other pocket essentials books by giles morgan · pdf fileother pocket essentials books by...

Other Pocket Essentials books by Giles Morgan:

The Holy GrailSt George

Byzantium

GILES MORGAN

POCKET ESSENTIALS

This edition published in 2007 by Pocket Essentials

P.O.Box 394, Harpenden, Herts, AL5 1XJ

www.pocketessentials.com

© Giles Morgan 2007

The right of Giles Morgan to be identified as author of this work has been asserted in accor-

dance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored

in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form

or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or

otherwise) without the written permission of the publishers.

Any person who does any unauthorised act in relation to this publication

may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages.

A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

10 digit ISBN: 1 904048 83 8

13 digit ISBN: 978 1 904048 83 1

2 4 6 8 10 9 7 5 3 1

Typeset by Avocet Typeset, Chilton, Aylesbury, Bucks

Printed and bound in Spain

For Gareth and Agnes

Contents

Introduction 11

1: The Reign of Constantine the Great 15

2: The Roman Empire in Crisis 35

3: The Reign of Justinian 55

4: The Rise of Islam 69

5: The Great Schism 87

6: The Crusades 103

7: The Siege of Constantinople 121

8: The Shadow of Empire 137

Bibligraphy 149

Web Pages 151

Index 153

• 7 •

Byzantium

Introduction

In 312 AD, Constantine the Great saw a shining cross oflight in the sky.

This is the legend that has become attached to theRoman Emperor who is today widely seen as having playeda crucial role in the transmission of Christianity to theWest. Constantine is often credited with having made twoimportant and interlinked decisions that were to play amajor part in the shaping of modern Europe.The first washis toleration, and subsequent adoption, of Christianity.The second was the relocation of the capital of the Empireto the site of the ancient Greek city of Byzantium.The term‘Byzantine’ derives from this city of Byzantium, founded in667 BC by Greek colonists from Megara and named inhonour of their leader Byzas.

Re-founded as ‘Nova Roma’ or New Rome in 330 AD,this new capital became better known as Constantinople orthe ‘city of Constantine’.

The Byzantine Empire grew out of the Eastern half ofthe Roman Empire and was to continue long after theWestern Empire finally fell to Germanic tribes in 476 AD.Indeed, the Byzantine Empire would endure until as late as1453 and the eventual fall of Constantinople to the

• 11 •

Ottoman Turks. Until comparatively recently historiansand scholars tended to dismiss the achievements and inno-vations of the Byzantine Empire as being of a lesser magni-tude than those of ancient Greece and Rome. Butincreasingly there has been a reassessment of this view andan acknowledgement of the unique nature of Byzantineculture and its role in linking the ancient world with themedieval period.

In recent years the development of Christianity and therole of Constantine the Great in that process has comeunder intense scrutiny, particularly in the wake of thepopular success of Dan Brown’s novel The Da Vinci Code.Constantine is generally perceived as the first ChristianEmperor but controversy has surrounded the differingforms that Christianity took in a period of intense theolog-ical debate. The varying movements within the Churchwould lead ultimately to the convening of the Council ofNicaea in an attempt to ratify Christian belief.

It is interesting to note, however, that, even asChristianity became the state religion of the Empire, manypagan beliefs, stories and ideas from the classical worldsurvived and, indeed, were incorporated into the newdominant religion. Grave goods and luxury items,produced in Byzantine territories from different timeperiods up until as late as the Middle Ages, depict pre-Christian themes and images and challenge the idea thatByzantine art was solely concerned with Christian content.

Arguably, the Emperor Justinian I was to have as muchinfluence over the development of the Byzantine Empire as

B Y Z A N T I U M

• 12 •

Constantine since he extended the boundaries of its landssubstantially, notably within Italy and North Africa.Justinian was also responsible for the building of thelegendary domed church of Hagia Sophia in Constant-inople. During his lifetime Constantinople would becomeone of the major cities of the ancient world.

However, the authority and power of the ByzantineEmpire were to be seriously tested by the rise of Islam.Territories belonging to the Empire were lost and the cityof Constantinople withstood sieges by Arab navies. TheByzantines displayed great resourcefulness and technologi-cal ingenuity during these trying times, developing anincendiary substance known as ‘Greek Fire’ which appearsto have had similar properties to napalm. The secretformula for its creation was said to only be known to theEmperors of Byzantium. It proved particularly effectivewhen propelled by pumps, often in battles at sea.

Conflicts emerged within Byzantine Christianity overthe worship of icons and, in 726 AD, Emperor Leo IIIbanned them throughout the Empire. However, in 843 AD,this decision was overturned.Tensions between the Easternand Western Church would lead eventually to the GreatSchism of 1054 when the Pope and the Patriarch ofConstantinople excommunicated one another, paving theway for the entirely separate Catholic and EasternOrthodox Churches that we know today.

The defeat of Byzantine forces at the Battle of Manzikertby the Seljuk Turks resulted in appeals to the West for aidand precipitated the First Crusade. However, Constant-

I N T RO D U C T I O N

• 13 •

inople was itself overrun by Crusader forces in 1204during the Fourth Crusade. The fall of Constantinople tothe Ottoman Turks in 1453 was a major shock to manyWestern European countries and has subsequently come tobe seen as marking the end of the medieval period.

The collapse of the Byzantine Empire is considered tohave contributed greatly to the Renaissance. Many scholarshad to flee Constantinople to the West, carrying uniqueknowledge and material with them. Constantinople hadalso served as an important city linking East and West onthe Silk Road and its loss sparked attempts to open up newtrade routes. Exploration by sea following the fall of theByzantine Empire would, in time, lead to important newdiscoveries by Europeans.The development of Christianityand Islam has been strongly influenced by the ByzantineEmpire and its major legacy today is arguably the survivalof the Orthodox Church. The staggering scale of theEmpire at its peak is illustrated by the buildings that remainfrom its rule in countries ranging from Macedonia toNorthern Africa.The art and architecture produced by theByzantines is distinctive and fascinating as is their oftenincredible, and sometimes overlooked, story.

B Y Z A N T I U M

• 14 •

The Reign of Constantine the Great

It could be argued that no single individual played a greaterrole in the establishment and development of the ByzantineEmpire than Constantine the Great. Like the immensemarble head carved in his likeness that has survived fromthe fourth century AD at the Capitoline Museum in Rome,with its huge eyes and air of terrible power, his presenceseems to dominate modern perceptions of Byzantium.However, to understand and trace the story of theByzantine Empire, it is necessary to look first at the state ofthe Roman Empire under the Emperor Diocletian whoruled from 284 AD until his voluntary and unprecedentedabdication in 305 AD.

During his reign Diocletian had divided the Empire intotwo halves formed of Eastern and Western parts. He sharedhis power with a trusted friend from the Roman militarycalled Maximian, making him ruler in the West in 286 AD.Diocletian ruled the Eastern half of the Empire andretained ultimate power for himself.The decision to dividethe Empire was an attempt to achieve greater control ofwhat had become a vast and sprawling concern, stretchingfrom Hadrian’s Wall in Northern England to territories inEgypt. Diocletian divided the power structure still further

• 15 •

with the appointment of two junior Caesars to serve theEmperors.These actions also reflected the fact that the cityof Rome itself was no longer ideally placed in geographicalterms to govern and control such a huge multi-nationalEmpire. Diocletian based himself and his court primarily inthe city of Nicomedia whilst Maximian ruled his half of theEmpire principally from Milan.

This system of government was known as the Tetrachy.Apart from his structural changes, Diocletian is today mostinfamously remembered for his persecution of Christiansthroughout the Empire whom he saw as a pernicious,disruptive and divisive influence within Roman society.When Diocletian abdicated, weary with the pressures ofpower, he forced his reluctant co-emperor to do likewiseand their two junior Caesars were declared ‘Augusti’ in theirstead. Constantius Chlorus, nicknamed ‘The Pale’, tookover the Western Empire whilst Galerius, a soldier with avicious and formidable reputation, became Emperor in theEast. Constantius Chlorus was the father of Constantine theGreat and, following an impressive and successful career asa general in the Roman Army, he had been given the task ofsubduing unrest in the unruly province of Britain.Constantine’s mother Helena is thought to have been thedaughter of an innkeeper from Bithynia.Although historiansgenerally concur that Constantius and Helena were at onetime married, Helena was to be set aside in favour of a moreprestigious and politically motivated marriage whichConstantius made with Theodora, the adopted stepdaughterof the Emperor Maximian.

B Y Z A N T I U M

• 16 •

It is known that Constantine was born on 27 February butthe exact year of his birth is not know for certain. It isthought to have been around 274 AD in a Roman provincecalled Dacia.The town of his birth, Naissus, is known todayas Nis in the former Republic of Yugoslavia. Although littleis known about the origins of Constantine’s parents, it seemsthat Constantius was an example of an increasing trend of thetime for individuals to gain success within the Empire on thebasis of merit and ability rather than simply high birth andattachment to one of the old families of the city of Rome.Diocletian himself was not from a Roman background but asan efficient and often ruthless soldier and leader he hadgained power and approval within the Roman army.

Constantine spent his early life attached to the court ofDiocletian at Nicomedia. Although this would haveprovided Constantine with an opportunity to serve andimpress within the Emperor’s court, it is likely thatDiocletian kept him close as a potential bargaining toolshould his father Constantius ever displease him or, indeed,openly rebel.

When Diocletian and Maximian did step down frompower and Constantius and Galerius became Emperors,conflict almost immediately arose as to who was to taketheir place as Eastern and Western Caesars. Through themurky political machinations of the time Constantine wasselected and left the court at Nicomedia in some haste tojoin his father’s army in Gaul.There is every chance that, ifhe had remained, he would have been assassinated in orderto prevent his coming to power.

T H E R E I G N O F C O N S TA N T I N E T H E G R E AT

• 17 •

When Constantine joined his father’s army it was settingout on a military campaign against the Pictish tribes inNorthern Britain. They succeeded in suppressing themarauding and aggressive Picts who had been wreakinghavoc in Roman-controlled England and drove them backbeyond the boundaries of Hadrian’s Wall. However, soonafter this success, Constantius became ill and he diedsuddenly at York on 25 July 306 AD. Constantine, whoseems to have rapidly gained the respect and admiration ofhis father’s troops during this campaign, was thenacclaimed Augustus and ‘raised to the purple’.

However, events were to run far less smoothly whenthe Eastern Emperor Galerius was informed ofConstantine’s acclamation by his troops. He refused torecognise Constantine as Western Emperor, viewing himas a rebellious upstart, and would accept him only as aCaesar and therefore junior to him in rank. In the shortterm Constantine was prepared to accept the situationand ruled in Britain and Gaul for a period of five years.Upon the death of Galerius in 311 AD, a power vacuumwas created and rivalry between the Caesars came to ahead. In the meantime the former Emperor Maximian,who had abdicated with Diocletian, had come back topower in Italy, supported by his son Maxentius. It isthought that Constantine may well have been involved inthe later death of Maximian who had tried to make thelegions of Gaul overthrow the younger man. Rivalry andmutual dislike was, therefore, particularly intensebetween Constantine and Maxentius and soon escalated

B Y Z A N T I U M

• 18 •

into open war when Maxentius publicly accusedConstantine of the murder of his father. Constantine issaid to have raised an army of around 98,000 troops andmarched on Italy. He successfully took a series of cities inNorthern Italy and advanced inexorably on Rome toconfront Maxentius.

The Battle of Milvian Bridge

The subsequent meeting of the two armies at the Battle ofthe Milvian Bridge on 28 October 312 AD has come to beseen as one of the defining moments in the life ofConstantine with colossal implications for the future ofEuropean history. According to popular legend,Constantine is said to have undergone a profound andmystical religious experience either before or actuallyduring the battle, one that could be compared to Paul’sexperience on the road to Damascus. Accounts ofConstantine’s vision vary and have subsequently proven tobe an extremely popular and effective piece of pro-Christian propaganda. In his Life of Constantine (De VitaConstantini, I) the historian Eusebius of Caesarea tells howthe Emperor described the experience to him:

…a most marvellous sign appeared to him fromheaven… He said that about midday, when the sun wasbeginning to decline, he saw with his own eyes thetrophy of a cross of light in the heavens, above the sun,and bearing the inscription ‘Conquer by This’. At this


• 19 •

sight he himself was struck with amazement, and hiswhole army also.

(quoted in John Julius Norwich,Byzantium: The Early Years, p.39).

Similarly the historian Socrates, who wrote his account inthe fifth century, states that:

… at about that time of day when the sun, having passedthe meridian, began to decline towards the West, he sawa pillar of light in the form of a cross which wasinscribed ‘in this conquer’. The appearance of the signstruck him with amazement, and doubting his own eyes,he asked those around him if they could see what he did,and as they unanimously declared that they could, theemperor’s mind was strengthened by this divine andmiraculous apparition.

(quoted in John Holland Smith,Constantine the Great, p.102).

Socrates further explains that Christ himself appeared toConstantine in a dream the next night and commanded himto make a standard in the shape of a cross and to carry itinto battle. If he did so, he would be assured of victory.

However, the first text to record the alleged mysticalevents around the Battle of Milvian Bridge was producedby a writer called Lactantius who actually knewConstantine and his family.Writing within a relatively shortperiod after the battle, he describes the sleeping

B Y Z A N T I U M

• 20 •

Constantine being directed in the course of a dream toorder his troops to display the chi rho symbol. Constructedof the first two Greek letters of the name of Christ, this wasa popular and well-known cipher for early Christians andcan still be found in Christian contexts today. Historiansnow think that it is most likely that it was this symbol thatConstantine utilised during the battle and that the vision ofthe cross was an elaboration which other contemporaryaccounts do not mention. It does seem, however, as if theEmperor did have some kind of experience that was mean-ingful to him and which he took to be of a divine origin andwhich greatly encouraged him before the battle took place.

When the two armies did meet it is thought thatConstantine was leading the smaller of the two forces andyet he succeeded in forcing the troops of Maxentius into adisorderly retreat.The battle took place several miles fromthe city of Rome, near to the river Tiber and, in the melee,the army of Maxentius was pushed back to the MilvianBridge, which was made of stone and fairly narrow.Knowing that it was possible that his troops might have towithdraw and would struggle to cross this bridge,Maxentius had ordered that a pontoon bridge beconstructed next to it. Unfortunately, in the panic ofretreat, the pontoon bridge was disassembled whilst menwere still crossing it and it collapsed under their collectiveweight.

Many were drowned, including Maxentius himself,whilst the remaining men, who rushed to cross the stonebridge, became trapped and crushed by sheer weight of


• 21 •

numbers. The army of Constantine emerged victorious,thus seeming to confirm the mystical dream or intuition ofthe Emperor.

The Edict of Milan

Following his victory at the Milvian Bridge and his accept-ance by the Roman Senate as the Western Emperor,Constantine met with the Eastern Emperor Licinius in thecity of Milan in early 313 AD.The subsequent talks betweenthe two Emperors are best remembered today for produc-ing the Edict of Milan which promised that there would bea new climate of religious tolerance and the cessation ofpersecution of individuals based on their beliefs.The edictwas aimed particularly at protecting the Christians who hadsuffered greatly, particularly during the bloody and violentpersecutions instituted by the Emperor Diocletian.

However, although Constantine was to legislate in favourof the Christians and had come to align himself with theircause, there is still considerable debate as to the extent towhich he himself had embraced their religious beliefs.Clearly the events of the Battle of Milvian Bridge appear toshow Constantine appealing to the Christian god for aid buta closer examination of what is known of the Emperor’sreligious beliefs during this period reveals a more complexspiritual identity. Constantine had in fact been variously adevotee of the cult of Apollo, of Mithras and of Sol Invictusor the ‘Unconquered Sun’. Coins from the early part of hisreign as Western Emperor depict Sol Invictus and it has

B Y Z A N T I U M

• 22 •

been argued that, like his own father Constantius, he wasincreasingly becoming interested and moving towards theidea of a single supreme deity. Interestingly, however (and,arguably, entirely in keeping with attitudes of the time),Constantine seems to have felt reasonably comfortablewith, and open to, the concept of this supreme deity takingmore than one form or assuming more than one identity. Itmust also be remembered that it would have been politi-cally unwise of Constantine to commit fully and publicly tothe Christian cause and so upset the long-standing tradi-tions of polytheistic worship in the Roman Empire.

Following his victory at the Milvian Bridge he seems tohave been careful to remain reasonably ambiguous abouthis own religious beliefs, even adopting the tactic ofappearing to be above such concerns. One particularinscription of the time, drafted by the senate and presum-ably approved by the Emperor, survives on the triumphalArch of Constantine and describes him as being ‘InstinctWith Divinity’. Tellingly, it omits to say which divinity,suggesting a certain caution and wariness about proclaim-ing where exactly his convictions might lie. It is also possi-ble that Constantine had not himself fully decided and, aswe have seen, the worship and recognition of more thanone God was perfectly normal for the time.

Following Constantine’s acceptance as Western Emperorrelations with his Eastern counterpart Licinius soon deteri-orated.Tensions between the two finally resulted in war in323 AD with Constantine emerging as the victor. At firstConstantine showed clemency, exiling Licinius to


• 23 •

Thessalonica, but within months he had him executed,perhaps sensing that, whilst he lived, he represented athreat to his authority.

The Arian Heresy

Perhaps the single greatest threat to the unity of the earlyChristian Church was the emergence and development ofthe heresy often known as Arianism. It was a Christiantheology that took its name from a presbyter of Alexandrianamed Arius. He had been a pupil of Lucian of Antioch andhis teachings were to send shockwaves through the hierar-chy of the early Church.Arius was born in 256 AD and it isthought he was of Berber or possibly Libyan ancestry. Hewas made presbyter of Alexandria in 313 AD.The views ofArius were not, in fact, new or unique but, through hispersonal charisma and magnetism, they achieved greatpopularity throughout the Christian world.At the centre ofhis heretical teachings was the nature of Christ and his rela-tionship to God. It must be remembered that what isknown of Arius’ teachings has survived largely in the writ-ings and texts of those who were opposed to him. Ariusargued that Christ was not of the same substance as Godand that he was not eternal and had, in fact, been a creationof God. If God had created the son then there necessarilymust have been a time when the son had not existed andtherefore must be lesser than God and not co-eternal withhim.The followers of St Alexander of Alexandria disputedthis, saying that the Son and the Father were of the same

B Y Z A N T I U M

• 24 •

substance and were co-eternal. St Alexander and hissupporters were known as homoousians. A third theologi-cal position contested that Christ and God were of a‘similar’ substance and adherents of this Christologicalviewpoint were called homoiousians. By arguing thatChrist was not equal to God, Arius effectively questionedthe Holy Trinity and contested the divinity of Christ. InArius’ view, Jesus had been created by God to perform aparticular function on earth, the salvation of humanity, butwas himself human in nature. His theology was hugelypopular but, by 320 AD, Arius had been excommunicatedfor his heretical beliefs.

The Council of Nicaea

In response to the discord and disharmony that Arianismhad created within the Church, in 323 AD Constantine sentan emissary, Bishop Hosius of Cordova, on a mission toEgypt to try and resolve a dispute which, from theEmperor’s point of view, threatened the unity and stabilityof the Empire. Hosius had been Constantine’s ownpersonal advisor on Christianity but he was unable toresolve the issue.

A further attempt the following year also met withfailure and Constantine ultimately took the decision toconvene a universal church council to reach a final anddecisive conclusion on the matter.This council began on 20May 325 AD and continued until 19 June and was held atNicaea, a place chosen as the meeting point because it was


• 25 •

reachable without too much difficulty by all the delegates,particularly those at the centre of the dispute in the East.Estimates vary as to how many attended the council at theimperial palace in Nicaea. The chronicler Eusebius ofCaesarea claims 270 bishops but it is thought, on the basisof other contemporary accounts, that a figure of between300 and 318 is more likely. Most of these bishops had trav-elled from the East. Each bishop was also allowed to bringtwo presbyters and three deacons. Most significantly,Constantine himself attended the council, an action thatdrew the state and the Church together in a manner thatwould come to define the history of the Byzantine Empire.The council decided that the Father and the Son were co-substantial or of one substance, a rejection of Arian beliefs.

In recent years the findings and the events of the Councilof Nicaea have been called into question, most notably inDan Brown’s best-selling The Da Vinci Code. In Brown’sversion of events, a character named Leigh Teabing statesthat until the Council of Nicaea, ‘Jesus was viewed by hisfollowers as a mortal prophet… a great and powerful man,but a man nonetheless’ (Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code,p.240).

Moreover, Teabing goes on to say that, ‘Jesus’ establish-ment as the “Son of God” was officially proposed and votedon by the Council of Nicaea’ and makes the claim that itwas, ‘A relatively close vote at that’, (Dan Brown, The DaVinci Code, p.241). In fact, only two of those present refusedto sign the statement of belief that is known as the NiceneCreed.The teachings of Arius were declared to be heretical

B Y Z A N T I U M

• 26 •

and condemned and he himself was sent into exile.Whilstthere may be truth in the idea that Constantine wanted tosecure peace in the Church and throughout his Empire, theclaim that he ‘invented’ the divinity of Christ for his ownpolitical ends is not supported by most historians. In aletter to Arius and Alexander of 324 AD the Emperorwrote:

Having enquired faithfully into the origin and foundationof your differences, I find their cause to be of a trulyinsignificant nature, and quite unworthy of such fiercecontention.

