
repeated sieges under the energetic leadership of its bishops, supposedly aided by the
protectino of its patron saint, Demetrios. The ruling people there may have been
merchants involved in the grain trade of the city. Similarly, Athens, Corinth, Pergamon,
Sardis, Ephesos, and others remained urban centres, though confined to their citadel
walls and very much reduced in regular population. They became very different
centres, organised as garrisons and provincial capitals for the protection of the
surrounding villages; the bases of thema administration under the control of a central
government rather than autonomous urban organs of a world united by international
trade.
Byzantine Adaptation
In urgan terms, only Constantinople retained its ancient character as a metropolitan
centre with its fora, arcades, public buildings, and statues. Similarly, the imperial court
became the sole source of patronage, and the patriarchate developed into the most
important religious centre in the East. Both adapted their ritual with new ceremonies
and liturgies that emphasized their uniqueness. Even the circus factions (Greens and
Blues) were gradually tamed by these changes to become more of an ornament of the
court and its appearances in public. Their independent power was not entirely curbed,
however, and would still play a significant role in political and military affairs in the
eighth century.
As the empire shrank into increasing isolation, Latin was forgotten and Greek became
the only lingua franca. Herakleios's official employment of the term Basileus from 629
in place of Imperator reflects this shift, which symbolises the passing of an epoch. The
same dominance of Greek is visible in court titles and in the new thema administration
under a strategos and krites. Despite a tendency to preserve archaic military forms,
during the seventh century army offices were hellenised if not completely transformed,
and the new rank of imperial spatharios was created. Under the impact of Herakleios's
militarisation of the empire, aristocratic forms of address, rank, and function changed,
and court positions previously resrved for eunuchs were bestowed on bearded men. It
was probably from that capital that Herakleios recruited his generals and thema
administrators. Certainly the Senate of Constantinople, which retained considerable
influence throughout the century, was the sole remnant of curial autonomy and the only
aristocratic body. This concentration of the well-born and the wealthy must have
formed an important source for imperial advisers, court dignitaries, and bureaucrats.
Outside the capital, in the void caused by the breakdown of traditional provincial
administration, bishops were sometimes forced to play an entirely civilian and military
role. This extension of their previous participation in local government was
emphasised by the chaotic conditions but was not noticeably different. The monks and
bishops of the Tur Abdin in southeast Anatolia resisted the Persians for two years;
Amida held out for three. In those parts of Syria where hostility to Chalcedon still
dominated relations with the church of Constantinople, there were incidents of dissident
Monophysites welcoming the invaders. But such a defiant anti-imperial gesture was
generally reserved to Jewish communities, for example in Antioch in 609 when
Patriarch Anastasios II was lynched. This revolt was provoked as much by Phokas's
efforts to convert the Jews as by the proximity of the Persians, who did not succeed in
capturing the city until 611. It was, however, in Jerusalem that the Jews were later held
responsible for betrayal. In 614, Patriarch Zacharias had prepared for a long siege,
confident in the city's walls and in the hope of imperial assistance. But after only six
months the Persians entered by a secret passage and inflicted the worst recorded
devastation of the holy places. According to Strategikos and Sebeos, the Jews openly
rejoiced at the slaughter of Christians, and even participated in it by ransoming
individuals, who were pressured to abandon their faith and killed if they refused. While
such accusations resound with stock charges from a long tradition of conflict, stories of
Jewish treachery in Jerusalem certainly colored later church dealings with the
synagogues, as the Byzantine authorities attempted to persuade adherents of the Old
Testament to accept the evident truths of the New. Although neither theological
pressure in the form of Dialogues between Christians and Jews not outright
persecution succeeded in this aim, it was pursued by Constantinople as a continuous
ideal to the end of the empire.
Renewed Efforts for Ecclesiastical Unity
Among the Christians, however, Herakleios, like all previous emperors, insisted that
there should be and could be greater uniformity in belief. He supported Patriarch
Sergios's attempt to find common ground via the doctrine of one energy in Christ
(Monoenergism), which avoided discussion of His nature. During the Persian
campaign he also made contact with the Cypriot Monophysite community, whose leader
was in Armenia in the 620s. The issue of Christian disunity was posed in a heightened
form by the reoccupation of the eastern provinces, largely Monophysite, after 628. So
when the emperor returned the True Cross to Jerusalem, he had talks with the
Nestorian community and some dissidents at Edessa, and met Athanasios, the
Monophysite Patriarch of Antioch, at Hierapolis. At the same time, Bishop Kyros of
Phasis was appointed to Alexandria, where a moderate group of Monophysites called
Theodosians seemed interested in re-establishing communion with Constantinople.