(quoted in John Julius Norwich,Byzantium:The Early Years, p.53).

The Byzantine historian John Julius Norwich tellinglywrites that, ‘It is plain from Constantine’s letter to the twochief disputants that the doctrinal point at issue interestedhim not at all’, (John Julius Norwich, Byzantium:The EarlyYears, p.55).

The aims of the council had been to settle the questionof Arianism but also to resolve other issues. Most famously,the question of when Easter should be celebrated wasdiscussed. In the East, churches followed the Jewish calen-dar because Christ had been crucified during the feast ofPassover but, in the West and in Alexandria, it took place onthe first Sunday following the first full moon after thevernal equinox. It was decided that the church atAlexandria would calculate the date of Easter each year.


• 27 •

They would then communicate this information to theHoly See of Rome which, in turn, would pass it on to thewider Church. On this point Constantine is known to havehad considerable influence. He was violently opposed tothe Christian Church following the Jewish calendar andpersonally was strongly anti-Semitic.

However, although the Council of Nicaea appeared tohave been a major success for Constantine in that Arianismhad been anathematised, the controversy failed to go away.Surprisingly, given the findings of the Council of Nicaea,the supporters of Arius continued to propagate his beliefsand were active in attempting to have him recalled fromexile. Perhaps the greatest surprise is that the Emperorhimself was swayed by the arguments of Arius and that hisown family, including his sister and mother, were sympa-thetic to his cause. By 327 AD the decision to keep Arius inexile had been overturned by Constantine and he hadgranted him a personal audience.

Far from being resolved, it seemed that Arianism wouldcontinue to pose a threat to the unity of the early Church.

Constantinople

Having established his supreme authority throughout theRoman Empire, Constantine took the decision to establisha new capital on the site of the ancient city of Byzantium.As with so many aspects of the Emperor’s life, many mythsand legends have sprung up about the circumstancessurrounding this momentous decision and once again God

B Y Z A N T I U M

• 28 •

himself is supposed to have influenced Constantine in hischoice. According to the British chronicler William ofMalmesbury, the Emperor had a mysterious dream inwhich he saw an old woman transform magically into ayoung and beautiful one. In a subsequent dream, thedeceased Pope Sylvester visited Constantine and informedhim that the woman he had seen represented the city ofByzantium and that the Emperor was to rejuvenate andrenew it. Most famously Constantine is said to have person-ally laid out the plan for the walls of Constantinople bypacing out their dimensions and demarcating them with thepoint of his spear. Legend tells that an observer showedsurprise at the scale of the city limits that the Emperor wasplanning and that he replied that he would carry on until‘he who walks ahead of me bids me stop’. Once again thereis an ambiguity about this statement – the divinity or other-wise to which he refers is not named.

However, it is likely that Constantine was equally swayedby far more pressing and practical concerns in his decisionto found a new capital city for the Empire.

During the fourth century, the Eastern territories of theempire had become more economically productive thanthe West and Italy itself had experienced increasing prob-lems with illness and population shrinkage. Importantly, ashas been mentioned before, Rome itself was no longerstrategically placed to defend such a huge concern. Thegreatest military threats were similarly concentrated in theEast, particularly near the lower Danube. The sprawlingSassanian Empire of the Persians had conquered Armenia,


• 29 •

which had previously belonged to the Romans, and posedthe single greatest danger to Constantine.Although a peacetreaty had been agreed between the Emperor Galerius andKing Narses, this was due to expire and a resumption ofhostilities was expected.

It was originally intended that Byzantium should beknown as ‘Nova Roma’ or ‘New Rome’ and this title wascarved on a number of monuments in the city. However, itrapidly became better known as Constantinople, meaningthe ‘city of Constantine’. It is thought that the Emperortook the decision to re-site the capital in around 324 AD.The consecration of the city took place on 4 November 328AD and combined both Christian and decidedly paganelements. Once again, Constantine seemed to feel entirelycomfortable with invoking the blessing and protection of anumber of differing divinities.The city was formally dedi-cated on Monday 11 May 330 AD, an event which wasplanned to coincide with the Emperor’s own silver jubileecelebrations. It is said that many of the cities of the ancientworld were stripped of their statues and monuments andthat these were transferred to Constantinople, furtherenhancing its own status within the Empire and its famebeyond its own borders. Near the old acropolis ofByzantium, Constantine ordered the building of the‘Milion’, the first milestone. A construction of archesforming a square, this was surmounted by the True Cross,a sacred relic that purported to be the actual cross thatChrist was crucified upon and said to have been discoveredby Constantine’s mother Helena on a pilgrimage to

B Y Z A N T I U M

• 30 •

Jerusalem. It was intended to serve as the centre of theEmpire and all distances were calculated from it.

Athanasius

Despite the success of the foundation of Constantinopleand the unification of the Empire under Constantine,Arianism had continued to sow the seeds of discord anddivide the early Church. Perhaps the greatest opponent ofArius and his followers to emerge at this time wasAthanasius of Alexandria. He had been a deacon in thechurch of Alexandria when Arius had first achieved promi-nence with his views and later accompanied Alexander,Bishop of Alexandria to the Council of Nicaea.

Both men had vehemently opposed Arius and Athanasiuswas to succeed Alexander as Bishop of Alexandria in 328AD. When Constantine rescinded the exile of Arius, hewrote to Bishop Alexander to recommend his re-instate-ment to the Church on the basis that Arius, although hispersonal interpretation of it may have been open to ques-tion, had accepted the Nicene Creed.

Alexander refused to do so and so, in his turn, didAthanasius. Conflict between the opposing factions eventu-ally led to Constantine sending Athanasius into exile inTrier (Tyre). However, attempts to restore Arius inAlexandria proved extremely unpopular and led to riotingin the city. In the wake of these troubles, Constantinesummoned Arius to Constantinople in 336 AD to discussonce again the latter’s beliefs.


• 31 •

At this point, fate seemed to intervene in the proceed-ings when Arius, who was walking through the city ofConstantinople with a crowd of his followers, was suddenlyovercome with an urge to evacuate his bowels. On beingdirected to a private place behind the Forum ofConstantine, the unfortunate Arius is said to have haemor-rhaged to death whilst relieving himself.The accounts thatsurvive of this grisly incident are supplied mainly by theopponents of Arius and yet most sources seem in agree-ment that it did indeed take place. These sources maintainthat it was divine retribution although it may be that Ariushad, in fact, been murdered by his enemies. His death mayhave lessened the conflict but dissent in the Church was tocontinue in the following centuries. Athanasius is reveredtoday in the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church and isoften seen as the first to identify the works that make up theNew Testament.

The Death of Constantine

In 337 AD Constantine became ill and instructed that histomb be prepared in the Church of the Holy Apostles atConstantinople. As his health worsened Constantine finallytook the decision to be baptised and summoned BishopEusebius of Nicomedia to perform the ceremony.Controversy has raged as to why he waited until he was onhis deathbed to be baptised but it seems likely that heregarded the ritual as a final and dramatic absolution of allhis sins and so waited until his life was nearly at an end.

B Y Z A N T I U M

• 32 •

Constantine had often referred to himself as the ‘Equalof the Apostles’ and instructed that twelve sarcophagi beset upright in the church, each one representing the origi-nal followers of Christ, and that his own should be set inthe middle of them. He intended that his own tomb shouldbe worshipped alongside the Holy Apostles and it seemsprobable that he saw himself not simply as their equal, butin fact their superior. Constantine died on the 22 May 337AD and, several months later, amidst great pomp and cere-mony, his body was placed in its tomb in the Church of theHoly Apostles.


• 33 •

The Roman Empire in Crisis

Julian the Apostate

The death of Constantine, although commemoratedsolemnly and reverently, was followed by a period ofturmoil and some surprising reversals in the Empire.

In the immediate aftermath of his funeral his sonsConstantine II, Constantius II and Constans wereproclaimed as the new Augusti. However, the shift of powerwas accompanied by a series of violent intrigues within theruling family as individuals began to attempt to secure theirhold on power. Constantius in particular took the opportu-nity to eliminate potential rivals and had all his half-broth-ers killed on dubious charges of treachery against his father.Those close to or related to the unfortunate victims weresimilarly caught up in a wave of violent reprisals. Theseevents conveniently cleared the way for the three fullbrothers, Constantine, Constantius and Constans, to dividethe Empire between themselves without threat of challengeor rivalry.

They essentially retained the territories that they hadruled as Caesars under Constantine. Constantine IIgoverned the Western regions, Gaul, Spain and Britain,

• 35 •

whilst Constantius held the Eastern countries andConstans had responsibility for Africa, Italy and much ofcentral Europe. It would seem, then, that each brotherhad been well rewarded and that each had achieved poweron a vast and imposing scale. But in the age-old traditionof imperial infighting it was not long before conflict arosebetween them as each sought to assert his ultimateauthority. Constantine II was killed by his brotherConstans after invading Italy. However, Constans washimself then overthrown and murdered by an outsiderfrom Britain called Magnentius. The surviving brotherConstantius put down this insurrection and became soleruler of the Empire.

The scale and problems of governing such a vastEmpire led Constantius to choose a new co-ruler in 355AD. He selected his cousin Julian for this role, a responsi-bility that the younger man was apparently (and perhapsunderstandably) reluctant at first to take. Julian had beenborn in the city of Constantinople in 331 AD, the son ofConstantine the Great’s half-brother, Julius Constantius.His mother was called Basilina and she was his father’ssecond wife. Unlike so many rulers of the period Juliandid not come from a military background but was ascholar and an intellectual who had studied at some of thebest schools of the ancient world. He was not overlyambitious and appears not to have constituted any kind ofthreat to Constantius, which is, perhaps, precisely why hewas chosen.

Although Julian was chosen as Constantius’ co-ruler

B Y Z A N T I U M

• 36 •

because he was co-operative and, to a certain extent,malleable, he was, in another important respect, somethingof a rebel. Privately Julian was to abandon Christianity andrevert to the pagan religions of the ancient world. Hispersonal opinions on spirituality were initially kept tohimself but they would assume greater importance in thelonger term. His decision to abandon Christianity was toearn him the title of Julian the Apostate, a title bestowed onhim by Christian writers and critics.

Julian was made Caesar of the West on 6 November 355AD at Milan and was subsequently dispatched to Gaul.Before beginning his duties in Gaul he was married toHelena, the sister of Constantius II. Although he waswithout previous military experience and was thought bymany to be an unlikely candidate for his new role, Julianproved successful, winning back Cologne and other terri-tories from the Franks in 356 AD. Perhaps his greatesttriumph at this time was the defeat of the Franks at a battlenear Strasbourg where, commanding a force of 13,000soldiers, he triumphed over a Frankish force estimated tobe 30,000 strong. In these campaigns, Julian successfullyre-imposed Roman control in areas that had been previ-ously lost to the Empire in the West, proving himself to bea formidable and capable Caesar.

However, Constantius II faced a far greater threatwhen, in 359 AD, Shapur, King of Persia, demanded thathe cede the Roman territories of Mesopotamia andArmenia or face an invasion. Faced with the prospect ofwar with the powerful Persian king, Constantius turned

T H E RO M A N E M P I R E I N C R I S I S

• 37 •

to Julian for aid and called on him to send reinforcementsamounting to over half of Julian’s own forces in Gaul.Therequest was met with anger and outrage amongst thetroops, many of whom had been promised that theywould be allowed to stay in Gaul.They were unwilling torisk either dying on campaign in the East or leaving theirpossessions and families unprotected in the West. In theunrest that followed Julian urged his legionaries tocomply with the command of Constantius and there is noevidence to suggest that he was anything other than loyalto the Eastern Emperor. But Julian appears to have beenswept along by events as his troops defied the orders ofConstantius and instead acclaimed Julian Emperor inParis, effectively forcing him into opposition against hiscousin. Although Julian attempted to resolve matterspeacefully with Constantius, some kind of confrontationbetween the two seemed almost inevitable. However,shortly after Constantius had taken the decision, albeitreluctant, to confront Julian with an army, he was over-come by a mysterious illness and died whilst returning toConstantinople from Syria. Julian was immediately andunanimously declared sole Emperor.

Once accepted as supreme ruler Julian undertook anumber of changes and reforms that were to characteriseand define his reign. Interestingly, he took the decision togreatly reduce the numbers of people employed in thecourt at Constantinople. These had grown to extravagantand excessive numbers. In this and in other instances, Julianappears to have been a man with little interest in hedonis-

B Y Z A N T I U M

• 38 •

tic pursuits or material possessions and to have been chieflypreoccupied by philosophy and religion.

Indeed, Julian is best remembered today for reversingmany of the pro-Christian initiatives of the ChristianEmperors who followed Constantine. However, unlikemany of his pagan predecessors, Julian did not undertake aprogramme of persecution against Christians. Instead, heattempted to sideline them and their significance through aseries of social and legal reforms. Julian, it is thought,believed that Christianity was responsible for underminingthe power of the Empire and sapping its vitality andstrength. He legalised all religions, encouraged polytheismand allowed the old temples to be occupied and used again.By declaring a state of religious toleration Julian may wellhave been attempting to allow suppressed forms ofChristianity, such as Arianism, to thrive and create greaterdivision within the unity of the Church. Some authoritiesof the time also claim that Julian believed that he was thereincarnation of Alexander the Great.

During many of the key moments of his life and careerhe had looked to the gods for divine guidance and portentsand, indeed, he viewed the sudden death of Constantius asevidence that he was destined to rule.When the temple ofApollo at Daphne was burnt down on 26 October 362 AD,as Julian was readying himself for a war against Persia, itwas believed that Christians were responsible. In retaliationthe principal church of Antioch was closed and its goldplate was seized.

On 5 March 363 AD, Julian led his army of about


• 39 •

90,000 men out of Antioch to war against the PersianEmpire.Whilst Constantius had been Emperor in the East,the Persian King, Shapur II, had conquered a number ofkey cities in the East that had previously been underRoman rule and now he posed a dangerous threat toRoman territories. Julian’s army marched east into what isnow Iraq, winning a number of minor engagements alongthe way, until they reached the Persian capital city ofCtesiphon. The ruins of Ctesiphon are located twentymiles away from the city of Baghdad on the eastern side ofthe river Tigris. Julian’s forces were confronted with aPersian army which had taken up its positions in front ofthe city walls. Despite facing the difficulty of crossing theTigris before any fighting could even begin, the Romanarmy succeeded, after some strong resistance, in over-whelming the Persians.

However, jubilation at the victory was short-lived whenJulian’s forces were unable to take the city itself. TheEmperor now faced several problems. The main Persianarmy was advancing rapidly to Ctesiphon and the Romanarmy was running out of supplies. Even so, Julian wantedto push further into Persian territory but was persuadedagainst doing so.The decision to retreat was taken and, asthey did so, the Roman forces were hounded by Persiantroops. On 26 June 363 AD, Persian forces launched afierce attack against Julian’s soldiers that was successfullyrepulsed, but not before the Emperor himself was fatallywounded by a spear that struck him in his lower intestines.Courageously, but rashly, Julian had rushed into battle

B Y Z A N T I U M

• 40 •

with his men without putting on his armour and he hadpaid the ultimate price for his impetuosity. He died of hisinjury later that day. In the years following his death, amyth grew that Julian’s last words after his fatal woundinghad been, ‘Vicisti, Galileae’ which translates as ‘Thou hastconquered, Galilean’. This is more likely to be a subse-quent Christian invention aimed at showing how theEmperor had suffered divine retribution for his paganbeliefs and opposition to the Christian Church. It was evensaid that the Eastern Orthodox Saint Mercurius, acting asthe weapon of God, had struck the fatal blow to theEmperor.

Julian’s untimely and, arguably, needless death left boththe Eastern Empire and, more immediately, the Easternarmy leaderless and in a precarious and dangerous position.Still deep within enemy territory, the army was forced toappoint a new Emperor, which they did the next day.Whathappened seems confused.The commander of the ImperialGuard, a man named Jovian, was nominated by some of hisfellow soldiers. He appears not to have been a particularlypopular choice but, in the emotionally charged atmos-phere, the majority apparently misheard those who took upthe cry of his name and thought that the name of the oldEmperor was being shouted. Jovian seems to have beenelected by the army, in effect, because they believed thatJulian was still alive. In the immediate aftermath of Jovian’ssuccession his priority was to lead the army out of dangerand an orderly but urgent retreat took place. The enemytroops continued to hound them nonetheless and, ulti-


• 41 •

mately, Jovian was forced to accept a very one-sided agree-ment with King Shapur. In return for their safe passageJovian agreed to relinquish control of lands bordering thePersian Empire and a number of significant defensive pos-itions. Armenia would also be left open to Persian invasionunder Shapur’s terms.

Jovian led the army away from what had become a costlyand embarrassing disaster but, as soon as he arrived in thecity of Antioch, he launched a series of religious edicts thatwere pro-Christian in nature. He was himself a committedChristian who accepted the Nicene Creed over Arianismand this was reflected in his religious policies. However,Jovian’s reign was to be short-lived. He died in early 364 AD, thought to have been accidentally overcome byfumes as he slept one night.

Emperor Valens

Following the death of the Emperor Jovian, a successorwas sought from within the military. A man namedValentinian was elected and proclaimed as Emperor on 26February 364 AD. He inherited an Empire which facedmany threats to its borders and to its security and hedecided to select a co-ruler to share the formidable andchallenging task of ruling it. Valentinian made his ownbrother Valens co-Emperor. Valentinian became WesternEmperor whilst Valens was given the Eastern half of theEmpire. When Valentinian died in 375 AD he wassucceeded by his own son, Gratian.

B Y Z A N T I U M

• 42 •

During Valens’ reign as Emperor the Gothic tribes ofNorthern Europe came under attack from the Huns whooriginated in Mongolia. Unable to defend themselvesagainst the ferocity of the Huns, in 376 AD the Gothictribes asked that Valens allow them to move and createsettlements within the boundaries of the Empire in Thrace.

Valens agreed to this on the basis that they wouldbecome allies of the Emperor and he instructed the provin-cial powers to help them settle and become part of theEmpire.

However, the local authorities did just the opposite andtreated the Goths unfairly and cruelly. A critical error ofjudgement, this failure to comply with the orders ofValens led to a widespread revolt amongst the Gothictribes. There followed two years of fighting between theGoths and the forces of the Empire without either sidegaining the upper hand. In the West the Emperor Gratianachieved an important victory over the Alemanni tribenear the river Rhine in 378 AD. Valens, eager for successagainst the Goths in the East, set out with the army toconfront what he believed was a small Gothic force nearAdrianople in what is today Northern Turkey, not far fromConstantinople itself.

The Battle of Adrianople

The Battle of Adrianople took place on 9 August 378 ADand is widely viewed today as having been one of the worstdefeats in Roman history. Not since the Battle of Cannae,


• 43 •

six hundred years earlier, when the Carthaginian generalHannibal had overcome the combined forces of eightlegions, had so many Roman soldiers been killed in a singleday. The Emperor, perhaps urged by some of his advisors,took the decision to confront the combined Gothic forceswithout waiting for the forces of the Western EmperorGratian to arrive. Valens had received reports that thebarbarian forces did not exceed 10,000 men and he waseager to take the credit for an impressive victory. Beforesetting out for the battle, Valens weakened his own forcesby leaving soldiers to guard his baggage and treasures at thecity of Hadrianopolis (Adrianople).

The Roman army marched eight miles to meet theGothic army in blistering heat and across rough terrain.They found the Gothic troops had arranged their wagonsin a circle with their families and goods inside it. Initiallythe Goths, led by a warrior named Fritigern, had sentambassadors to Valens to ask for peace but this was largelya delaying tactic because they were waiting for the arrivalof their cavalry.The Gothic forces had burnt the surround-ing fields and the resulting smoke added to the discomfortof the tired and thirsty Roman troops. A group of Romanarchers, led by a man named Bacurius from Iberia,attacked the Goths without permission and were thenforced to flee. The resultant confusion gave the Gothiccavalry enough time to reach their comrades. With thearrival of the Gothic cavalry, the Roman cavalry panickedand fled, leaving the infantry undefended. Surrounded byenemy cavalry, forced into a close formation and unable to

B Y Z A N T I U M

• 44 •

manoeuvre or escape, the Roman troops were massacred.As much as two thirds of the Roman army was

destroyed during the battle including many importantofficers, administrators and officials. According to theRoman historian Ammianus Marcellinus (330–395AD)some reports stated that the Emperor received a mortalwound from an arrow and died without his body everbeing recovered. Other reports maintained that hemanaged to escape the field of battle after being hit by anarrow and was taken to a small house or cabin by soldiersand court eunuchs. They were attempting to dress hiswounds when the cabin was surrounded by enemy troops.They barred the doors and windows to the besiegers whowere unaware of the identity of its occupants.The Gothicsoldiers reacted to being shot at with arrows from its roofby setting fire to the building. All the defenders were saidto have been burnt alive, including the Emperor himself,apart from one person who leapt from the windows andtold them what had happened. Marcellinus observed thateven this inglorious end was preferable to the humiliationof being taken prisoner by the enemy.

The death of Valens and the defeat of the imperial army,together with the loss of so many important individuals,left the Western Roman Emperor Gratian in a state ofcrisis.The Battle of Adrianople changed the course of thehistory of warfare. Until that point the Roman Infantryhad been considered the ultimate military force but thesuccess of the Gothic cavalry forced the Empire toabandon this long-held belief. In subsequent centuries the


• 45 •

cavalry became the most important and decisive compo-nent of the Roman army.

Theodosius I

In the aftermath of the appalling defeat of the imperialarmy at the Battle of Adrianople, the Emperor Gratianfound himself increasingly preoccupied with problems inthe Western Empire. For help in the East, he turned to aformer military commander from Spain called Theodosius,making him co-Augustus in 379 AD.

Theodosius was the son of a military figure who had putdown an uprising in Britain in 368 AD, Theodosius theElder. However, his father had been executed by theEmperor Valens in 376 AD for reasons which are unclearand the younger Theodosius had himself retired fromservice at around the same time. It was from this prema-ture retirement in Spain that he was now summoned. Heproved very successful at reaching a solution with therenegade Gothic forces, making fresh treaties with theirleaders in which they agreed to fight alongside theEmperor and became part of the Roman army. As rewardfor serving in the legions they were granted special privi-leges such as freedom from having to pay taxes. Manywithin the Empire felt concern over the growing impor-tance and status of Goths within the Empire and anger attheir sometimes superior rights but these measures ofTheodosius achieved peace. When the Emperor Gratianwas overthrown and later killed by a general who had been

B Y Z A N T I U M

• 46 •

acclaimed Augustus in Britain, Theodosius supported hissuccessor Valentinian II and helped to defeat the usurperMaximus.

During 387 AD Theodosius was faced with rioting inthe city of Antioch because of a tax that he had levied onits people to raise money for the celebrations to mark histenth anniversary in power, an event known as the decce-nalia. Such was the unpopularity of the tax that manystatues of the Emperor were smashed and Antioch wasrocked by serious unrest. However, imperial punishmentwas swift and uncompromising and many citizens werekilled by soldiers for their insurrectionary behaviour.Theincident harmed the reputation of Theodosius who hadhitherto been generally viewed as a fair and just Emperor.Worse was to follow when an angry mob killed thecaptain of the imperial garrison in the city ofThessalonica.The people of Thessalonica were angered bythe behaviour of Gothic troops within the army andparticularly their leader, a man named Botheric, who wasserving as captain of the garrison.The news of this unfor-tunate civic unrest so angered Theodosius, who was in thecity of Milan at the time, that he ordered those troopsserving in Thessalonica to punish the people withoutmercy or pity. Bishop Ambrose of Milan attempted topersuade the Emperor against extreme action and, in fact,Theodosius did reconsider his commands. However, assoon as his initial decree reached Thessalonica, the troopsstationed there, eager for revenge, attacked the people ofthe city whilst they were inside the hippodrome watching


• 47 •

the games.They were trapped by the soldiers and it is saidthat as many as 7,000 people were slaughtered by them.This excessive and violent reprisal shocked manythroughout the Empire and led to Bishop Ambrosepersonally withholding communion from Theodosius.Thesignificance of these events and their aftermath is that forthe first time a Christian figure claimed a greater author-ity than the Emperor himself. Bishop Ambrose informedTheodosius that he must pay a personal penance for hisactions and the Emperor, who was overcome by remorseand guilt, agreed.Theodosius, dressed in sackcloth, had toseek the forgiveness of the Bishop at the Cathedral ofMilan and admit to his sins.

Although Theodosius had helped support the WesternEmperor Valentinian II against a pretender to the throne,his position was to prove far from assured.Valentinian hadjoined forces with Theodosius to overcome Maximus and,upon the successful accomplishment of this goal, they hadjointly handed power to a general of Frankish origin calledArbogast. He was to rule in Gaul whilst Valentinian andTheodosius made a formal visit to Rome in 389 AD andattended to imperial business.

However, when Theodosius returned to Constantinopleand Valentinian to Gaul in 391 AD, Arbogast refused tohand power back to the Western Emperor. War seemedinevitable but it was briefly averted by the sudden death ofValentinian. Arbogast manipulated the situation byappointing a puppet Emperor called Eugenius whom heintended to control from behind the scenes. Theodosius

B Y Z A N T I U M

• 48 •

refused to acknowledge the authority of either and furtherdivision was created by Eugenius’ policies of allowingpagan worship to resume in Rome. Theodosius marchedon the rebels in 394 AD and the two forces engaged nearTrieste at the battle of the Frigidus River.The significanceof the battle for many at the time, apart from the assertionof the rule of Theodosius, was that it was fought in defenceof the supremacy of the Christian faith. After some earlydifficulties, mercenary deserters from the rebel armybolstered the forces of Theodosius. The Eastern Emperorproved victorious and Eugenius was executed. Arbogastwas forced into flight, despair and ultimately suicide.Valentinian II left no heir to his throne and Theodosiustook the decision to appoint his eldest son Arcadius asEastern Emperor. His youngest son Honorius was madeWestern Emperor. Shortly afterwards,Theodosius becameseriously ill and died on 17 January 395 AD in the city ofMilan.

Emperor Arcadius

When Arcadius was appointed as Eastern Emperor by hisfather Theodosius he was still only eighteen. His brotherHonorius was even younger, aged only ten. In view of theirtender years and inexperience, Theodosius appointed arelative by marriage named Stilicho, who had supportedhim loyally, to the position of magister militum in Italy. Hewas to assist both the young Emperors in their early years.Stilicho was not from a Roman background but was a


• 49 •

Vandal who had proved his worth in the imperial service,particularly at the Battle of the Frigidus.Arcadius, however,soon fell under the influence of a powerful and ambitiousminister called Rufinus in Constantinople. Arcadius was toprove susceptible to influence and persuasion from morethan one source and he appears also to have become domi-nated by the high-ranking eunuch Eutropius.When Rufinusattempted to arrange a marriage between his own daughterand Arcadius and thus gain greater power and influenceover him, Eutropius engineered a match between theEmperor and a young woman of his own choosing. Hepicked a bride of Frankish origin called Eudoxia.They weremarried in 395 AD.

However,Arcadius was soon faced with a major uprisingfrom the Goths under the leadership of Alaric who hadfought alongside Theodosius at the Battle of the Frigidus.Alaric’s army marched on Constantinople, which wasparticularly vulnerable at this point because many of thetroops that Theodosius had led to the West had not yetreturned. In the event, although the Goths sacked andplundered town and country, marching through what isnow Macedonia, they did not attack Constantinople itself.Instead they retraced their steps back through Macedoniaand into Greece. Terrified by these events, Arcadiusinstructed Stilicho in the West to send the army of the Eastback as soon as possible. Upon their return toConstantinople, under the command of a Goth calledGainas, the Emperor greeted the army in person. Rufinus,who had come to exert considerable power over Arcadius,

B Y Z A N T I U M

• 50 •

was suddenly and unexpectedly murdered by some of theGothic troops. It is unclear who had given orders for thekilling but he clearly presented a threat to the ambitions ofmany close to Arcadius.

Gainas attempted to claim greater powers for himselfand succeeded in tricking Arcadius into handing over theinfluential eunuch Eutropius in 399 AD in order to calm apotential Gothic rebellion. However, Gainas himself failedto gain greater powers and, after unsuccessful scheming,was forced to leave the city with his troops.After the deathof Arcadius in 408 AD his son Theodosius II inherited theEastern Empire.

In the West the political machinations of Stilicho and, inparticular, his apparently ambivalent attitude to the rene-gade Goth Alaric finally led to his arrest and execution fortreachery in 408 AD. Interestingly,Alaric, who had invadedItaly in 401 AD but was defeated and mysteriously releasedby Stilicho, seems not to have wanted to destroy theEmpire. Ironically, he wanted a role within it and a perma-nent base and recognition for his fellow Goths.The refusalof the Western Emperor Honorius to come to terms withAlaric, who had proved he could be a formidable oppo-nent, was ultimately to result in the Goth leader re-invad-ing Italy in 408 AD after the execution of Stilicho.Withouta strong military leader and in the incompetent hands ofHonorius, the Western Empire had become dangerouslyvulnerable. However, Alaric still asked for terms eventhough he held the upper hand. Again, he was refused.Whilst Honorius remained within the relative safety of


• 51 •

Ravenna, Alaric finally besieged and captured Rome in 410AD.

John Chrysostom

During the reign of the Emperor Arcadius one of the mostinfluential, although divisive, figures within the Church andByzantine culture was John Chrysostom who wasappointed bishop of Constantinople in 398 AD. The nameChrysostom comes from the Greek word ‘chrysostomos’and means ‘golden mouthed’. Interestingly, Chrysostomhad been reluctant to take the post of bishop ofConstantinople because he was opposed to the wealth andprivileges that went with the position. Indeed, he wasoutspoken in condemning excess and corruption within theChurch in general and was well known for speaking onbehalf of the poor.This made him an often unpopular figurewith the wealthy and the powerful. He was outspoken in hisviews and not afraid to be controversial. This would seemto be the origin of the term ‘golden mouthed’ bestowedafter his death.

He was particularly critical of the Empress Eudoxia whowas known to have a string of lovers and to be lavish andextravagant in her lifestyle. His criticisms led to his banish-ment in 403 AD but he was quickly restored by Arcadius.However, his disputes with Eudoxia led to a further banish-ment and Chrysostom died in exile in Georgia in 407 AD.He had proved to be a figure who had enjoyed great popu-larity amongst the general populace in the East and he also

B Y Z A N T I U M

• 52 •

had papal support in the West but his condemnation ofEudoxia was to lead to something of a rift between Romeand Constantinople. Arcadius refused to accept the author-ity of Rome and there was a growing sense of divisionbetween the two halves of the Church.


• 53 •

The Reign of Justinian

When the Eastern Emperor Arcadius died in 408 AD hisson Theodosius II, who was only a boy of seven at the time,succeeded him. During his reign the fortifications ofConstantinople were greatly enlarged and expanded andthe city surrounded by defences named in his honour, theTheodosian Walls. The walls are sixty feet in height andaround four miles in length. They enclosed the city fromattack by land and were to prove incredibly effective,remaining unbreached for over a thousand years.They werebuilt between 413 and 414 AD and the man truly responsi-ble for their construction was the young emperor’sguardian Anthemius who was Prefect of the city. TheTheodosian Walls were to protect the city from the army ofAttila the Hun in 447 AD. Attila represented a seriousthreat to the Eastern Empire but ultimately he wasappeased and bought off with expensive annual tributes ofgold by Theodosius II.

In the West successive emperors had retreated toRavenna as barbarian control of Italy and its dominions hadincreased. Finally in 476 AD the last Western RomanEmperor Romulus Augustulus abdicated, effectivelyhanding over power to the German born Odoacer. Many

• 55 •

have viewed this event as marking the fall of the WesternEmpire. But the Eastern Empire endured and these eventsmeant that Constantinople was unarguably the most signif-icant and important city in the Empire.

Justinian

The reign of the Emperor Justinian I is widely regarded asone of the most important and successful phases of theByzantine Empire. Justinian was born in Illyricum in 483AD. His mother Vigilantia was the sister of the futureEmperor Justin who, at this time, was an important generalwithin the Empire. It was Justin who ensured that Justinianreceived an outstanding education.The young man becameparticularly well versed in Roman law and history and hehad an intense personal interest in theological matters. Hisuncle Justin became Emperor in 518 AD and Justinianbecame consul three years later in 521 AD. Justinianenjoyed a successful career within the Empire and in 527AD was made co-Emperor by his ailing uncle who diedlater that year.

Perhaps the single biggest influence on the life andreign of Justinian was his wife Theodora whom hemarried in 525 AD. In marrying her Justinian defiedconvention and generated a certain degree of scandalbecause she had formerly been an actress and worked as aprostitute. She had come from a low status background,her father being a bear-keeper in the Hippodrome ofConstantinople. Her mother is thought to have also

B Y Z A N T I U M

• 56 •

worked at the Hippodrome. The Hippodrome was thegreat circus of the city where games such as chariot racingwere held and, in many ways, was the popular focus ofcity life. The circus had been a long-established aspect ofRoman life and was a tradition that continued in theEastern Empire. Over time the different competing teamsor factions developed their own identities in ways that areperhaps comparable to modern day football teams.Withinthe world of chariot racing the two most important teamswere the Greens and the Blues. Theodora’s father hadbeen employed by the Greens but, when he died, insteadof his old job going to her mother’s new husband, uponwhom the family depended, it was granted to anotherman. In desperation her mother appealed to the sympathyof the rival Blues who then provided her stepfather withemployment. This appears to have created a lifelonghatred of the Greens in Theodora who became an ardentsupporter of the Blues. It also demonstrates the level ofpower that these rival circus factions exerted within thecity. Justinian, before becoming Emperor, also supportedthe Blues and this may have been significant in their firstmeeting. At first it was inconceivable that Justinian couldbe Emperor whilst married to a woman of such low rankbut his uncle, the Emperor Justin, conveniently passed alaw that permitted retired actresses to marry into anylevel of society.

When Justinian became Emperor Theodora took anactive and powerful role beside her husband who clearlyvalued her abilities and intelligence. He would often turn

T H E R E I G N O F J U S T I N I A N

• 57 •

to her for advice and support throughout his reign. Rivalsand enemies at the time wrote insultingly and viciouslyabout Theodora but she proved a formidable and ableEmpress. Justinian himself also proved to be a shrewd judgeof character and was greatly aided in his work as ruler bythe capable and effective individuals he selected to helpgovern the Empire. Of particular note are John ofCappadocia who served as his finance minister andTribonian, the Quaestor of the Sacred Palace, who was tohelp Justinian in a colossal review of Roman law.

John of Cappadocia was to help generate money forJustinian’s war with Persia, his building programme andother government expenditure by introducing a far moreeffective and efficient tax system. He did much to spreadtaxes across all class boundaries, extracting money fromboth the wealthy and the poor and reducing the corruptionthat was rampant within the infrastructure of the Empire.However, his measures were extremely unpopular, perhapsprecisely because they proved so successful, and, on apersonal level, he was reviled for his, at times, cruelmethods in implementing his new systems. Whilst he maynot have been susceptible to fiscal corruption his personalconduct made him many enemies.

During Justinian’s reign legislation was produced andenforced that suppressed and often persecuted non-Christian religions including the Manicheans and pre-Christian Hellenism. Justinian supported NicaeanOrthodoxy and acted zealously and continuously in itsfavour.

B Y Z A N T I U M

• 58 •

Roman Law

One of the greatest achievements of the reign of Justinianwas his reformation and standardisation of Roman law.Before Justinian the Roman legal system had never beeneffectively organised and codified into a single coherent anduniversally understood form. By unifying the law, Justinianaimed to eliminate any contradictory or confusing aspectsof the legal system and replaced it with a concise and effec-tive series of statutes that would reflect the now prevailingChristian values of his reign.

His special legal advisor Tribonian was instrumental inthis fundamental review of the law and its summation. Itwas completed in 529 AD and was ultimately to prove animportant influence on modern European law.

The Hippodrome

The Hippodrome of Constantinople was one of the mostimportant and popular buildings in the life of the imperialcity.As we have seen, the chariot races that were held therehad developed a greater significance and role withinByzantine culture than simply providing the populace withentertainment, although it certainly did serve that func-tion.The first Hippodrome in the city had been built beforeits re-founding as Constantinople when it was still theprovincial town of Byzantium.When Constantine had takenthe decision to relocate the capital of the Empire hismassive building plan had included a greatly enlarged


• 59 •

Hippodrome. Estimates put Constantine’s redevelopedHippodrome at 130 metres in width and 450 metres inlength.

In 390 AD, during the reign of the Emperor TheodosiusI, a colossal obelisk had been taken from the Temple ofKarnak in the Egyptian city of Luxor and re-erected in theHippodrome of Constantinople. Theodosius had it placedon the spina of the racetrack, a central barrier that it istempting to think might correspond to the modernconcept of the central reservation on a motorway! Theobelisk had originally been set up in around 1490 BC byTuthmosis III and provides another example of how theEmperors of Byzantium frequently appropriated artefactsfrom other cultures and eras to underline the glory andimportance of their own empire.The obelisk was quarriedfrom pink marble and the Emperor had it placed upon anelaborately carved base.

The base depicts Theodosius, surrounded by hissubjects, presenting a wreath of victory from the imperialbox. Astonishingly, the obelisk still stands today in themodern city of Istanbul, although the obelisk appears tohave weathered rather better than the base that Theodosiushad it set upon.There are of course striking parallels withthe decision to transport this gigantic Egyptian paganmonument to a great capital at the heart of a Christianempire and the erection of Cleopatra’s Needle on theThames embankment in London during the Victorian era.Looking to the past for inspiration, it would seem, isnothing new. In fact, as we have seen, Constantine

B Y Z A N T I U M

• 60 •

followed a similar policy and took an ancient artefact,called the Tripod of Plataea, from the prestigious Temple ofApollo at Delphi and ordered it to be set along the spina ofthe Hippodrome.The Tripod of Plataea was also known asthe ‘Serpent’s Column’ and had originally been created bythe Greeks to thank Apollo for a famous victory over thePersians in 479 BC at Plataea.

As previously mentioned, the population ofConstantinople supported differing teams who partici-pated in the chariot races and other activities in theHippodrome, the most powerful of whom became theGreens and Blues.The other teams had been the Whites andReds but, over time, they lost influence and status untilonly the two dominant factions remained. The racetrackwas also decorated with statues of well- known charioteersand their horses. Interestingly, a bronze sculpture of fourhorses that is today set upon the exterior of St Mark’sBasilica in Venice originated in the Hippodrome ofConstantinople, itself having become the victim of culturalplundering.

Nika Riots

The most serious civil disruptions in Constantinopleduring the reign of Justinian were the Nika riots that tookplace in 532 AD.These were the culmination of a series ofevents that had begun when members of the opposingcircus factions, the Blues and the Greens, had beenarrested after a riot broke out following the chariot races.


• 61 •

Several people were killed during the violence andmembers of the gangs were tried and convicted for theirmurders. Seven were sentenced to death. During thesubsequent executions on 12 January, two gang memberstwice escaped death by hanging through a mixture of goodfortune and error on the part of the hangmen. Supportersof the circus factions freed the men and helped them toescape and take shelter in the church of St Lawrence.ThePrefect of the City had the church put under guard but justas quickly an angry mob, made up of supporters of thedifferent teams, surrounded the church. One of the meninside the church was a Blue team supporter and the othera Green and the crowd united in shouting that they shouldboth be freed.

When further games were held at the Hippodrome on13 January, Justinian was met by an angry and volatilecrowd as he declared the start of the games. The games atthe Hippodrome were often used as a platform for thepopulace to express their feelings on matters of publicinterest but, on this occasion, Justinian found himself thefocus of the combined anger of the usually divided circusfactions. It was customary for the different teams to call outthe name of their teams,‘Blue’ or ‘Green’, followed by theGreek phrase ‘Nika!’ meaning ‘win’,‘victory’ or ‘conquer’.However, as the games went on, the cries of the crowdbecame a unified chant of ‘Nika!’ and were directed solelyat the Emperor. The angry mob then spilled out onto thestreets of Constantinople and headed for the City Prefect’spalace where they overwhelmed the guards and set about

B Y Z A N T I U M

• 62 •

freeing all the prisoners held inside it.They then set fire tothe building and embarked on a trail of destruction throughthe city. Many important civic sites were burnt to theground, including the churches of Hagia Sophia and StIrene.

The next day, the crowd demanded that John theCappadocian and Tribonian be removed from their respec-tive positions. Justinian, fearful of the consequences ofrefusing the demands, complied but these concessionsfailed to calm the situation.

Instead, the following day the mob demanded that a newEmperor be selected and chose a man named Probus whowas a nephew of the former Emperor Anastasius.

Probus, perhaps fearing his selection as a potential rivalto Justinian had already fled the city. Even when theEmperor offered an amnesty to the crowd on 18 January inthe Hippodrome, the raging mob would not be calmed andthey instead found another candidate called Hypatius. LikeProbus, he was a nephew of the Emperor Anastastius and hewas virtually forced by the crowd to become a replacementfor Justinian. As a younger man the unfortunate Hypatiushad served the Byzantine army as a general and he had nowish to supplant the Emperor.

When Justinian was on the point of leaving the city withhis court, the Empress Theodora argued that he should stayand deal with the situation rather than taking the option offinding safety but losing the throne of Byzantium. Thehistorian Procopius reports that the Empress rallied themby saying:


• 63 •

My opinion then is that the present time, above allothers, is inopportune for flight, even though it bringsafety… For one who has been an emperor it is unen-durable to be a fugitive. May I never be separated fromthis purple, and may I not live that day on which thosewho meet me shall not address me as mistress. If, now itis your wish to save yourself, O Emperor, there is nodifficulty. For we have money, and there is the sea, herethe boats. However, consider whether it will not comeabout after you have been saved that you would notgladly exchange safety for death. For as myself, I approvea certain ancient saying that royalty is a good burialshroud.

(from Procopius, History of the Wars,I, xxiv, translated by HB Dewing, p219–230, slightly

abridged and reprinted in Leon Barnard and Theodore BHodges, Readings in European History, p.52–55).