Armed with a patristic florilegium attributed to the sixth-centyry Patriarch Menas, he
was able to win them over and issued a document to celebrate the union in June 633.
Monoenergism thus appeared to succeed in uniting Christians of very different
persuasions.
In Palestine, however, antagonism to the one-energy doctrine found a vociferous
exponent in an elderly monk, Sophronios, who was accalimed as patriarch of
Jerusalem by the clergy there, in late 633 or early in 634. He had already travelled to
Alexandria and Constantinople in an effort to prevent the agreements reached by Kyros
and Sergios, who denounced him as a troublemaker. But his defence of the
Chalcedonian position, backed by considerable popular support, proved sufficiently
impressive for Sergios to have second thoughts about the emphatic statement of
Monoenergism employed in the Alexandrian union. He issued a new formulation that
stressed the unity of the Word (Logos) as the force responsible for directing both the
human and spiritual aspects of Christ, and forbade debate over His energy or energies.
This brief document also endorsed the theory of Monotheletism, Christ's one will, a
doctrine acceptable to many Monophysites as well as Chalcedonians.
Monotheletism--The Doctrine of One Will. Although the problems of Christ's nature,
energy, and will were all interrelated and had been addressed by many theologians
before, Sergios now attempted to resolve the central problem raised by Gospel stories
of the Gethsemane prayer. If Jesus could have appealed to His Father, saying, "Not
my will but thine be done," was there not an opposition between His human will and the
divine will of God? The answer provided in the new formulation was that Jesus
manifested an instinctive movement of the flesh in this moment of weakness, which
created a tension between His one divine will and apparent human desire. Sts.
Athanasios and John Chrysostomos had offered the same explanation, so Sergio could
justifiably stress that Jesus had one will corresponding to the hypostatic unity of His
person. The Gethsemane incident was interpreted as evidence of the one divine will in
the Trinity of three persons.
This new formulation was immediately circulated to the eastern patriarchs and the
pope, then Honorius I, with a letter describing the union achieved at Alexandria.
Sergios clearly hoped that by respecting the Chalcedonian wording "in two natures"
and supporting the idea of Christ's "theandric" energy, derived from the writings of
Pseudo-Dionysios, he could gain general acceptance for the new formulation. He also
recommended a ban on further debate and condemned as a "war of words" the
anxieties expressed by Sophronios. Unaware of the strength of feeling in the East,
Pope Honorius responded favourably to the patriarchal formula and agreed with the
need to silence discussion. In this, his first letter to Sergios, he also declared his belief
in Christ's one will. Another distinguished monastic leader, Maximos the Confessor,
praised the patriarch in lavish terms. Even Sophronios appeared satisfied by the
withdrawal of the Alexandrian statement of Monenergism. Thus union seemed definite,
and Sophronios was confirmed as patriarch of Jerusalem in 634.
Some lingering doubts remained, however, for in the synodical letter announcing his
election as patriarch, Sophronios recapitulated the Chalcedonian doctrine of the unity
of the human and divine in Christ. In this long, dogmatic statement, the contradictions
of Monotheletism were forcefully revealed in a way that cast heavy theological
suspicion on the union devised and so ardently desired in Constantinople. The
document was sent to Constantinople and Rome, though not to Alexandria, already
committed to the one-will doctrine by Patriarch Kyros, or to Antioch, irredeemably
Monophysite. But it met with no success. Sergios of course rejected it, and Honorius
found himself bound by his own statement on the will of Christ. In his failure to
convince any of the other church leaders, the new patriarch of Jerusalem thus opened
a schism over Monotheletism. It was with a sense of increasing isolation that
Sophronios tried to get the theological arguments debated at a church council. He
persuaded Bishop Arkadios of Cyprus to convene a synod, which met in the mid-630s
and brought together 46 bishops. Under cover of the Trisagion issue (a formula that
had become the hallmark of Monophysite belief), Sophronios's defence of the
Chalcedonian definitions were discussed. One of Maximos the Confessor's disciples,
Anastasios, put the case for Christ's two wills and two energies, but without success.