Encouraged by the support of his formidable wife, Justiniancommanded two of his generals, Belisarius and Mundus, tocrush the insurrection. They trapped the mob of Blue andGreen supporters in the Hippodrome, blocking its exits,and slaughtered those inside. It is said that as many as30,000 were killed by Justinian’s men.The unwilling surro-gate Emperor Hypatius was summoned before Justinianwho appears to have shown some sympathy to the olderman’s unhappy predicament. However, the EmpressTheodora insisted that he be killed as a potential threat tothe throne and Hypatius was executed.Those senators who

B Y Z A N T I U M

• 64 •

had participated in or encouraged the rebellion were exiledor executed by Justinian.

Church of Hagia Sophia

The reconstruction of the church of Hagia Sophia, burntto the ground during the Nika riots, became an immedi-ate priority of the Emperor Justinian. Taking its namefrom the Greek word ‘Sophia’ meaning ‘Holy Wisdom’ orthe ‘Holy Wisdom of God’, the church had originally beenplanned by Constantine the Great. However, it was hisson Constantius who actually built the first incarnation ofthe church in about 360 AD. This building had beendestroyed in 404 AD during earlier riots that focused onthe expulsion of the controversial figure of JohnChrysostom. Theodosius II had then rebuilt the churchduring his reign.

When Justinian undertook to rebuild Hagia Sophia in532 AD he planned not simply a reconstruction of the orig-inal design of the church but an incredible re-imaginingthat would make it a wonder of the ancient world. Justiniandevised its construction with two architects named Isidoreof Miletus and Anthemius of Tralles. Both men are thoughtto have studied in Egypt during their careers andAnthemius had constructed other churches for Justinianthat had greatly impressed the Emperor. It is thought thatJustinian began planning a reconstruction of Hagia Sophiabefore its destruction during the riots because it becamesuch an elaborate and sumptuous design that the few weeks


• 65 •

it took to begin rebuilding would not have been enough forsuch a vast plan to take shape. In scale it was the largestChristian structure anyone had attempted to build and itwas richly decorated with marble from various parts of theEmpire.

Incredible effort was also expended on covering muchof the interior in rich mosaics and on elaborate and costlychurch fittings. But perhaps its most impressive featureand the aspect of the building’s architectural design thatwould have the greatest influence on future generationswas its huge dome. The central dome of Hagia Sophia is56 metres high and 31 metres in diameter. Its buildersmanaged to create the illusion that the dome floatsalmost without weight upon a series of 40 windows thatallow in light, further illuminating the brightly colouredinterior. The weight of the dome is carried on four greatpendentives, triangular structures that rest on the rectan-gular base of the church and it is further distributed byinterior ribs within the dome that extend downwards tothe floor of the building.The dome design is continued inthe eastern and western sections of the building in anincredible marriage of aesthetic beauty and structuralcontrol.

The church of Hagia Sopia, constructed by Justinian, isoften considered to be a defining masterpiece in Byzantinearchitecture and it established an artistic style of its ownthat has subsequently influenced Islamic, Eastern Orthodoxand Roman Catholic building styles. Justinian is famouslyreported to have said, ‘Solomon, I have surpassed you’, at

B Y Z A N T I U M

• 66 •

the ceremony of dedication of the church of St Sophia inDecember 537 AD.

Reconquest of North Africa and Italy

In the wake of the successful suppression of the Nika riots,Justinian appointed Belisarius to the task of reconqueringterritories of the Western Empire that had been lost. Apeace treaty had been agreed between the ByzantineEmpire and the Persians in 532 AD which meant thatJustinian was now able to turn his military attention andambitions to the countries in the west of theMediterranean. It was Justinian’s aim to restore those terri-tories lost to the Empire and have them ruled by a singleByzantine Emperor from Constantinople. Belisarius provedto be a brilliant general and successfully recaptured NorthAfrica from the Vandals in 533 AD. Justinian accordedBelisarius a triumphant parade at the Hippodrome ofConstantinople where war booty in the form of riches andhuman captives were shown off to the population of thecity. Many of those Vandals taken to Constantinople werepressed into military service in the legions. Belisarius andJustinian then undertook the reconquest of Sicily and Italy,capturing the city of Rome in 536 AD. However, it was tobe a further four years before Belisarius succeeded incapturing the Gothic capital of Ravenna in the north of Italyin 540 AD. In the event the celebrations following thesuccess of Belisarius were to prove extremely short-liveddue to renewed fighting in the East and the general’s subse-


• 67 •

quent recall by Justinian to defend the Empire against thePersians.

Bubonic Plague

Between 541 AD and 542 AD the Byzantine Empire was hitby a widespread and massively destructive outbreak ofbubonic plague. It is thought that the plague may havebegun in Egypt or Ethiopia and been carried toConstantinople on ships supplying the capital with grain.Constantinople was heavily dependent on these shipmentsof grain that came largely from Egypt and huge granarieshad been built to store it that in turn became a home to therats that carried the plague.

The historian Procopius recorded that as many as 10,000people a day were killed by the plague at its height and thepopulation of the city was unable to keep up with thenormal burial of the dead.The enormous toll of the diseaseled to a lack of people to maintain the production and distri-bution of food and this, in turn, led to a secondary crisis inthe city. The Emperor Justinian also fell ill with the plagueand the Empress Theodora ruled temporarily in his stead.The plague weakened the Byzantine Empire at the pointwhen Justinian had just reconquered territories in the Westthat had previously been lost and it made retaining themimpossible. In 548 AD the Empress Theodora died and thelater years of Justinian’s reign were at times difficult andtesting. However, the Emperor continued to rule until hisdeath in 565 AD and was succeeded by his nephew Justin.

B Y Z A N T I U M

• 68 •

The Rise of Islam

The reign of Justin II saw the Avars invade Thrace andsuccessfully resist the army the Emperor sent againstthem. Justin was forced to pay a tribute to them to ensurepeace. A Germanic people called the Lombards invadedmuch of Italy. However, Ravenna, Naples, Calabria, Sicilyand parts of the Venetian lagoon remained in Imperialhands. When Justin died in 578 AD, he was succeeded byTiberius who had failed to defeat the Avar forces. His reignwas brief, ending with his death in 582 AD, but, before hedied, he appointed a general called Maurice as his succes-sor. Perhaps the major achievements of Maurice’s reignwere the creation of the Exarchates of Carthage andRavenna in an attempt to retain Byzantine territories. Bothwere ruled by an Exarch, or provincial governor, who hadultimate power over all matters within the imperialdomains. Continuing conflict with the Avars and dissatis-faction with his reign led the army to revolt against him in602 AD. A centurion called Phokas was elected from theranks to replace him. Made Emperor with the help of theGreens, Phokas ordered the execution of Maurice and hisfamily.

• 69 •

Heraclius

The rebel centurion Phokas faced opposition to his reign asEmperor in 608 AD when Heraclius the Elder challengedhis right to the throne. Heraclius had been an importantgeneral serving under the Emperor Maurice against thePersian Empire and had subsequently been given the posi-tion of Exarch of Africa. His son Heraclius, who had grownup in Africa, sailed with an army to Constantinople in 609AD, stopping along the way to gain support for his chal-lenge to the throne. Niketas, cousin of Heraclius, seizedcontrol of Egypt in the same year. Many important figureswithin Constantinople, including Priscus, the son-in-law ofPhokas, switched loyalties to Heraclius and he was able totake the city with little difficulty. He was declared Emperorand executed Phokas himself. Heraclius was officiallycrowned on 5 October 610 AD at the Chapel of St Stephenwithin the imperial palace and he also married hisbetrothed Fabia on the same day. His wife took the newname of Eudocia on becoming Empress.

Although the ascent of Heraclius to the position ofEmperor had been assured and successful, he found himselfin control of an Empire in crisis. The Balkans had beeninvaded by the Avars and, in the East, Chosroes II, a formerally of the Emperor Maurice, had declared war on theEmpire. The Persians successfully captured Damascus in613 AD, Jerusalem in 614 AD and all of Egypt in 616 AD.The capture of Jerusalem proved particularly shocking tothe Byzantines because the Persians brutally suppressed a

B Y Z A N T I U M

• 70 •

violent Christian uprising in the city and burnt the Churchof the Holy Sepulchre to the ground. They also seized thefragment of the True Cross and many other importantrelics and carried them back to their capital of Ctesiphon.The Christians had killed many Jews and Persians in theinitial uprising and, in reprisal, Jews and Persians united inkilling many thousands of Christians.Whilst the loss of thecity and many of its relics and shrines horrified the rulersand citizens of Constantinople the capture of Egypt, one ofthe primary suppliers of grain to the city, was to provedisastrous.

The Persians made major inroads into Anatolia, modernday Turkey and even reached the town of Chalcedon that layacross the Bosphorous from Constantinople itself.Famously and eerily, it is said that the inhabitants ofConstantinople were able to see the fires of the Persiansoldiers reflected in the sea on the horizon at night. Withthe Avars dominating Greece, the major food sources forConstantinople had been cut off. The situation became sodire that, in 618 AD, Heraclius seriously considered aban-doning Constantinople and retreating to his African homeof Carthage in order to regroup his forces and renew hisattack on his enemies. Many have argued that this was, infact, a sensible and viable alternative to the situation that hewas confronted with but the Patriarch of the city, Sergius,begged and implored the Emperor to stay. In the endHeraclius agreed to remain and immediately set aboutrebuilding and reorganising the lands still left to theEmpire.

T H E R I S E O F I S L A M

• 71 •

Drawing on his own experiences and life in RomanCarthage, Heraclius divided the remaining Byzantine terri-tories into four great areas or ‘Themes’. This term isderived from the Greek word thema that describes a div-ision of troops. The thema was placed under the commandof a military governor known as a strategos. Heraclius alsodeveloped the idea of giving gifts of land to men in returnfor hereditary military service. Previously, Emperors hadrecruited armies for specific campaigns and they were oftencomposed of mercenaries or barbarian troops with dividedor loose loyalties. Now the territories would be defendedby armed forces with a vested interest in fighting for theirhomes, land and families. As mentioned above such asystem had been in place in the Exarchate of Carthage andit had also been used within the Exarchate of Ravenna.Once again it proved to be an effective strategy.

After implementing these new measures, Heracliuspersonally led a war fleet south against the Persians in 621AD. He was the first Emperor to lead an army against anenemy since Theodosius I. Travelling southwards along thecoast of Asia Minor, the fleet landed at the Bay of Issus andthe army then marched north and inland to meet thePersians in battle.The Byzantines proved victorious and thenext few years were spent campaigning against thePersians. However, in 626 AD, the Avars laid siege toConstantinople itself. They were beaten back and Persianattempts to attack across the Bosphorous were also success-fully repulsed by the Byzantine navy. Heraclius then forgedallegiances with the Khazars of the Caucasus and other

B Y Z A N T I U M

• 72 •

neighbouring peoples and set up headquarters atTrebizond. His alliances meant that he was able to lead hisarmy deep into enemy territory in what is now modern dayIraq. In 627 AD Heraclius won a significant victory againstthe Persian forces. Their king Chosroes II initially refusedto cease hostilities but he was himself overthrown by hisown son who finally made peace with Heraclius. Thoseterritories that had belonged to the Byzantine Empire wererestored to them as were the relics taken from Jerusalem,including the True Cross. This was seen very much as aChristian victory over pagan forces and Heraclius began toterm himself as a Basileus, a Greek term for king, droppingthe Roman or Latin term Augustus. In many ways Heracliusset a precedent for giving the Eastern Empire an increas-ingly Greek character since all subsequent emperorsadopted this title. He also made Greek the official languageof the Empire, moving away from the use of Latin. In 631AD Heraclius personally oversaw the return of the TrueCross to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem.

Having achieved so much to stabilize the Empire in theface of external dangers, Heraclius now attempted to healthe internal religious rifts that were still causing division.The provinces that had been conquered by the Persians hadbeen shown religious toleration by their occupiers and theMonophysite Christians, who had rejected the findings ofthe council of Chalcedon of 451 AD, had grown in numbersand strength. They believed that Christ had one nature,which was divine. The Patriarch of Constantinople,Sergius, attempted to create a new theological formula that


• 73 •

could be accepted by both the Orthodox Church and theMonophysites. His new religious doctrine was known asMonothelitism and argued that Christ was both perfectman and perfect God but possessed only one single energy.The formula met with initial success and was receivedfavourably by most of the patriarchs. It was even acceptedby Pope Honorius in Rome. However, its most vociferousopponent was the Patriarch of Jerusalem, Sophronius, whoproclaimed loudly in 634 AD that it was heresy andrejected it outright. Sophronius persuaded many to hispoint of view and the popularity of the compromiseformula faded away.

These arguments over the exact nature of Christ, thathad so absorbed the different factions of the Church, weresoon to be usurped in importance by the arrival of a newand unexpected threat to the stability of the Empire in theform of the armies of Islam. Arabic Muslim forces invadedSyria and conquered Damascus in the same year thatSophronius proclaimed Monothelitism to be heresy and theByzantine force raised by Heraclius was defeated. TheEmperor now despaired of the situation and had the TrueCross that he had only recently returned to Jerusalemtransported to Constantinople where he also took refuge.By 637 AD Jerusalem was under siege by the Muslims andsurrendered the following year. Patriarch Sophronius, whohad so vocally challenged the doctrine of Monothelitism,was forced to hand the city over to the Caliph Omar.

Heraclius’ later years were afflicted by failing physicaland mental health and his second marriage to his niece

B Y Z A N T I U M

• 74 •

Martina caused much turmoil and scandal. Some of theirchildren were born with disabilities or died when theywere very young. For many this was a punishment fromGod and it seems likely that Heraclius himself began tofeel that this was true. His victory over the Persians hadleft both empires weakened and unable to meet the newthreat of Islam and his attempts to bring peace to theChurch had failed. However, Heraclius persisted with thedoctrine of Monothelitism and the Patriarch ofConstantinople Sergius offered a revised version of thetheological formula. Now it was said that Christ was inpossession of two natures, perfect man and perfect God,but had a single will. This formula was put forward as animperial decree known as the Ekthesis and initially metwith widespread support.

However, this time it was the turn of the western PopeJohn IV to rebel and he rejected the formula. WhenHeraclius died in 641 AD it seemed that many of hisachievements had been in vain. But it was to be his re-organisation of the military, particularly in Asia Minor, thatwould stop the spread of the Arab invasion and ensured thesurvival of the Byzantine Empire for centuries to come.

Mohammed and the Rise of Islam

Before proceeding further with the story of Byzantium, itis important and necessary to examine the beginnings anddevelopment of Islam, a faith system that would ultimatelydetermine the fate of the Byzantine Empire and emerge as


• 75 •

a major world religion.The religion of Islam was to providethe previously divided Arabic tribes with a single unity ofpurpose that they had not previously possessed andgalvanise their people into a power with which to be reck-oned. The founder of Islam was the prophet Mohammedwhom Muslims consider to be the most important and finalprophet of God. Mohammed was born around 570 AD inthe town of Mecca in Northern Arabia. He became anorphan as a young boy and was raised firstly by his grand-father and then by his uncle. In Mohammed’s youth thetown of Mecca was an important site of pilgrimage focusedon a stone temple filled with idols. The temple is todayknown as the Kaaba and it is the holiest site in the Muslimworld. Under the influence of his uncle, Mohammedbecame a merchant and travelled to Syria. He married awidow who was older than him and started a family. It isbelieved by Muslims that, in 610 AD, Mohammed wasvisited by the Angel Gabriel in a cave near Mecca where hecustomarily spent time in contemplation. He was instructedby Gabriel to recite a series of verses that were given byGod. Mohammed received these verses for the rest of hislife and they were posthumously collected together andwritten down as the Quran, a term that translates as ‘recita-tion’. Following on from his revelations from the AngelGabriel, Mohammed began preaching and emphasised theimportance of belief in a single God. His monotheisticstance set him at odds with many in Mecca and Mohammedand those who followed him were persecuted.

Around 622 AD Mohammed revealed that he had been

B Y Z A N T I U M

• 76 •

taken on a night journey by the Angel Gabriel, known asthe Isra and the Miraj. During the Isra Gabriel had takenhim to Jerusalem. It was here that he ascended to heavenfrom the site of the Dome of the Rock in the second partof the journey, the Miraj. Mohammed reported that he hadspoken to other prophets including Moses and Jesus.Mohammed finally left Mecca with his followers to settlein the city of Medina in a journey termed the Hijra or‘migration’. Armed forces from Mecca repeatedlyattacked the Muslims at Medina but were driven away.Mohammed finally led his followers against the city ofMecca and conquered it. The idols were taken from theKaaba and the people of Mecca converted to Islam. Manyother Arabic tribes followed suit and, after Mohammeddied in 632 AD, Islam continued to grow, becoming anempire in its own right led by the caliphs who succeededthe Prophet.

Greek Fire

An excellent example of how the Byzantines were able toinnovate in order to overcome crises is their developmentand use of a devastatingly effective chemical weapon knownas ‘Greek fire’. Its importance was such that its formula wasa state secret guarded by the Emperor and it is now lost tous. Contemporary accounts describe a flammable, stickyincendiary liquid that burned with incredible intensity andthat water could not extinguish. In fact, contact with wateroften served only to spread the liquid and it would


• 77 •

continue burning even when it became submerged. It wasused most successfully, although not exclusively, by theByzantine navy which, with often terrifying results,propelled the liquid, under pressure, through metal siphonsand towards enemy ships. Its sticky nature meant that itwould cling to the hulls of wooden boats, their sails andoars and, most horrifically, to their crews. Enemies of theByzantines came to fear and dread the terrible fire inflictedon them and even the mere threat of its use, whenByzantine ships equipped with the ingenious siphon deviceswere sighted, could be enough to cause opponents to fleein terror.

Its qualities have been compared to that of the viciousmodern chemical weapon napalm, an agent whose usecaused so much horror and revulsion during the VietnamWar. However, it may surprise some to know that the useof chemically based incendiary weapons in the ancientworld, particularly in the East, was fairly well known.Theabundance of oil and its flammable qualities had led tomuch experimentation in the production of substanceswith military applications.

The contemporary chronicler Theophanes ascribes theinvention of Greek fire in 670 AD to a Syrian refugee by thename of Kallinikos who had fled the Muslim invasion of hiscountry and sought sanctuary in Constantinople. Theprimary reason for the effectiveness of Greek fire was thedevelopment of the system of propulsion that seems to haveresembled that of a soda siphon and allowed the Byzantinesto use the mixture in a way that would resemble the use of

B Y Z A N T I U M

• 78 •

a modern weapon such as a flamethrower. It may be that theliquid ignited through pressure as it was expelled throughthe siphon. It is thought that its primary component wasnaptha, ‘originally used as an incendiary poured over orhurled at besiegers in Mesopotamia, and later in firebombscatapulted by mangonels invented in Damascus and used byMuslims to bombard fortifications’. (Adrienne Mayor,Greek Fire, Poison Arrows,and Scorpion Bombs, p.241) The earli-est recorded usage of Greek fire by the Byzantines can actu-ally be dated to 513 AD but it was the invention of a systemof brass tubes and cauldrons that could produce controlledprojections of the fluid that transformed it into a far moreformidable armament.

The importance of Greek fire as an effective weapon isreflected in the fact that the Byzantine navy came to possessa specific group of sailors who were responsible for its usecalled the siphonarioi.Their role in the Byzantine navy was,in effect, not dissimilar to that of a gunner on a modernnaval ship. Greek fire was used with great success duringthe seven-year-long Arab siege of Constantinople from 670AD to 677 AD, destroying and driving away the blockadingenemy ships. It was also to prove crucial in savingConstantinople in 718 AD from another attack by the Arabfleet. Many have argued that the Byzantine Empire owed itssurvival, particularly in its later period, to this fearsomeweapon. An interesting testimony to the use of Greek fireduring the crusades was recorded in the memoirs of Jeande Joinville. So terrifying and formidable was Greek fire tothe men with whom he was fighting to hold a stronghold


• 79 •

that, every time it was hurled at them, they dropped totheir knees in prayer. He describes events in the thirteenthcentury during a siege:

This was the fashion of the Greek fire: it came on asbroad in front as a vinegar cask, and the tail of fire thattrailed behind it was as big as a great spear: and it madesuch a noise as it came, that it sounded like the thunderof heaven. It looked like a dragon flying through the air.Such a bright light did it cast, that one could see all overthe camp as though it were day, by reason of the greatmass of fire, and the brilliance of the light that it shed.

(Ethel Wedgwood [ed.]),The Memoirs of the Lord of Joinville, p.39).

Constans II

Following the death of the Emperor Heraclius, the Empirewas thrown into a period of confusion and infighting thatseems largely to have been the work of his second wifeMartina. Finally, she was banished by the senate to theisland of Rhodes and the grandson of Heraclius, ConstansII, was proclaimed Emperor in 642 AD at the age of justeleven.The senate ruled in his stead until he reached adult-hood. His reign began with the loss of most of Egypt thatMartina had surrendered to the Arabian armies.This repre-sented a serious loss to the Byzantines and the Arab forcespushed on through North Africa where they won a battleagainst Gregory the Exarch of Carthage.

B Y Z A N T I U M

• 80 •

Under the reign of Othman, who had succeeded Omaras Caliph after the latter’s death, the Arabian forces beganthe process of building a naval fleet.As a people used to lifein the desert this was a new and ambitious undertaking andone in which they were to prove very successful. In 649 ADthey attacked the Byzantine island of Cyprus and causedconsiderable damage to the capital and its port althoughthey did not capture the whole island. Cyprus was animportant naval base for the Byzantine Empire and thisstrike was designed to cause as much damage and disrup-tion as possible.The Arabian navy went on to attack Rhodesin 654 AD, which they captured along with the nearbyisland of Kos. Constans II led a fleet against the Arabs in 655AD but was defeated.

However, events turned in favour of the Byzantines whenthe Islamic world was thrown into uproar by the assassina-tion in 656 AD of the Caliph Othman. A period of internalfeuding ensued between the Muslim governor of Syria,Muawiya, and Ali, grandson of the Prophet himself.Constans took the opportunity to strengthen the defencesof the Empire during the cessation of hostilities, particularlythose in Anatolia, but, by 661 AD, Muawiya had gainedcontrol. Arab attacks on the Empire were renewed and, by662 AD, Constans II had taken the dramatic step of appar-ently abandoning Constantinople for the safety of the West.Constans based himself in Sicily whilst his wife and sonsremained in Constantinople.The Muslim naval forces underMuawiya gained an increasing control over the Anatoliancoastal waters and finally besieged Constantinople in 670


• 81 •

AD.The defence of the city was left to Constantine IV, sonof Constans II.The use and effectiveness of Greek fire, as wehave seen, proved to be pivotal in the eventual defeat of theArab navy and it finally abandoned the siege in 678 AD.

In the aftermath of this victory Constantine IVattempted to resolve the disputes that were continuing tocause division in the Church. His father Constans II hadcontinued to espouse the doctrinal position ofMonothelitism, first put forward in the reign of theEmperor Heraclius, and this had caused further frictionbetween Rome and Constantinople when Pope Theodorehad opposed it. Rome had originally supported theChristological formula but, when Constans II produced adecree called the Typos in 648 AD, the papacy rejected it.Central to the opposition had been a monk called Maximosthe Confessor who agitated against the Monothelite lineand gained the support of Pope Martin who came to powerin 649 AD. Constans saw the opposition as a direct chal-lenge to his power and had both Maximos and Martin sentinto exile, quashing the dissent but creating a growing senseof enmity. Constantine IV aimed to overcome these prob-lems at a General Council of the Church in 680 AD. TheMonothelite policy was condemned and it appeared thatthe Eastern and Western Churches were reconciled.

The Fall of Carthage

When Constantine IV died in 685 AD his son Justinian IIsucceeded him. Constantine had negotiated a payment of

B Y Z A N T I U M

• 82 •

tribute to the Byzantine Empire with the Caliph Muawiyaand this was continued when Muawiya was succeeded asCaliph by Abdul Malik.The tribute was said to be as much as1,000 nomismata a day – the equivalent of 5,000 pounds ofgold per year. In addition, payments of horses and slaveswere made. Justinian II and Caliph Abdul Malik also agreedto share revenues generated by Cyprus,Armenia and Iberia.Justinian II also agreed to evacuate the tribe known as theMardaites from Syria where they had fought successfullyagainst the Arab armies on more than one occasion. Theywere to be moved to Anatolia. In 688 AD Justinian continuedthis policy of repopulating Anatolia in order to strengthenthe Empire’s borders. The city of Thessaloniki had becomedominated by tribes of Slavs and Justinian led an army againstthem that re-established imperial rule there. In the wake ofthis mission the emperor arranged for the transportation ofmany Slavs to Anatolia where they were resettled. However,in 691 AD, large numbers of Slavs joined the Arabian forcesand the following year the Byzantines lost Armenia aftersuffering a defeat at Sebastopolis. Justinian had made himselfunpopular with both peasants and aristocrats through hishigh taxes and his often cruel methods in extracting them.Arevolt in 695 AD saw a soldier from the aristocratic classescalled Leontius proclaimed as Emperor, supported by thepowerful faction of the Blues. Justinian was sent into exilebut not before his nose had been mutilated to prevent himfrom becoming Emperor again. (It was a requirement ofByzantine society that an Emperor should be without physi-cal defects in order to rule.)


• 83 •

Leontius was to fare little better than Justinian and,when Carthage fell to the Saracens in 698 AD, he himselfwas usurped by a rebel called Tiberius, supported by theGreens. His nose was also cut and he was forced intomonastic exile. Whilst he was in exile, Justinian hadmanaged to persuade the Bulgar King Tervel to support hisreinstatement and they marched on Constantinople at thehead of a Bulgar and Slav force. Tiberius fled the city butwas later recaptured and executed. During the later part ofhis reign Justinian took to covering his mutilated face witha nose made of gold, an act that might have earned him theBond-like epithet of the Emperor with the Golden Nose. In711 AD he was once again overthrown and this timeexecuted by an Armenian general called Philippicus.Between 711 AD and 717 AD Byzantine leadership under-went a period of turmoil that was finally ended by theacclamation of Leo III as Emperor.

Iconoclasm

Leo III had been a governor of the Theme of Anatolikon andwas Syrian in origin. Something of a schemer, he had madedeals with the Arabs that they should retreat from imperialland and so earn him his acclamation as Emperor.The pay-off was to be the eventual surrender of Constantinople but,in the event, Leo had simply bought himself time to securethe city.The Arabian forces besieged the city from 717 ADto 718 AD but were beaten back.

However, despite this military success, the reign of Leo

B Y Z A N T I U M

• 84 •

III is now most associated with the doctrine of iconoclasm.The word ‘iconoclasm’ means literally ‘the smashing orbreaking of icons’ and it was given to a religious movementthat saw the worship of icons as being idolatrous.Why thiscontroversy should have appeared during this period hasbeen the source of considerable debate.

Many have ascribed iconoclasm to the growing culturalinfluence of Islam and to the belief that the worship ofimages equates to the worship of false idols, forbidden bythe Second Commandment in the Law of Moses. Whereimages of Christ, the Virgin and the Saints had becomewidespread and revered in Byzantine culture, Islamrejected pictures and more commonly made use of decora-tive calligraphy and written sources in its holy places. TheBishop of Nakoleia and others from Anatolia had begunagitating against the use of icons but they were resisted bythe patriarch of Constantinople, Germanos I. In 726 ADLeo ordered that an important icon of Christ, known as theChalke, which was set above the doorway to the imperialpalace should be removed. This action caused widespreadunrest but the Emperor was not to be dissuaded. On 7January 730 AD, Leo III issued a decree ordering thedestruction of icons. In the West the decree was met withconsternation and anger and Pope Gregory II condemnediconoclasm. A Western synod in 731 AD decreed that anyattempt to remove holy objects would be punished byexcommunication, a clear threat to Leo. Once again theChurch was split by internal division and the tensionsbetween East and West would continue into the future.


• 85 •

The Great Schism

The policy of iconoclasm imposed by the Emperor Leo IIIwas to continue during the reign of his son, Constantine V.He inherited the throne after his father’s death in 741 ADbut was almost immediately challenged for his title, in 742,by Artabasdus, his brother-in-law. Artabasdus succeeded inhis challenge to Constantine V and restored the worship oficons. However, only a year later, Constantine V was backon the throne and once again the use of icons was banned.During the reign of Constantine V hostilities between theEmpire and the Bulgars increased. Although the Emperorachieved a number of victories against them, the Bulgarswould remain a threat to the Empire and shape its develop-ment for several centuries.

Despite his success against the Bulgars, Constantine Vneglected the defence of the Byzantine Exarchate ofRavenna and it finally fell to the Lombards in 751 AD. PopeStephen II forged allegiances with the Franks who, underthe leadership of Pepin the Short, recaptured lands that hadbeen lost to the Lombards and put them under papalauthority in 756 AD. Constantine V was succeeded by hisson Leo IV, an iconoclast like his father. Upon his earlydeath from tuberculosis, his wife Irene ruled in his stead

• 87 •

since their son Constantine VI was still a child. Irene wasthe only woman to rule the Empire as a regent in her ownright and her time in power was characterised by a returnto the veneration of icons and by her domination of her sonConstantine VI. He deposed her briefly but Irene returnedto power and Constantine was blinded for his insubordina-tion, dying of his injuries in 797 AD.

In the West, Charles, the son of Pepin the Short, wascrowned ‘Emperor of the Romans’ by Pope Leo III in 800AD. The decision to name Charles Emperor causedconsternation among the people of Constantinople whoconsidered their own Emperors to be the direct successorsto the Roman Empire. Charles, better known to history asCharlemagne, made an offer of marriage to Irene but shewas deposed before she had time to accept.

She was replaced by the Logothete of the Treasury,Nicephorus I. As Regent, Nicephorus improved thefinances of the Empire but he was killed in battle against theBulgars in 811 AD. His son Stauracius was injured at thesame time and, unable to rule, died shortly afterwardswithout an heir. The throne then passed to the husband ofthe daughter of Nicephorus, Michael Rhangabe. Afternumerous failures in battle, he abdicated in favour of Leo V.Ruling from 813 AD to 820 AD, Leo re-instituted icono-clasm, largely as a measure to pacify soldiers from the Eastin Constantinople who had been driven from their homesby the Saracens and were iconoclasts.

He was violently overthrown by a close friend, MichaelII, who, during the course of his reign, overcame a virtual

B Y Z A N T I U M

• 88 •

civil war instigated by Thomas the Slav but also lost theisland of Crete to Arab pirates.When Michael II died in 829AD he left his son Theophilus to rule as Basileus.The reignof Theophilus was characterised by ongoing conflicts withMuslim forces and his death in 842 AD effectively markedthe end of iconoclasm. During the following reign of hiswife Theodora and his son Michael III, the public venera-tion of icons resumed. In private, it had probably neverreally ended.

In 865 AD, Michael III succeeded in forcing the BulgarKhan Boris and his people to adopt Orthodox Christianity.The Khan was baptised in 865 AD in Constantinople.During this period theological controversy raged betweenthe churches of Rome and Constantinople over what wastermed the Filioque dispute. In the Eastern Church the HolyGhost was said to proceed from the Father but, in the West,an insertion had been added to the Nicene Creed.The addi-tion was the word Filioque meaning ‘and the Son’ and hadnow become accepted in the Western Church. For theEastern Church, this was heresy and a challenge to itsauthority. Once again Rome and Constantinople werevying with one another for religious supremacy.

Macedonian Emperors

Although Michael III gained a reputation as a brave andaccomplished soldier and as a military leader, he was afigure who has come to be associated with personal dissi-pation. He spent much of his reign in the pursuit of pleas-

T H E G R E AT S C H I S M

• 89 •

ure and is sometimes referred to as ‘Michael the Sot’ for hiswild and drunken behaviour. At times the Emperorappeared more interested in chariot racing than in rulingand, to a certain extent, it could be argued he delegatedresponsibilities in order to focus on the hedonistic carous-ing that he so enjoyed. In 866 AD, Michael III took thefateful step of raising a personal friend, known as Basil theMacedonian, to the level of co-Emperor. Basil’s sobriquet ismisleading because he was, in fact, Armenian in origin. Hewas one of many Armenians whose family had been settledby the Empire within Thrace, close to the capital. However,in later raids by the Bulgars, many resettled Armenian families, together with many Macedonians, had beencarried off to a region north of the river Danube and theycame to be collectively referred to as ‘Macedonian’. Basilwas from a humble background and, in all likelihood, metMichael III through one of the Emperor’s pursuits, such aschariot racing. Having gained Michael’s friendship, headvanced rapidly. For a short time, Basil was happy toindulge the Emperor’s whims. In the end, Michael’sextreme debauchery led his former friend to plot againsthim. As on so many other occasions in Byzantine history,the reign of the Emperor was to end in his bloody assassi-nation. In 867 AD, Basil, with a group of supporters,murdered Michael whilst he was lying in the palace in adrunken stupor. In doing so, Basil established the so-calledMacedonian dynasty that was to continue the imperial lineuntil 1025 AD and included the reigns of Leo VI,Alexander, Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, Romanus I

B Y Z A N T I U M

• 90 •

Lecapenus, Romanus II, Nicephorus II Phokas and John ITzimisces.

Basil the Bulgar Slayer

In many ways the Emperor Basil II, known to posterity asthe Bulgar Slayer, was to prove to be one of the mostsuccessful and remarkable regents in the later history of theByzantine Empire. He was born in 958 AD the son of theEmperor Romanus II who made him a co-regent while hewas still an infant. Unfortunately, Romanus died when Basilwas only five years old and his mother remarried a general,known as Nicephorus II Phokas, who ruled in his steadfrom 963 AD until his death in 969 AD. FollowingNicephorus’ death he was succeeded by the Emperor JohnI Tzimisces who ruled until 976 AD. In that same year, BasilII became senior Emperor at the age of 18.

However, for the first nine years of his reign, Basil wasdominated by his great-uncle, the eunuch Basil Lecapenus,who had been president of the senate for many years and,apparently unwilling to give up control of the Empire,continued to wield considerable power. Basil II also facedchallenges from other rivals to the throne who contestedthe later tradition of familial succession to the throne infavour of the acclamation of Emperors by the army or theseizing of power. As early as 976 AD Bardus Sclerus, animportant figure in the army, was declared as Basileus orEmperor by his own men and besieged the capital. Theeunuch Basil Lecapenus took the decision to entrust the


• 91 •

defence of the city to Bardas Phocas, himself a potentialrival to the throne, who none the less succeeded insuppressing Sclerus’ rebellion.

In the meantime Basil II appears to have played some-thing of a waiting game, familiarising himself with themachinations of the Empire and developing his skills as anadministrator and soldier. Finally, in 985 AD, the overbear-ing behaviour of his uncle proved too much and Basil II hadhim arrested, his property seized and sent him into exile.

It was not long before Basil II faced his first major crisisas ruler when Tsar Samuel of Bulgaria invaded the Byzantineprovince of Thessaly and captured Larissa, its main city.Thecapture of the city and the subsequent treatment of its citi-zens was said to have been particularly cruel and brutal andBasil II was determined to punish the Tsar and his forces. Itwas to be the first major campaign in which Basil led thearmy personally but, unfortunately, it was also to be hismost disastrous. He made the tactical error of leading thearmy through a mountain pass known as Trajan’s Gate to thecity of Sardica but calling a halt in order to let his rearguardcatch up.This gave the Tsar an opportunity to deploy troopsinto the mountains. The siege of Sardica was unsuccessfuland Basil led his army back through the pass of Trajan’s Gateand straight into an ambush.

The army was routed although Basil and a small remain-der of the troops survived. The humiliation of his defeatwas to create a terrible hatred in Basil of the BulgarianEmpire and a desire for future revenge. His defeat alsoconvinced Bardas Phocas that the time was right to chal-

B Y Z A N T I U M

• 92 •

lenge Basil as Emperor. He marched on Constantinople andset up camp at Chrysopolis on the Asian shore of theBosphorous in 989 AD.

In response, Basil called upon the aid of Prince VladimirI of Kiev.Vladimir agreed to send a force of 6,000 to helpBasil but added a condition that Basil should give his ownsister Anna in marriage to him. Basil agreed but insistedthat the heathen prince convert to Orthodox Christianity.The rebel Bardas Phocas was defeated with the assistance ofthe Varangian troops sent by Vladimir who were of Vikingdescent. Prince Vladimir kept his word and embraced theOrthodox faith and set about converting his people to thenew faith, thus enlarging the Eastern Church and shapingthe future of Russia and Eastern Europe.

Following the fall of a number of Byzantine towns toBulgar forces, Basil turned his attentions to their recaptureand the strengthening of defences, notably in Thessalonica.However, in 995 AD, Basil was forced to lead an army toSyria against the Muslim Arabs. He was able to rescue thecity of Aleppo and secured most of Syria under Byzantinecontrol. Basil also took great steps to undermine the powerand land holdings of the great Anatolian barons of whomPhokas and Sclerus had been two. These vast estates werebroken up and restored to the poor families from whichthey had been taken unlawfully. The importance of thesepeasant farmers was that they were the source of themajority of the manpower for the army and the restitutionof their rights diminished the power of the barons andstrengthened Basil’s position.


• 93 •

Basil focused on campaigning against the Bulgars from1000 AD onwards with the most significant battle in thisongoing struggle taking place in 1014 AD. At the Battle ofClidion Basil managed to defeat the Bulgarian army and,although Tsar Samuel escaped, as many as 15,000 otherprisoners were captured. Basil punished the captives terri-bly, blinding every 99 men out of 100.Those who were leftunmutilated were forced to lead their blinded comradesback to their Tsar who is said to have collapsed on theirarrival. He died shortly afterwards, apparently from theshock caused by this experience. Although the Bulgarianswere to fight on, they were finally defeated in 1018 AD andBasil’s wars against the Bulgars earned him the nickname ofBoulgaroctonos meaning ‘Bulgar-slayer’. Basil also negotiatedthe passing of Armenia back to Byzantine control andByzantine forces managed to recapture territories in thesouth of Italy. He was planning to retake Sicily when hedied on 15 December 1025 AD.Although his achievementswere many and he left the Empire in a considerablystronger state than he had inherited it, Basil never marriedand left no heir to the throne. For this reason, it is oftenargued that Basil’s rule, successful in so many ways, did nothalt the subsequent overall decline of the ByzantineEmpire.

The Great Schism

The fate of the island of Sicily was to generate conflicts overand above its importance as a former territory that the

B Y Z A N T I U M

• 94 •

Byzantines hoped to reconquer. Just as the island of Maltaproved to be a point of key importance to the Britishduring the Second World War, Sicily was considered by theByzantines to be of strategic significance as a base to exertcontrol in the Mediterranean.

However, Muslim Arabs contested the Byzantines forcontrol of the island with a number of raids against theisland that became a full-scale invasion in 827 AD. By 831AD the city of Palermo had fallen to the Arabs butByzantine forces on the island hung on grimly until as late as 878 AD when the capital of Syracuse was lost.Following the death of Basil II an attempt was made torecapture the island but proved unsuccessful and founderedin 1041 AD.

In the following years Sicily drew the attention ofNormans with an eye to establishing new kingdoms. SomeNorman warriors had taken military service in the south ofItaly under the Lombards and Byzantine authorities. TheByzantines still held an important base in southern Italy atBari. However, it was not long before groups of Normansbegan to seek power for themselves. One such group, ledby Robert Guiscard, took to raiding in the area andattacked the city of Benevento, controlled at that time bythe papacy. In 1053 AD Pope Leo IX led an army against theNormans but was defeated and taken captive at the Battleof Civitate. The failure of Byzantine forces to support thearmy of the Pope led to much resentment amongst hissupporters. Ironically, the Byzantine Emperor ConstantineIX Monomachus and Argyrus, commander of the Byzantine


• 95 •

forces in southern Italy, were in agreement that the papacyand the Empire should join forces against the Normans.

However, they were opposed in this policy by thePatriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius, whobelieved that support for the papacy would only result inthe loss of the power and prestige of the Eastern Church inthe region. He became involved in a stinging dispute withthe Pope, criticising him for allowing the Normans tointroduce Latin customs in Greek churches. Whilst theEmperor Constantine IX Monomachus continued to worktowards an alliance of the Byzantine and Latin worlds, PopeLeo IX dispatched papal representatives to Constantinoplewith a letter addressed to the Emperor in which he criti-cised Cerularius for presuming to assert his authority overthat of his own. Another letter to the Patriarch followedmuch the same lines and expressed the expectation thatPapal authority would be recognised. Upon reception ofthe envoys, Cerularius rejected their criticisms and eventheir status as representatives of the Pope, although theEmperor strove to remain courteous and welcoming.At thesame time that the party were staying in Constantinople thePope died. Since they had been his personal representa-tives, the envoys were thus technically disempowered butthe war of words continued, led by Cardinal Humbert ofMourmoutiers who not only exacerbated matters but putforward opinions of his own on the Eastern Church. In thecircumstances the Patriarch effectively ignored the Papallegates until Cardinal Humbert and his companions tookthe unprecedented, and strictly speaking, unlawful step of

B Y Z A N T I U M

• 96 •

taking matters into their own hands. The envoys marchedinto the church of Hagia Sophia on 16 July 1054 AD and,in front of the assembled congregation, placed a documenton the altar.The papal ambassadors had drawn up a Bull ofExcommunication against the Patriarch of Constantinople.Infuriated, Cerularius had the legates excommunicated. Itwas a sequence of events that need never have happenedand appears to have been, in large measure, based uponpersonal dislike.All those involved seemed to have behavedlike nothing so much as warring wizards of myth hurlingspells against one another. Although the papal excommuni-cation was uncanonical and unlawful, it led to a major splitbetween the two churches that was never to be properlyresolved.

The Battle of Manzikert

The Battle of Manzikert, fought in 1071, has come to beseen by many historians as marking a pivotal point in thedownturn of the fortunes of the Byzantine Empire. JohnJulius Norwich goes so far as to say that it ‘was the great-est disaster suffered by Byzantium in the seven and a half centuries of its existence’, (John Julius Norwich,Byzantium: The Apogee, p.357). Following the fall of theArmenian capital of Ani to the Seljuk Turks, under the lead-ership of Alp Arslan, the Byzantine Emperor Romanus IVDiogenes led a force estimated at between 60,000 to70,000 men against the Turks. In fact, Romanus had agreeda truce with Arslan but the persistent raids by Turkoman


• 97 •

tribesmen, acting without the consent of the Sultan,appeared to the Byzantine Emperor to have invalidated it.Interestingly, at the point when Romanus IV decided tomarch across Anatolia against the Seljuk Turks, Alp Arslanwas in the process of moving against the rival FatimidCaliphate.