The bishops were unable to conclude and decided to refer the matter to the emperor, a
procedure that could not possibly advance Chalcedonian theology against
Monotheletism. Realising that he had lost the battle for correct belief in the East,
Sophronios decided to appeal directly to Rome and sent his personal envoy, Stephen
of Dora, to the West.
Honorius, however, had already given his allegiance to the theory of one will, which
was further used by Sergios in his final attempt to elaborate the official theology of
Monotheletism. This was issued by Herakleios in 638 as an imperial edict to be
observed by all Byzantine subjects. Constantinople's theology was thus given the force
of imperial law. But like so many other compromise doctrines, it failed. In a brief three-paragraph definition, too little was expounded and too much omitted. The fierce and
inevitable opposition of Sophronios and Maximos encouraged others, generally monks
with a rigorous theological training. But in the course of unforeseen military and
political events in the East, the centre of hostility to Constantinopolitan Monotheletism
shifted to Rome. The doctrine developed to achieve Christian unity instead had the
effect of driving another wedge between Old and New Rome.
Although a contrast is frequently made between pliable episcopal acceptance of
Monotheletism and obstinate monastic opposition, this does not explain the division.
Moderate Monophysite monks in Alexandria and Antioch appear to have welcomed the
possibility of rejoining the Chalcedonian church; other monks, such as Pyrrhos, abbot
of the monastery of Philippikos, supported the doctrine from the Chalcedonian side.
Obviously these favorable forces were exploited by the patriarch and emperor, and one
way of doing so was to place monastic supporters in positions of ecclesiastical
authority as bishops, where they could influence and win over opponents. Pyrrhos, for
instance, was appointed to the patriarchate of Constantinople on Sergios's death in
538. It was much easier for the emperor to manipulate bishops selected through his
patronage than abbots chosen by their often very independent communities. So the
church hierarchy was bound to play a noteworthy role in the attempt to impose this, as
other definitions of belief supported by the secular authorities.
Their Failure
Conversely, members of the ecclesiastical hierarchy who had misgivings about the new
doctrine were not necessarily prepared to challenge it and thereby lose their positions.
But monastic opposition could sometimes be voiced without provoking direct imperial
retaliation. In this case, however, the uproar against both one-will and one-energiy
theories (Monotheletism and Monoenergism) came from an unusual and distinctive
monastic circle created in the first quarter of the seventh century against a background
of continuous military unrest. Sophronios and his spiritual father, John Moschos, had
adopted the practice of rootless wandering from one community to another - a choice
that became a necessity during the Persian and Arab invasions from about 604
onwards. From Palestine to Eygpt, Syria, the Aegean islands, and Rome they
journeyed, staying for longer preiods at Mount Sinai ca. 580-90, then under the
direction of one of its most famous abbots, St. John Klimachos, and in Alexandria with
Patriarch John the Almsgiver, assisting his Chalcedonian campaign ca. 604-614. After
John Moschos's death, or during this final years in Rome, Sophronios visited North
Africa, where he met Maximos, a refugee from the Asiatic coast of the Bosphoros,
occupied by the Persians in 626. The two shared a Syro-Palestinian background, an
intense commitment to the council of 451, and the intellectual training and access to
doctrinal books t counter Sergios's innovations. They personified a Chalcedonian
diaspora of monks, forced to move from one center to another, welcomed in their
travels by communities respectful of their ascetic expreiences, learning, and monastic
faith. They apparently took books with them and found other resources in Africa and
Rome. And whereever they went, they debated with their opponents, arranging public
discussions. John Moschos, Spohronios, Maximos, and his faithful assistant
Anastasios were probably the last generation of eastern monks to practice the
traditional "wanderings." Thereafter, the aimless wandering of errant monks wihtout
resources and dependent solely on a shared experience would become impossible.
One of the richest elements in primitive Christianity, the asceticism of the Desert
Fathers, was thus consigned to history, to be revived after a long break by St. Francis
of Assisi, whose dedication to poverty drew on this tradition.
Source:
This text is part of the Internet Medieval Sourcebook. The Sourcebook is a collection
of public domain and copy-permitted texts related to medieval and Byzantine history.
Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the document is copyright.
Permission is granted for electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational
purposes and personal use. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate the source. No
permission is granted for commercial use.
Paul Halsall, May 2023