Romanus IV sent an envoy to Alp Arslan, offering to givethe city of Hierapolis in Syria, captured in 1068, back tothe sultan if, in return, the Sultan would restore theArmenian fortresses of Archesh and Manzikert. Theappearance of the Byzantine army in Armenia forced AlpArslan to abandon his projected campaign against theFatimid Caliphate and assemble an army to meet them inbattle. Romanus IV took the decision at Erzurum inArmenia to divide his forces in two and sent the largerpart, under the leadership of his general JosephTarchaniotes, to capture the fortress of Khelat close to LakeVan. He himself led the remainder of the army against thefortress of Manzikert and captured it without any real diffi-culties on 23 August 1071.

However, mystery surrounds what happened to theforce commanded by Tarchaniotes. Muslim sources claimthat he was defeated in battle whilst Byzantine writers saythat his army fled from the Seljuk Turks and was not seenagain until it arrived at Melitene. It has been conjecturedthat this was a direct betrayal of the Emperor, aimed atdeposing him in favour of his rival Andronicus Ducas.

Based on what little is known, this hypothesis seems thelikeliest and, therefore, it was an act of desertion rather

B Y Z A N T I U M

• 98 •

than a military defeat that left Romanus IV with his armyhalved in number. On 24 August, Byzantine foragingparties were attacked by Seljuk forces and the Armeniangeneral Basilacius was sent by Romanus IV against them.However, the strength of the Seljuk troops was greater thanthe Emperor had anticipated. His general was captured andmany of those with him were killed. The Emperorresponded by despatching his general Bryennius, with theright wing of the army, against the Seljuks but they werethemselves forced back to the Byzantine camp, in all likeli-hood by the sheer numbers with which they wereconfronted.

The following day, 25 August,Turkish mercenaries in theservice of the Byzantine army deserted and joined theTurkish side. Although this unwelcome development musthave been demoralizing to the Byzantine forces, the situa-tion did not seem unrecoverable, particularly when AlpArslan sent an envoy offering a truce to the camp of theEmperor. However, Romanus IV rejected this offer, appar-ently either determined to defeat the Turks or unwilling toreturn home without having properly engaged the enemy.

The battle tactics of the two sides were markedly differ-ent.The Byzantine army assembled into a linear formation,prepared for a committed conflict in which one side or theother would finally emerge as victor. The Turks, however,were adept and highly skilled at skirmishing or adoptingguerrilla tactics, their archers attacking the enemy on theirswift ponies and then fleeing from any real engagements.On 26 August, Romanus IV personally assembled his


• 99 •

troops and took command of the central part of theByzantine line whilst Bryennius took the left side andanother general called Alyattes took the right. TheEmperor’s rival, Andronicus Ducas, commanded the rear-guard. As the Byzantine army marched towards the enemylines, the Turkish troops in the centre gradually fell backwhilst the mounted archers harassed the Byzantine troopson either flank.The Turks succeeded in drawing some of theByzantine cavalry away from the army line and subse-quently ambushed them in nearby ravines and difficultcountry. Finally, realising that they were being drawnfurther and further from their camp and with the lightfading, the Emperor gave the order to head back. At thispoint confusion seems to have developed amongst theByzantine army. Some mercenaries thought that theEmperor had been killed and the lines began to disinte-grate. Alp Arslan unleashed his full force on the retreatingarmy and managed to separate the Emperor from theprotection of the rearguard. It seems likely that Ducasbetrayed the Emperor by fleeing the field rather thansupporting him and the latter was soon surrounded by theTurks. He made a brave and defiant stand but was over-whelmed and captured.

Romanus IV was brought before Alp Arslan and it seemsthat the Turkish leader treated his prisoner with great cour-tesy and respect. He even offered a truce between the twosides and, although he asked for the surrender of severalcities, his demands were said to have been surprisinglymoderate.The Emperor had little choice but to accept and

B Y Z A N T I U M

• 100 •

was personally escorted back by Alp Arslan much of theway to Constantinople. However, if the Sultan had beenmerciful and magnanimous to Romanus in victory, thesame could not be said of the Emperor’s treatment on hisreturn to the capital. He was deposed by Michael VII Ducasand, although he was initially promised sanctuary in amonastery if he gave up his title, he was finally blinded andsent to the Island of Proti where he died of his gruesomeinjuries shortly afterwards.

It was to be the aftermath of the battle that caused thegreatest damage to the Byzantine Empire. On seizing thethrone Michael VII immediately rejected the truce madewith Alp Arslan and effectively goaded the Sultan intotaking action several years later.The irony is that the Sultanwas, in fact, more concerned with fighting the FatimidCaliphate than with challenging Byzantium. The politicalintrigues within Constantinople served only to destabilisethe military, particularly the Anatolian themes thatprovided the army with the majority of its soldiers.Neglecting the maintenance of the Anatolian defences leftthe way clear for the Turkish forces that, by around 1080,had come to dominate the majority of the former imperialterritory in Anatolia. The loss of Anatolia would in turnprecipitate the First Crusade when the Emperor Alexius IComnenus turned to the West for aid in 1095.


• 101 •

The Crusades

The reign of Michael VII (1071–78) was both a troubledand a turbulent time for the Byzantine Empire. The Battleof Manzikert had resulted in the loss of imperial control inthe East and the city of Bari, the final stronghold ofByzantine power in Italy, had fallen to the Normans in thesame year. Relations with the papacy were dire and thePecheneg people were creating chaos in the Balkan penin-sula. A Norman adventurer called Roussel of Bailleulrebelled against the Emperor and tried to create his ownkingdom in Anatolia but failed and was defeated byByzantine forces. Finally insurrection within Byzantium ledto the abdication of Michael VII who was replaced by anobleman called Nicephorus III Botaneiates. Under thiselderly ruler the Empire grew weaker still as Turkishcontrol in Asia Minor became absolute. Nicephorus, in histurn, was forced to abdicate and was sent to a monastery tospend the rest of his life there by the Byzantine generalAlexius Comnenus. He was the nephew of formerEmperor Isaac Comnenus and was to prove to be an ableand effective ruler who would deal with many difficultiesand challenges to his empire during his reign.

The first major crisis that faced Alexius took the form of

• 103 •

the Norman warlord Robert Guiscard who had conqueredSicily and much of Southern Italy. A formidable militaryleader, Robert had been given the epithet of Guiscard,which means ‘the Crafty’, by his men. Following Guiscard’svictories in Southern Italy, the Emperor Michael VII hadattempted to reach terms with him by offering to marry hisbrother to one of the Norman’s daughters in exchange fora military treaty. Robert eagerly accepted the offer and it islikely that he had ambitions to sit on the imperial thronehimself. Following the successive abdications of Michael VIIand Nicephorus III Botaneiates, the agreement was nulli-fied. Having lost this potential bridgehead to the throne,Guiscard simply took the decision to attack the Empire andassembled an army in 1080 AD. His fleet sailed from Italyto Corfu and took the island, offering a point of entry towhat is now Albania and the road known as the Via Egnatiathat led overland to Constantinople itself. However,Alexius appealed for aid to the Doge of Venice who sent afleet against the Norman force. For the Venetians, controlof the Adriatic was vital to maintain their trade routes.Although the Venetians proved successful against theNorman fleet, the army of Guiscard landed at the town ofDurazzo in what is today Albania. Alexius personally led anarmy against the Normans but Guiscard’s troops provedtoo much for the Byzantine force which was comprisedmainly of mercenaries and was diminished in both numbersand effectiveness following the defeat at Manzikert. TheByzantines were beaten back and abandoned the field,finally retreating to Thessalonica. However, Alexius raised

B Y Z A N T I U M

• 104 •

funds to instigate a rebellion in Guiscard’s Italian lands,forcing him to return to suppress them.

His son Bohemund remained and pursued the campaignand succeeded in conquering territories in NorthernGreece. Finally, Alexius inflicted a painful defeat onBohemund at Larissa in 1083 AD. The Norman army wasforced to retreat and Bohemund travelled back to Italy. Inhis absence the Norman forces either gave up or wereoverrun. Robert Guiscard launched another offensiveagainst the Empire in 1084 AD and, although its earlystages were promising, an outbreak of sickness seriouslyweakened his force and finally killed him in the followingyear. The expedition fell apart and, in the short term, thethreat of the Normans was ended.

The First Crusade

Although the Normans’ ambitions had been temporarilyhalted, it was not long before new threats to the security ofthe Empire would emerge. Alexius fought and defeated aPecheneg army in 1091 with the assistance of a rival tribecalled the Cumans. However, the barbarian tribes ofNorthern Europe remained a constant danger to theEmpire and Constantinople was never to be entirely securefrom their depredations.

Alexius also had to contend with a Turkish force led byChaka, the Emir of Smyrna, who had managed to gainsubstantial control in the Aegean and Eastern Medi-terranean seas. He was defeated by a Byzantine naval force

T H E C RU S A D E S

• 105 •

close to Constantinople in 1091 AD. Alexius tenaciouslyfought back all-comers and, when internal bickeringbetween the Turkish leaders in Anatolia began to intensify,it seemed possible that imperial lands might be recap-tured. However, the Battle of Manzikert had seriouslyreduced the forces at the disposal of the Emperor and anymilitary endeavour would require assistance from else-where.

In 1094 AD, Pope Urban II invited delegates fromConstantinople to attend a council of the Church in theWest to be held at Piacenza. Urban had made efforts in thepreceding years to reconcile the two churches followingthe debacle of the Great Schism and the successive prob-lems that had arisen between Rome and Constantinople.For Alexius, it represented an opportunity to furtherstrengthen relations between East and West and also thechance to appeal for military aid in Anatolia. His represen-tatives related the threat posed by the Muslim Turks toConstantinople and, by extension, the danger to the rest ofChristian Europe if the Empire should fall. The effect oftheir speeches was to be profound and dramatic. PopeUrban II called a subsequent council at Clermont in Franceon 18 November 1095 AD and declared the need for a HolyWar in the East. Pope Urban argued that Christians fromthe West should assist Christians in the East and drewparticular attention to the city of Jerusalem. Although thecity of Jerusalem had been in Muslim hands for centuriesand Christians had largely been tolerated, the currentrulers were attacking Christian pilgrims. Pope Urban II

B Y Z A N T I U M

• 106 •

called for a Christian army to assemble and embark on acrusade against the Infidel. For some, it was a genuineopportunity to achieve spiritual absolution and visit theHoly Places of Jerusalem. For others, it was a chance togain land, power and plunder.

The first and quickest response to the Pope’s appeal tookthe form of a Peasants’ Crusade, led by an enigmatic figureknown as Peter the Hermit. Through a combination of hisown personal magnetism and the religious fervour createdby the Pope’s appeal, Peter gathered a movement thatincluded some knights but was comprised mainly of peas-ants, both male and female, and that may have numbered asmany as 40,000. In Constantinople, the news of the HolyWar declared in the West was greeted with alarm and someconsternation. Alexius was deeply concerned about thepotential damage that an undisciplined army of peopleByzantines viewed as barbarians could wreak within theborders of the Empire.The Emperor took immediate stepsthat would ensure that he was seen to be assisting thecrusaders whilst protecting Byzantine interests. Provisionswere amassed at points along their route across Greece inan attempt to prevent them looting the local countrysideand military police met and escorted crusaders toConstantinople. Peter’s army, travelling overland, becameinvolved in violence in the Hungarian city of Belgrade andalso at Nish.

However, at Nish, they were suppressed by Byzantineforces who then accompanied them the rest of the way toConstantinople. Alexius showed courtesy and cooperation


• 107 •

to the crusaders despite the troubles they had created.Although it was apparent to Alexius that the ill-disciplinedarmy led by Peter stood little chance against the SeljukTurks in Anatolia, he was keen nonetheless for them toleave Constantinople and had them ferried across to AsiaMinor on 6 August 1096 AD. This first people’s crusadeproved to be a disaster. The various contingents, who allmanaged to fall out with each other, were successfullyoverwhelmed by the Turks and were either killed or takenas slaves. By October of 1096 AD the Peasants’ Crusadewas at an end.

However, the armies that followed this ill-fated expedi-tion from the West were far more formidable and were ledby some of the most powerful nobles of Europe.

For the Emperor, this created a series of potentialdangers. Firstly, there was the very real possibility that anarmy of crusaders from the West might actually attempt tooverthrow him and capture the Empire for themselves and,secondly, the fear was that they would establish kingdomsfor themselves in the Middle East. So, in return for hisassistance and cooperation in reaching the Holy Land, heattempted to extract oaths of allegiance from the leaders ofthe crusade that his authority in the region should be recog-nised. Some took the oath but others proved more reluc-tant.

Unlike the ill-equipped and untrained people’s armythat had preceded them, the crusaders who arrived in AsiaMinor in 1097 AD, having travelled via Constantinople,proved to be a success.They took the city of Nicaea in June

B Y Z A N T I U M

• 108 •

1097 AD and defeated the Seljuk Turks at Dorylaeum amonth later. The victory at Nicaea restored territory forthe Empire but, in most other cases, the crusadersretained the land they captured. In June 1098 AD Antiochwas taken and the campaign continued southward. By mid-July 1099 AD, the city of Jerusalem had fallen to thecrusaders amidst terrible and violent scenes.The Christianforces killed all the Muslims that resided within the city.The Jewish population, too, was treated mercilessly –forced into the largest synagogue in Jerusalem, which wasthen set ablaze and burnt to the ground. Whilst the mainbody of the army had moved onto Jerusalem, Baldwin ofBoulogne had struck inland to the desert city of Edessa,which he had succeeded in capturing. He then proclaimedhimself Count of Edessa. More disturbingly for theEmperor Alexius, following the capture of Antioch,Bohemund, the son of the Norman adventurer RobertGuiscard, had declared himself to be the Prince ofAntioch. He reneged on his oath to return former impe-rial lands to the Empire and expelled the Greek Patriarchfrom the city.

In Jerusalem, Godfrey of Lower Lorraine became sover-eign, although he refused the title of King in the city whereChrist died and was resurrected. Instead he was proclaimedas the ‘Defender of the Holy Sepulchre’. Despite hissuccess at Antioch, Bohemund was captured byDanishmend Turks in 1100 and imprisoned for three years.He was finally released after his brother Baldwin, who hadby then become King of Jerusalem, paid a ransom for his


• 109 •

freedom. Following a series of crusader defeats and hostil-ity between Alexius and Bohemund, the self-proclaimedPrince of Antioch returned to the West to seek support forthe new crusader kingdoms.

Bohemund convinced Pope Paschal II that the ByzantineEmpire was the enemy of Christendom and he raised anarmy to attack Constantinople. In 1107 he led a fleet acrossthe Adriatic to Durazzo, intent on its capture. From there,he planned to move overland to Constantinople itself.Alexius himself, supported by mercenaries of the SeljukSultan, led an army against him and Bohemund wascaptured. Alexius forced him to renew his oath of alle-giance to him and a peace treaty was agreed. The treatyprovided the Empire with a short period of relative peacebut, by 1111, it was variously threatened by Turkish attacksand by the ships of the Western trading powers of Genoaand Pisa. Alexius concluded treaties with the Westernersthat granted them important trading rights and containedthe Turkish attacks. When Alexius died in 1118, his sonJohn II Comnenus succeeded him as Emperor. In 1137,John Comnenus brought the city of Antioch back underimperial control after successive Latin rulers had renegedon their oaths of allegiance. Upon his death in 1143, his sonManuel I Comnenus became Emperor.

When the Muslim forces of Imad ed-Din Zengi capturedthe County of Edessa in 1145, the situation in the crusaderstate of Outremer led to calls for a Second Crusade. Theinitial wave of enthusiasm that had accompanied the successof the First Crusade had faded and, as was to be the case

B Y Z A N T I U M

• 110 •

throughout the history of the Latin Kingdoms in the East,manpower was now urgently needed. Bernard, the Abbotof Clairvaux, was to be instrumental in raising support fora Second Crusade that was led by King Louis VII of Franceand King Conrad III of Germany. It was to prove a disasterand ended in a humiliating defeat in 1148 at the hands offorces of Nur ed-Din, the son of Zengi. However, internaldisputes within the Islamic forces prevented a concertedeffort against the Crusader Kingdoms in the East until theemergence of Saladin as a unifying leader in the 1170s.

The death of Manuel I Comnenus in 1180 precipitated adark and troubled episode in the history of Byzantium.Manuel had been fascinated by the culture and customs ofWestern Europe and had married a Latin, Mary of Antioch.Although his son, Alexius II Comnenus, was named as hissuccessor, he was still a child and his mother ruled asRegent in his stead. This created great resentment inConstantinople where many were appalled that a foreignbarbarian should hold so much power and feared anincrease in Western influence on the Empire. The firstcousin of the young Emperor,Andronicus Comnenus, capi-talised on the unpopularity of Mary of Antioch and stageda coup, supported by the people of Constantinople. It wasto be a bloody and vicious insurrection that would set thetone for his subsequent reign and earn him the epithet ofAndronicus the Terrible. The young Emperor and hismother were imprisoned and then killed and a terriblemassacre of the Latin population of Constantinoplefollowed. Andronicus became Emperor in 1183 but he


• 111 •

soon faced a major invasion by Norman Sicilian forces whocaptured the strategically important harbour of Durazzo in1185. Within the Empire, Andronicus began a sadisticcampaign of violence against what he saw as corruptionwithin the state that would change his popular status fromsaviour to tyrant. The Sicilian army then marched onThessalonica, which Andronicus had ordered to beprepared for the oncoming assault, but, through the incom-petence of its Governor, it fell to the invaders.The sack ofThessalonica, with the slaughter of its citizens and the prof-anation of its Holy Places, was particularly shocking. Asmany as 8,000 people are claimed to have been killed bythe Normans before order was restored.The Norman armythen marched on Constantinople.

In the face of this catastrophe the people ofConstantinople rebelled against Andronicus and his cousinIsaac Angelus was crowned Emperor. Andronicus failed tooppose the coup effectively and was subsequently handedto the people who killed him. Isaac mobilised all the troopsat his disposal and inflicted a crushing defeat on theNormans. When the news of the defeat of the mainNorman army reached Thessalonica, the people of the cityoverwhelmed the garrison and the remaining Normansurvivors. Isaac had succeeded in averting disaster at a timeof crisis – a triumph that in many ways typifies the spiritand character of the Byzantine Empire – but, as always,new threats would emerge in the near future.

The Fall of Jerusalem to Saladin in 1187 led to calls fora Third Crusade to be led by Frederick Barbarossa. Isaac

B Y Z A N T I U M

• 112 •

Angelus greatly feared that Barbarossa would attempt tooverrun Constantinople en route to the Middle East but heagreed to assist in the transportation of the crusaders aslong as they stayed clear of the capital. Barbarossa died in1190 in Asia Minor, either drowning or suffering a heartattack when crossing a river, and his death lessened Isaac’sworries. Although the Third Crusade did not succeed in itsgoal of capturing Jerusalem, the armies of Richard theLionheart and Philip Augustus of France ensured the short-term survival of the remaining, diminished crusader king-doms. In 1195 Isaac Angelus was overthrown by Alexius III,his older brother. According to Byzantine custom, he wasblinded so that he could not regain the throne.

The Fourth Crusade

Innocent III became pope in 1198 and wasted no time incalling for a new crusade. Its initial target was to be Egyptwhich Richard the Lionheart had believed was the mostvulnerable part of the East to attack. During this period,Europe was in turmoil following the death of Richard andinternal strife in Germany. However, for this crusade,Innocent III hoped to exert a greater papal control of thecrusader armies and he appointed Count Tibald ofChampagne as its leader. In order to attack the infidelthrough Egypt, the crusaders needed to assemble a substan-tial fleet to carry them to their destination. Innocentturned to the Republic of Venice to fulfil this purpose andhe dispatched a party of six representatives to the city to


• 113 •

discuss matters with the Venetians in 1201. For the substan-tial sum of 84,000 silver marks, Doge Enrico Dandoloagreed to ship the crusader army to Egypt and to supply 50galleys from the Republic itself. In addition, the Dogenegotiated an agreement that the Republic should be givenhalf of any lands taken during the expedition. However,when the army assembled in 1202, only a third of thoseexpected to fight arrived in Venice. For many, the decisionto attack through Egypt was unpopular since Jerusalemitself was seen as the central goal of any crusade. Thiscreated the immediate problem that insufficient funds werecollected by the crusader army to pay the Doge for histransport. At this point, following the death of Tibald,Marquis Boniface of Montferrat was in control of the army.As an alternative form of payment the Doge suggested thatthe crusaders should supply him with military assistance inrecapturing Zara on the Adriatic coast, a city that hadbelonged to the Venetians but had been taken by the Kingof Hungary. Many were appalled by this idea, as the King ofHungary was a Christian who had been on crusade himself.However, the proposal was finally accepted and the fleet setoff from Venice later that year. It succeeded in capturingZara but Pope Innocent III was so infuriated by the attackthat he excommunicated the entire crusader army. He laterrelented towards the crusaders, although the Doge and hisfollowers remained excommunicates.

Whilst the crusaders were based at Zara, the son of IsaacAngleus, the Byzantine Emperor who had been overthrownand blinded by his own brother Alexius III, arrived seeking

B Y Z A N T I U M

• 114 •

aid in regaining the throne. In return for military assis-tance, the son of Isaac, another Alexius, offered substantialfinancial rewards, a promise of soldiers for the campaign inEgypt and, even more dramatically, that the EasternChurch would recognise the supremacy of the papacy.Theoffer was readily accepted, under the rather flimsy premisethat it would unify Christendom, although, in reality, itsappeal for the majority of the crusaders was that it offeredmaterial rewards and significant booty. The crusader fleetarrived at Constantinople in 1203 and captured the suburbof Galata. They attacked the city, whose inhabitants wereamazed by the turn of events, but were thrown back by theVarangian guard loyal to the Emperor Alexius III. However,despite the failure of the attack, Alexius III panicked andfled Constantinople.

The decision was taken by court officials to re-institutethe deposed Emperor and he made his son Alexius co-Emperor. The agreement they then made led to bitterhatred towards the crusaders within Constantinople and, inJanuary 1204, Isaac and Alexius were deposed. They werereplaced by Alexius V Ducas Murzuphlus who refused tomeet the crusaders’ terms. The crusaders then decided toattack the city and they eventually succeeded in gainingaccess to Constantinople and letting in the Western army.Once again the Emperor deserted Constantinople and thecity was sacked.

The Byzantine chronicler Nicholas Mesarites describesan almost apocalyptic scene, ‘war-maddened swordsmen,breathing murder, iron-clad and spear-bearing, sword-


• 115 •

bearers and lance bearers, bowmen, horsemen, boastingdreadfully, baying like Cerebus and breathing like Charon,pillaging the holy places, trampling on divine things,casting down to the floor the holy images (on walls orpanels) of Christ and His holy Mother and of the holy menwho from eternity have been pleasing to the Lord God’.(Quoted in Jonathan Phillips, The Fourth Crusade and the Sackof Constantinople, p.259).

For three days the crusaders ran riot, pillaging, killingand raping the inhabitants of Constantinople. CountBaldwin of Flanders and Hainault was made Emperor andthe Empire was divided amongst the crusaders, with theVenetians under Doge Dandolo benefitting most.

The Latin Empire

In the aftermath of the fall and sack of Constantinople, anew political landscape emerged from the formerByzantine territories. The new Emperor, Baldwin I, hadbeen chosen by the Venetians as a malleable and control-lable figure and he ruled an empire vastly reduced in size.He was given Thrace, a handful of islands in the Aegean Seaand territories in north-west Asia Minor.The former leaderof the crusaders, Boniface of Montferrat, set up theKingdom of Thessalonica. William de Champlitte wasappointed the Prince of Achaea and Otto de la Rochebecame the Duke of Athens.

The Venetians took over many of the most profitable andproductive territories in the Aegean as well as parts of the

B Y Z A N T I U M

• 116 •

Adriatic coast and, notably, Crete. The overall effect ofthese states was to create a patchwork of power.

The Empire of Nicaea

Most surprisingly of all in the circumstances was that anumber of large Byzantine controlled territories were tosurvive the fall of Constantinople.The so-called Despotateof Epirus was one of these Byzantine states and another wasthe Empire of Trebizond on the Black Sea Coast of AsiaMinor. The most significant and important of all was theEmpire of Nicaea that occupied a substantial section ofWestern and Central Anatolia. Baldwin I was to last only ayear as Emperor before he was defeated in battle and takenprisoner by Tsar Kalojan of Bulgaria who hoped to take thethrone with Greek support in Thrace. Baldwin I wassucceeded by his brother, Henry of Hainault, whoattempted to suppress the Empire of Nicaea but, harried byBulgars, was forced to seek a treaty with its ruler,TheodoreI Lascaris, in 1214. In 1222, John Vatatzes became Emperorof Nicaea following Theodore I Lascaris, his father-in-law.Arguably, Vatatzes was to do more than any other singleindividual towards regaining Constantinople for the exiledByzantines. Henry of Hainault was succeeded as the LatinEmperor of Constantinople by his brother-in-law Peter ofCourtenay in 1217 but Peter was captured on campaignagainst the Despot of Epirus and rapidly replaced by hiswife Yolanda.When her son, Robert of Courtenay, provedto be a hopelessly ineffective ruler and was defeated in


• 117 •

battle by Vatatzes, the crusader barons of Constantinopleturned to John of Brienne who had been the King ofJerusalem. Robert’s younger brother Baldwin II was still aboy at the time of his accession to the throne in 1228 andBrienne was to rule until he reached adulthood.

Michael Palaeologus

When John Vatatzes died in 1254, his son Theodore IILascaris inherited the Empire of Nicaea. Although heproved to be an able ruler, it was to be a talented younggeneral in his service called Michael Palaeologus whowould finally reclaim Constantinople from the LatinEmperors and be declared Basileus by the Byzantines.Michael was of an aristocratic Byzantine background withlinks to the Angelus, Comneneus and Ducas families whichhad all produced Emperors that had ruled fromConstantinople. When Theodore II Lascaris died in 1258,after a lifetime of suffering from epilepsy, his son was stillonly a child and he named George Muzalon as his succes-sor. Michael was passed over by Theodore, who had knownand hated him since they were children, but a plot washatched. Muzalon was murdered and Michael acclaimed inhis stead. In 1261, a Byzantine force led by the CaesarAlexius Strategopulus succeeded in making its way insecret into Constantinople.The Latin Emperor Baldwin II,finding the enemy army in the city, fled almost instantly tothe island of Euboea. The remaining Franks and Venetiansevacuated the city and, on 15 August 1261, Michael VIII

B Y Z A N T I U M

• 118 •

Palaeologus was again crowned Emperor, this time in thechurch of St Sophia by the patriarch of Constantinople,Arsenius.


• 119 •

The Siege of Constantinople

Although the Byzantines under Michael Palaeologus hadsucceeded in recapturing Constantinople, the Empire itselfhad been shattered forever. Its once great territories hadbeen reduced to what amounted to fragments of Byzantinepower such as the Empire of Trebizond on the Black Seacoast. In truth, the Emperors who now ruled fromConstantinople were no more powerful than the variousprinces, potentates and warlords who had carved out king-doms for themselves in former imperial territories.

The next two centuries would see the rapid growth inpower of the Ottoman Turks in Anatolia who expanded tothe point where Constantinople was effectively surroundedby territories controlled by them. Under the Sultan MuradI, the Ottomans dominated much of Greece. In 1387,Thessalonica surrendered to his forces. His son Bayezitsucceeded him in 1389 and, in 1402, he marched againstConstantinople, demanding that the Emperor Manuel IIPalaeologus surrender the city to him. Manuel was travel-ling in Western Europe, trying with little success to secureaid for his beleaguered empire, when the ultimatum wasdelivered. However, Constantinople was saved when theforces of Timur the Tartar attacked the Turks and Bayezit

• 121 •

was compelled to withdraw to face them.In the next few decades, Constantinople was given a

reprieve because of the infighting between the Turks.Whenthe Sultan Murad II marched on Constantinople in 1423,his plans had to be abandoned so that he could deal with thethreat of rebellion. In later years, Murad would largelymaintain his territories rather than seek to expand them.For many Greek Byzantines his death was noted with somesadness not least because his son and successor Mehmet II,who came to power in 1452, was thought to be altogetherless tolerant to the existence of Constantinople. WhenManuel II Palaeologus died in 1425 he was succeeded by hiseldest son John VIII Palaeologus. John VIII attempted tosecure Western Aid by agreeing to a union of the Orthodoxand the Catholic Churches at the council of Florence in1439. However, it was to prove extremely unpopular inConstantinople. He died in 1448 without an heir and hetherefore nominated his brother Constantine XIPalaeologus, supported by their mother, the EmpressHelena, to succeed him.

Rumeli Hisar Fortress

In 1452 Mehmet took the decision to build a fortress on theEuropean side of the Bosphorus opposite Anadolu Hisar,the castle that his great-grandfather Bayezit had built on theshores of Asia Minor. It would be sited to the north ofConstantinople and be of major strategic value in control-ling the Bosphorus and, in particular, entry for ships travel-

B Y Z A N T I U M

• 122 •

ling either to or from the Black Sea.The Christian Genoesecolonies strung along the Black Sea coast would be thenunable to offer assistance to Constantinople. Anadolu wasthe name given to the Asian part of the Ottoman Empirewhilst Rumeli indicated the European territory. The landon which Mehmet intended to build his new fortressbelonged to the Byzantine Empire and, on hearing of theSultan’s intentions, Constantine XI protested that his great-grandfather Bayezit had first consulted with the Emperorbefore building his fortress.

Constantine attempted to sway the young sultan withpresents and asked that Byzantine villages nearby should beunharmed. His concerns and requests were ignored and,finally, when he sent ambassadors asking that the Sultanstate that the building of the fortress was not intended toassist in an attack on Constantinople, they were seized andbeheaded. Mehmet had made his position frighteninglyclear to the Emperor. The castle was originally known inTurkish as ‘Boghaz-kesen’, a term that meant both ‘thestrait cutter’ and ‘the throat-cutter’, illustrating its specificmilitary value and its proposed use.

Rumeli Hisar was built between April and August 1452at astonishing speed and it is still in existence today.A hugestructure, it was equipped with three large cannons aimedacross the Bosphorus. Mehmet lost no time in issuing anorder that all ships passing the castle must halt and allow aninspection to be carried out by the Sultan’s men.At first thedemand was ignored. Two Venetian ships, travelling fromports on the Black Sea in November, avoided fire from the

T H E S I E G E O F C O N S TA N T I N O P L E

• 123 •

cannon and escaped examination. However, shortly after-wards, another Venetian ship on its way to Constantinoplewas attacked and sunk in the straits. Its captain, AntonioRizzo, and his crew were captured. Mehmet ordered theimmediate execution of the crew whilst Rizzo was impaledby a nearby road, as a warning to anyone who dared tochallenge the authority of the Sultan.

Reactions amongst the Venetians and Genoese weremixed. Although appalled by the fate of the unfortunateRizzo, many in Venice were concerned to maintain goodlinks with the Sultan because they traded with Ottomanterritories.At the same time the Venetians traded profitablywith Constantinople where a Venetian quarter had longbeen established. It was decided that Venetians should adoptthe difficult policy of helping their fellow Christians inConstantinople but without engaging in hostilities with theTurks.The Genoese, who inhabited the colony of Pera (alsoknown as Galata) across the waters of the Golden Hornopposite Constantinople, were caught in a similar predica-ment. Whilst some Genoese opted to aid the ByzantineEmperor in the event of hostilities the leader or Podesta ofPera, ultimately putting Genoese commercial concernsfirst, sought to effect a strategy of neutrality.

Constantine appealed to Pope Nicholas for aid andagreed to enact the union of the Eastern and WesternChurches that had been agreed at the Council of Florencein 1439. The Pope was sympathetic to the plight of theEmperor and tried to raise support for Byzantium but withlittle success. Nonetheless, in 1452, Cardinal Isidore, a

B Y Z A N T I U M

• 124 •

former Metropolitan of Kiev, was despatched toConstantinople by the Pope to bring about the unionbetween Catholics and Orthodox Christians. With himcame two hundred archers from Naples, paid for by thePope himself. The move towards a union of the Churcheshad been opposed by many in the city, led by a man calledGeorge Scholarius, who had taken the name of Gennadiuson becoming a monk.The sinking of the Venetian ship andthe murder of its captain, Antonio Rizzo, swayed publicopinion in favour of the union with the hope of Westernmilitary aid it brought. A service took place on 12December 1452 in the church of St Sophia, in which theunion of East and West was proclaimed, but popular reac-tion amongst the Byzantines was muted and most, shunningthe pro-unionist churches, preferred to worship inchurches where the orthodox liturgy continued.

In January 1453, Mehmet called an assembly of hisministers at Adrianople. During the course of the meetinghe argued that the security of the Ottoman Empire wasthreatened by the continuing presence of Constantinoplein its midst. Whilst the Byzantine Empire had been whit-tled away to a fraction of its former size, the capital stillposed a potential danger, particularly if they were toreceive support from Christians in Western Europe.Constantinople must therefore be conquered by theOttoman Empire and its Emperor deposed. The city wasformidably defended, possessing probably the most signif-icant fortifications in the medieval world, and previousattempts to take Constantinople had failed largely because


• 125 •

of the inability of aggressors to control the sea approaches.Now that the Turks had gained a considerable hold of thewaters surrounding Constantinople, it would be possibleto starve out its inhabitants through a protracted siege ifmilitary might alone proved insufficient.War was declaredagainst Byzantium.

Preparations for the Siege of Constantinople

In the build-up to an assault on Constantinople those townsstill controlled by the Emperor in Thrace were attacked andoverwhelmed by the Turks. Meanwhile, the Byzantine pres-ence in the Peloponnese, based around the fortress ofMystras, was kept pinned down by Turkish forces so that itwas unable to send help to the Emperor. In March 1453,Mehmet also gave instructions for a great Turkish fleet to becreated and gathered near to Gallipoli. In the past,Christian nations had possessed better ships and sailors thatthe Turks had themselves used for transportation in returnfor payment. Now, however, the Sultan aimed to maintaincontrol over the sea and consequently over supplies to andfrom Constantinople. From contemporary sources it isthought that the Turkish fleet contained ten biremes, boatswith single sails and paired banks of rowers, six triremes,double-masted crafts with rowers grouped in threes, andfifteen oared galleys. There were numerous smaller craftincluding 75 fustae, a type of long boat, and 20 heavysailing barges known as parandaria. It is likely other vesselswere also involved, creating a formidable Turkish naval

B Y Z A N T I U M

• 126 •

presence. Suleiman Baltoghlu, who was the governor ofGallipoli, led this navy.

Estimates of the scale of the army that Mehmet led intoThrace at the same time vary wildly. Some claim as many as300,000 to 400,000 but a figure closer to 100,000, stillimpressive, is more likely.The army was formed of around80,000 Ottoman troops plus 20,000 Bashi-bazouks whowere a mixture of Christian and Muslim men of many raceswho lacked the training and the equipment of the mainarmy but who could provide a ferocious first wave ofattack. The Sultan took greatest pride in his regiment ofJanissaries.These soldiers were taken from Christian fami-lies whilst children and raised as fiercely devout Muslims.Provided with intensive military training, they combinedmilitary discipline with a fanatic devotion to Islam.

Whilst the Sultan was able to assemble a huge army andfleet, perhaps his most significant weapon was to prove tobe the cannons that he had made to attack Constantinople.Significantly, in 1452, a Hungarian engineer called Urbanhad approached the Emperor Constantine XI, offering hisskills as an artillery specialist.

Sadly and, as it was to prove, ironically, the Emperor wasunable to afford his services and so Urban promptlyapproached the Sultan instead. Mehmet was delightedwhen Urban announced that he could create a cannon thatwould ‘blast the walls of Babylon itself’. It was Urban whosupplied the great cannon of Rumeli Hisar. Impressed,Mehmet ordered the creation of an even greater cannonthat is thought to have measured twenty-six feet and eight


• 127 •

inches (over eight metres) in length. Capable of propellinga cannonball weighing twelve hundredweight (544 kg) adistance of a mile, it was an awesome weapon for its time.

The city of Constantinople was well served by its incred-ible fortifications, defended as it was by walls which werefourteen miles in length and were formed of a sequence offloodable ditches, outer walls and inner walls. However, theByzantines were desperately short of manpower. WhenConstantine gave his secretary Sphrantzes the order to carryout a census of defenders that the city could muster, theresults horrified him. Around 5,000 Greeks could be calledupon, supplemented by about 2,000 foreign personnel.Sphrantzes was ordered to keep this a secret for fear that thedefenders would despair and flee.The Byzantine forces weresupported by the Venetians who lived in the city with somereinforcements from Crete, then a Venetian colony.

Although the government of Genoa had not sent aid toConstantinople a group of Genoese led by GiovanniGiustiniani Longo sailed to the city in January 1453.

These Genoese brought with them an engineer calledJohannes Grant who is thought to have been Scottish andwho would prove to be of great help to the Emperor andhis people.The defenders also included a group of Catalansled by their elderly but gallant Don, Francisco de Toledo.

The Siege of Constantinople

The Sultan’s army arrived at the walls of Constantinople onEaster Monday, 2 April 1453. On sighting the enemy,

B Y Z A N T I U M

• 128 •

Constantine gave the order to close and secure all the citygates and a great chain or boom was stretched across theharbour of the Golden Horn, attached at its opposite endto a tower in the Genoese suburb of Galata. On 6 April, theSultan offered the Emperor and the citizens the chance tosurrender in accordance with Islamic law under which theirlives and possessions would be spared. The Byzantinesstood firm, knowing that, as a result, no quarter wouldnow be given.The Emperor and Giustiniani took control ofthe defence of what was thought to be the section of thewalls most susceptible to attack. Called the mesoteichion, itwas here that the river Lycus flowed into the city via aculvert. An artillery bombardment began against the wallsbut this was hampered by the slow rate of reloading of thecannon. The Byzantines worked furiously to repair thedamaged sections of walls and the Turks were fought offwhen they tried to capitalise on damage done by thecannon.Attempts to destroy the great harbour chain acrossthe Golden Horn also proved unsuccessful and theChristian ships, in part because they were taller, were ableto attack the Turkish fleet effectively. The elevation of thecannon of the Turks proved insufficient to do them realdamage whilst the Venetians and Genoese could also boastsuperior seamanship amongst their crews. On 20 April,three ships sent with provisions by the Pope, accompaniedby a Byzantine vessel, arrived in the Sea of Marmara. TheTurkish fleet blockading the city had turned its attentionsaway from incoming vessels and the element of surpriseallowed the Christian vessels to approach the city. They


• 129 •

were soon surrounded and a desperate battle beganbetween the Christian and Turkish crews.

Although outnumbered, the Christian ships had both theadvantage of height and experienced crews and theByzantine vessel was able to make good use of its stocks ofGreek fire. At one point the vessels adopted the tactic oflashing their ships together to smash their way through theTurkish fleet. Events were watched from the shore by theSultan himself who reportedly rode excitedly into the seato urge on his men. Finally, with a strong wind behindthem, the Christian vessels were able to break through theblockade and enter the Golden Horn. The Sultan wasfurious and nearly had his naval commander Baltoghluexecuted. He was only saved from death by the interven-tion of other naval officers. In the event, he was stripped ofhis command and possessions which were handed out tothe Janissaries.

The problem of breaking the sea chain that protected theGolden Horn greatly perplexed the Sultan.The difficulty ofbringing Turkish ships into the Golden Horn posed a greatchallenge but a startling and ingenious solution was hitupon. Mehmet ordered that Turkish ships and boats betransported overland from the Bosphorous across a highridge. A road was built and the ships carried on cradlespulled by teams of oxen.The Byzantines were horrified bythis turn of events and morale was badly hit when anattempt to destroy the Turkish fleet now in the GoldenHorn was foiled. Although the Turks were so far unable tooverwhelm the defence the stranglehold on the city meant

B Y Z A N T I U M

• 130 •

that supplies were growing short and tensions developedbetween the defenders.The Genoese at Pera who remainedneutral drew particular criticism. The Emperor appealedfor unity and succeeded in calming the situation to someextent. It is thought that the Emperor attempted to opentalks with the Sultan in late April. Mehmet remainedunmoved, stating only that if the city surrendered itspeople would be spared and Constantine would be allowedto leave for the Byzantine stronghold of the Morea in thePeloponnese.The Emperor refused to abandon the city andits people even if it meant the chance of regroupingByzantine forces whilst in exile.

The Turks tried to beat the stalemate by mining underthe city walls. However, the Scottish engineer JohannesGrant created counter tunnels that gave the Byzantines thechance to kill or capture the Turks undermining the citydefences. By capturing an important Turkish sapper, theByzantines gained vital information about the remainingtunnels and they were destroyed. On 3 May, a Venetian shiphad managed to escape from Constantinople to search forany relief vessels from the West, disguised as a Turkish ship.However, on 23 May, it returned to the city with the terri-ble news that no ships had been sighted or even heard of inthe Aegean. The crew themselves had voted to return toinform the Emperor even though it put their own lives atrisk.When the Emperor met the men personally he is saidto have wept as he expressed his gratitude for their loyalty.The fate of the city, it now seemed, lay in the hands of God.

As the defenders struggled with the pressures of a


• 131 •

protracted siege, a series of what seemed to be ill omensfurther underlined the apparent hopelessness of the situa-tion.

An eclipse of the moon on 22 May, when the moon wasfull, disquieted the people of Constantinople, recalling anancient prophecy that the city would fall when the moonwas waning. Popular belief also held that just as the firstEmperor of Constantinople was called Constantine, whosemother was named Helena, so the current EmperorConstantine XI, son of Empress Helena, would be the last.

Perhaps more troubling still, when the people werecarrying the holiest and most revered icon of the Mother ofGod through the streets in one final desperate call fordivine assistance, the image fell from the platform uponwhich it had been placed.

It is said that, when attempts were made to lift the Iconof the Virgin, it became suddenly and supernaturally heavyand it was only after some struggle that it was reinstated inthe procession. As the supplicants marched onwards, asudden and terrible thunderstorm struck the city and therain and hail became so intense that the procession wasforced to end. So violent was the storm that streets wereflooded and children had to be rescued by their parents.The portents of destruction seemed to continue thefollowing day when the people of Constantinople awoke tofind that a thick and enveloping fog covered the city, ahighly unusual and unprecedented event at that time ofyear. Both Muslims and Christians looked with a mixture ofwonder, fear and awe when, that night, a mysterious light

B Y Z A N T I U M

• 132 •

appeared around the dome of the church of St Sophia andwas extinguished just as suddenly as it had appeared. TheSultan himself was greatly unnerved by the light but wasreassured by his spiritual advisors that it was a sign that thelight of the True Faith would illuminate the great church.For the Byzantines, it was a confirmation that the DivineSpirit had left the city. It was also said that watchmen on thetowers of the city walls saw mysterious lights in the fardistance and some took heart, believing that it was thelights of an approaching army come to rescue them.However, the defenders were now alone.

Constantine’s ministers attempted to persuade theEmperor to flee the city to lead a resistance movement inexile in the Peloponnese. It is reported that the Emperorwas so exhausted by the struggle that, as they implored himto go, he fainted. When he came round his resolve wasunaffected – he would stay and fight for his city and hispeople even if it meant his own death.

The Fall of Constantinople

The frustration of the Sultan at the failure of the siege totake the city led him to plan a final decisive attack. Rightly,he believed that the defenders were exhausted and that theycould be overcome by sheer weight of numbers. Heannounced his attentions to his court on Saturday 26 May,although, interestingly, his Grand Vizier Halil Pashaopposed the plan and thought his master, who was agedonly twenty-one, had been foolish to attack the city in the


• 133 •

first place. But Mehmet was determined and overruledhim. It was decided that Sunday would be spent organisingthe final assault whilst Monday would be given over to restand prayer.The attack would take place on Tuesday 29 May.News of the planned assault reached Constantinople asChristians on the Turkish side fired arrows into the citywith messages attached to them.Within Constantinople, onMonday 28 May, a final procession was held, joined byGenoese, Venetians and Byzantines in an intermingling ofOrthodox and Catholic traditions. The Emperor is said tohave assembled his commanders and personally thankedthem and asked that they might forgive him any offence hehad ever given them. The defenders took their positionsalong the walls whilst the Emperor spent the evening inprayer before making a final circuit of the defences.Accompanied by his secretary George Sphrantzes, heclimbed a tower to look out at the Turkish army and stayedfor around an hour.When the two men left, it was to be afinal farewell for both of them.

The assault was launched in the early hours of themorning and the Sultan unleashed a wave of Bashi-bazouksagainst the city walls focusing particularly around thesection where the river Lycus ran into the city. They wererepelled but the Sultan planned to weary the defenderswith successive waves of attack. The second attackconsisted of Anatolian troops and came close to breachingthe walls but they were again thrown back by the defend-ers, led by the Emperor. A third wave was formed of theSultan’s favoured Janissaries. With some difficulty the

B Y Z A N T I U M

• 134 •

defenders managed to contain even them. However, at thispoint, two events occurred that changed the balance of theconflict in favour of the Turks. The Genoese generalGiovanni Giustiniani was injured during the fighting and, ingreat pain, asked to be taken for medical help.The Emperorimplored him to stay, fearing that, with the departure oftheir leader who had fought bravely and tenaciously, theGenoese men might flee the battle.The Emperor was right.As soon as Giovanni Giustiniani was carried away, his menpanicked and followed him. The Turks capitalised on thissetback and pressed home the attack, pushing the defend-ers back to the inner wall. Not long afterwards, a group ofTurks succeeded in raising their flag on the city walls, afterdiscovering that a small door known as the Kerkoporta hadbeen left open. More and more Turkish troops rushed in,overwhelming the defenders.The Emperor himself was lastseen throwing off his imperial insignia and rushing into thethick of the fighting with his cousin and friend and with theloyal Catalan grandee Don Francisco de Toledo.

Before the final assault the Sultan had promised histroops that they could loot and pillage the city for threedays following its conquest. However, such was the feroc-ity and violence of the troops as they slaughtered, raped orenslaved the population that Mehmet called an end to theiractivities after only one day, probably because he saw publicbuildings being damaged. When the city was secured,Mehmet entered in a procession hailing him as theconquering victor. Before entering the church of St Sophiahe is said to have sprinkled earth on his turban as a sign of


• 135 •

humility before God. Mehmet ordered that the ancientChristian church be converted to a mosque and an imamclimbed into the pulpit and declared that there was no Godbut Allah and Mohammed was his Prophet.

B Y Z A N T I U M

• 136 •

The Shadow of Empire

For Mehmet, the conquest of Constantinople did notsimply represent the taking of a great city. The ByzantineEmpire that had developed from the Eastern half of theRoman Empire had begun with the decision of Constantinethe Great to make Constantinople its capital. The city wasdedicated on Monday 11 May 330 AD, and had surviveduntil Tuesday 29 May 1453. During the 1123 years and 18days of its existence the Byzantine Empire had been asuperpower of the ancient world that had survived innu-merable wars, upheavals and difficulties, not least of whichwas the final fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 AD.Although its power and prestige had declined steadily overthe intervening centuries until finally Constantinople had,in many ways, come to represent, in effect, the survivinghead of the lost body of Empire, something of the glory ofits famous past survived even until the end.As Mehmet the‘Conqueror of Byzantium’, the Sultan saw himself as thedirect successor of the Roman Emperors, a viewpointborne out by his decision to make Constantinople thecapital of the Ottoman Empire. However, Mehmet wasnow in possession of a city that had been badly damagedduring the struggle to take it and which, in previous years,

• 137 •

had been undermined by the decay and depopulationfollowing its capture during the Fourth Crusade.

In the aftermath of the capture of the city, mysterysurrounded the final fate of Constantine XI, the LastEmperor of Byzantium. It seems most likely, particularlygiven the evidence of the Emperor’s secretary GeorgeSphrantzes, that Constantine was killed during the fighting.The former Metropolitan of Kiev, Cardinal Isidore, whohad travelled to Constantinople to implement the union ofthe Churches, survived the siege and claimed that the bodyof the Emperor had been identified after the fighting andTurkish soldiers had cut off the head and presented it intriumph to the Sultan.According to the renowned crusadeshistorian Steven Runciman, ‘A story was circulated laterround the Italian colonies in the Levant that two Turkishsoldiers who claimed to have killed Constantine brought ahead to the Sultan which captured courtiers who werepresent recognised as their master’s. Mehmet set it for awhile on a column in the Augustean Forum, then stuffed itand sent it to be exhibited round the leading courts of theIslamic World’, (Steven Runciman, The Fall of Constantinople1453, p143).

Another story, a version of which was recorded byMakaris Melissenos in the sixteenth century, claims thatGeorge Sphrantzes discovered that the Sultan had orderedthat a search be made for the body of the Emperor. It wasfinally recognised by Turkish soldiers when they found abody wearing greaves stamped with the insignia of theImperial Eagle. According to Melissenos, the Sultan

B Y Z A N T I U M

• 138 •

decreed that the body of the Emperor should be given aChristian burial but this seems unlikely and is largelydismissed by historians. Numerous myths and legendsabout the final resting place of the last Byzantine Emperorwere to spring up over the following centuries and variouslocations within the city itself have been suggested as thespot. More prosaically, it may be that the body of theEmperor was buried with those of the other soldiers whodied defending Constantinople in an unmarked grave.

Greek Orthodox Church

Whilst the Sultan saw himself as the successor to theEmperors of Byzantium and was referred to as ‘Kayser-i-Rum’, Emperor of the Romans, he decided that the citizensof Constantinople would be allowed to practice their faith.The Byzantines left in the city would be self-governing withthe Sultan as their overlord. As so many of the aristocraticfamilies had either been killed during the siege or had fledthe city, many taking refuge in the Greek islands or Italy,particularly in Venice, the patriarch of the OrthodoxChurch would become their leader. Although theOrthodox Church had technically undergone union withthe Catholic Church before the siege, public opinion nowrejected it.The most recent patriarch had been Gregory IIIbut he had resigned from his post and left Constantinoplefor Italy. Gregory had been in favour of union between theChurches and therefore Mehmet was unwilling to recallhim, even if he had wanted to return, on the grounds that

T H E S H A D OW O F E M P I R E

• 139 •

it might lead to the papacy offering military aid against theOttoman Empire in the future. The Sultan thereforedecided to appoint George Scholarius who had originallybeen in favour of union but had finally rejected it and ledthe movement in favour of the independence of theOrthodox Church. Scholarius had taken the nameGennadius on becoming a monk and, after the fall ofConstantinople, had been taken into slavery by a wealthyTurk who lived in the Anatolian city of Adrianople.Mehmet freed him from his enslavement and elevated himto the position of Patriarch. Traditionally, the Patriarchunderwent his ceremonial appointment at the Church ofHagia Sophia but, as this great masterpiece of Byzantineculture had been transformed into a mosque, the ceremonytook place at the Church of the Holy Apostles in January1454.The Sultan himself assumed the role of Emperor andpresented Scholarius with his symbols of power. Althoughthe Orthodox were allowed to worship as they chose, whenScholarius voluntarily changed its headquarters, theChurch of the Holy Apostles was destroyed and a mosquebuilt in its stead. The new headquarters of the Churchbecame Theotokos Pammakaristos. However, the locationof the Patriarchal See was to change again and finally settledon the Golden Horn in the Fener quarter. Today thePatriachate of Constantinople is still considered to be the‘Mother Church’ of Greece. Of the 81 dioceses of theChurch of Greece, 30 remain at least nominally under thejurisdiction of Constantinople. The Patriarchate ofConstantinople has a recognised jurisdiction over the

B Y Z A N T I U M

• 140 •

islands of the Dodecanese, Crete and the monastic commu-nities of Mount Athos.

It has been claimed that, as well as viewing themselves asthe natural successors to the Roman Emperors, theOttomans also adopted the flag of Byzantium as their ownafter conquering Constantinople. It is said that, in 670 BC,when Byzantium was a Greek city state, its inhabitants madethe crescent moon their symbol following an importantvictory in battle. They believed that they had won thisvictory with the help of Artemis, Goddess of the Hunt whowas associated with this image. It is interesting to note that,in pre-Christian times, the city was viewed as being underthe protection of a goddess and that, during the Christianera, it was believed that Constantinople enjoyed the protec-tion and favour of the Mother of God, the Blessed Virgin.The crescent moon was joined by the sign of the star, asymbol associated with the Virgin, when Constantine theGreat combined the two on the flag of Byzantium in 330AD. It has been argued that the Turkish flag featuring the starand crescent derives from the flag of Byzantium itself.

The Despotate of Morea and the Empire of Trebizond

Although the fall of Constantinople effectively marked theend of the Empire, two remaining Byzantine territoriesoutlived its celebrated capital for a brief time.The Despotsof the Morea in the Peloponese, Thomas and Demetrius,brothers of the last Emperor, Constantine XI Palaeologus,


• 141 •

attempted to bargain with the Sultan but were finally over-whelmed by the Ottomans in 1460. The Empire ofTrebizond, on the coast of the Black Sea, came to an end on15 August 1461 when the Emperor David Comnenus capit-ulated to Mehmet. The fall of Constantinople was also tohave a profound and dramatic effect on the powerfulWestern city-states of Venice and Genoa. AlthoughVenetians and Genoese had fought alongside the defendersof the city, attempts were made in the aftermath of theOttoman victory to forge diplomatic relations with theSultan. To that end, ambassadors were dispatched to thecourt of Mehmet to try to re-establish terms for thecontinuation of trading in the East.

The Sultan, however, remained largely unmoved by thegifts that he received during these negotiations and neitherthe Genoese or Venetians were able to secure particularlyfavourable terms. It was agreed that the Venetians mightretain a settlement within the city of Constantinople butwithout the privileges that had brought it economic successunder Byzantine rulers.The Genoese were also allowed toretain their settlement at Galata but they were required todemolish the walls of the town and, although they wereallowed to worship as Christians, they were ordered torefrain from ringing church bells. However, the real blowto the Genoese was the huge charges that the Sultanimposed on their merchant ships to travel to the tradingports of the Black Sea. As a result of this effective strangle-hold the power and influence of both these maritimepowers were drastically reduced.

B Y Z A N T I U M

• 142 •

The Silk Road

For centuries, Constantinople had served as the majorroute between Europe and Asia and was an important cityon the ancient Silk Road. Many merchants and explorershad passed through the city in its long history includingMarco Polo and the Islamic traveller Ibn Battuta. MarcoPolo had lived in the Venetian quarter of Constantinople in1259, during the period of Latin Rule, but left shortlybefore the Byzantine Emperor Michael Palaeologusreclaimed the city in 1261. Polo travelled eastwards to theBlack Sea and followed the Silk Road to China where heclaimed to have visited Kublai Khan. In one French illumi-nated manuscript of the fourteenth century, Marco Polo isshown having an audience with the Latin Emperor Baldwinin Constantinople and being blessed by the Patriarch of thecity before setting out across the Black Sea.

Ibn Battuta was a Moroccan, born in 1304, who trav-elled as far as India and China and who was received inConstantinople by the Byzantine Emperor Andronicus IIIPalaeologus in 1332. After the fall of the city to theOttoman Empire, many in Europe began to look for newsea routes to the East. This process of exploration wouldlead to many new discoveries in the succeeding centuries.A further consequence of the decline and fall of theByzantine Empire was that many scholars and academicsfled from Constantinople to seek sanctuary in the West,particularly in Italy, and it is thought that this contributedto the start of the Renaissance.This movement of scholars


• 143 •

to the West pre-dates the fall of Constantinople and thoseeducated in the city had always enjoyed high internationalprestige and status because of its impressive academic andartistic legacy.

Many historians, whilst acknowledging the uniquenessof the Byzantine Empire in forming a more or less unbro-ken link between the ancient world and the medievalperiod, now regard the fall of Constantinople as markingthe end of the Middle Ages. Interestingly, in popular Greeksuperstition, Tuesday is considered to be the unluckiestweekday because it was the day that the city ofConstantinople fell to the Ottoman Empire.

In the centuries following the fall of the ByzantineEmpire many western historians came to see it in a gener-ally negative light. Historians writing in the sixteenthcentury and describing the Eastern Roman Empire werethe first to use the term ‘Byzantine’.

The word Byzantine has now come to describe any insti-tution, organisation or process that is unnecessarily compli-cated. Indeed, one dictionary definition makes the termapplicable to anything that is ‘hierarchical, inflexible;convoluted, complex’ (Cassell Popular English Dictionary, p109).

In the eighteenth century, Edward Gibbon wrote ingenerally disparaging terms of the Byzantine Empire, thedecadent and corrupt aspects of its history arguably dimin-ishing an understanding of its achievements and culturallegacy. Whilst corruption and decadence were undeniablymajor components of the story of the Empire, it is worth

B Y Z A N T I U M

• 144 •

remembering that, when much of Europe was in the so-called Dark Ages, Byzantium remained a major centre ofeducation and learning and was the medium through whichmuch knowledge of the Ancient Greek and Roman worldwas communicated to us today. Steven Runciman, amongstothers, has observed that the Western kings and nobles whotravelled to the East on Crusade were largely illiterate, ill-educated and ill-mannered in comparison to theirByzantine counterparts who inhabited what was, at thetime, the most impressive and cosmopolitan city in Europe.The view of Byzantine culture as being ineffective and self-defeating is likely to have its origins in these encounters.When Byzantine rulers attempted to negotiate with the‘Infidel’ they were often seen as traitors to Christendomrather than the experienced, educated and worldly rulersthat they were. The jealousy and wonder inspired in thecrusaders by the city of Constantinople, where literacy wascommonplace and impressive buildings were filled withincredible relics and works of art, is perhaps best demon-strated by the greedy eagerness with which it was seizedand sacked during the Fourth Crusade.

By the nineteenth century Byzantium had becomealmost entirely synonymous with the very worst of humanculture. This is exemplified by the opinions of WilliamLecky who wrote that: ‘Of that Byzantine empire, theuniversal verdict of history is that it constitutes, without asingle exception, the most thoroughly base and despicableform that civilization has yet assumed. There has been noother enduring civilization so absolutely destitute of all


• 145 •

forms and elements of greatness, and none to which theepithet “mean” may be so emphatically applied… Thehistory of the empire is a monotonous story of the intriguesof priests, eunuchs, and women, of poisonings, of conspir-acies, of uniform ingratitude.’ (A History of European Moralsfrom Augustus to Charlemagne, 2 vols, London 1869, II, 13f).

Arguably, Lecky’s pronouncements on Byzantium revealmore about his own mean-spirited prejudices and inade-quacies than they do about the city and they also seemrather ironic today, given that the British Empire of whichhe was a part was to face its own decline and fall in thefollowing century.

In 1928, the Irish poet William Butler Yeats published acollection of poetry called The Tower that contained perhapsone of his best-known poems, ‘Sailing to Byzantium’. Thepoem concerns a metaphorical journey made by an elderlyman to Byzantium and explores the possibility of findingimmortality through the medium of the arts. Byzantium isdescribed as being a holy city and representing a culturethat, through its artistic legacy, has achieved an identityunbound by time.

In this symbolic musing on the potential of artisticcreation to allow mortal men to escape the essential limi-tations of their lives, Byzantine culture seems to Yeats torepresent an embodiment of this ideal.Within the arena ofmodern popular culture, and indeed religion and politics,the story of Byzantium continues to fascinate in ways thatoften deeply divide opinion.The best-selling author of TheDa Vinci Code, Dan Brown, caused huge controversy with

B Y Z A N T I U M

• 146 •

his questioning of the origins of Christianity and, in partic-ular, with his suggestion, discussed in Chapter One, thatConstantine the Great had invented the divinity of JesusChrist turning him from a man into a God through themedium of the council of Nicaea. Within the world ofpopular film also, the spectre of Byzantium emerged in thecinematic vision of film director Peter Jackson. Whencreating and designing the Middle Earth city of Minas Tirithin his massively popular adaptation of JRR Tolkien’s Lord ofthe Rings trilogy, he apparently based it on medievaldescriptions of Constantinople. Indeed, Tolkien’s owndescription of the kingdom of Gondor, with its ancient andnoble history of kings threatened by war from the East, isstrongly suggestive of the decline and fall of the ByzantineEmpire.

Perhaps more worryingly Pope Benedict XVI caused aninternational furore in September 2006 during a speech to250,000 pilgrims at an open-air mass close to the Germancity of Munich that included a quote from the ByzantineEmperor Manuel II Palaeologus who ruled from 1391 to1425. It was taken from a work by the scholar TheodoreKhoury that recounts a conversation about Islam andChristianity between a Persian and the fourteenth centuryByzantine Emperor. The Pope was quoted as saying, ‘Theemperor comes to speak about the issue of jihad, holywar… He said, I quote, “Show me just what Mohammedbrought that was new, and there you will find things onlyevil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by thesword the faith he preached”’, (Daily Mail Online, 17th


• 147 •

October 2006).Although the Pope appeared to avoid offer-ing his own opinion on the statement, many believe that hewas courting controversy by its inclusion. Those whodefended Benedict pointed out that the Pope was arguingthat no religion should attempt to justify the use of violenceon the grounds of faith. However, many interpreted hiscomments as constituting a direct criticism of the Islamicfaith.There is arguably a certain irony inherent in the headof the Catholic Church, which historically has had suchdifficult relations with the Orthodox Church, culminatingin the Great Schism of 1054, quoting from a ByzantineEmperor. Even after its fall five and a half centuries ago theEmpire still seems to manage to cast a long shadow.

B Y Z A N T I U M

• 148 •

Bibliography

Angold, Michael, Byzantium, London: Phoenix Press, 2001Babinger, Franz, Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time,

Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978Brown, Dan, The Da Vinci Code, London: Bantam Press,

2004Browning, Robert, The Greek World: Classical, Byzantine and

Modern, London:Thames & Hudson, 1985Gibbon, Edward, The History of the Decline and Fall of the

Roman Empire, London: Everyman’s Library, 1993Holland Smith, John, Constantine the Great, London: Hamish

Hamilton, 1971Konstam, Angus, Historical Atlas of the Crusades, London:

Mercury Books, 2004Mango, Cyril, Byzantium:The Empire of New Rome, London:

Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1980Mayor, Adrienne, Greek Fire, Poison Arrows & Scorpion Bombs,

London: Duckworth, 2003Norwich, John Julius, Byzantium: The Early Centuries,

London:Viking, 1988Norwich, John Julius, Byzantium: The Apogee, London:

Viking, 1991Norwich, John Julius, Byzantium: The Decline and Fall,

• 149 •

London:Viking, 1995Phillips, Jonathan, The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of

Constantinople, London: Jonathan Cape, 2004Riley-Smith, Jonathan, The Atlas of the Crusades, London:

Times Books, 1991Runciman, Steven, Byzantine Style and Civilization, London:

Penguin, 1975Runciman, Steven, The Fall of Constantinople 1453,

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965Wedgwood, Ethel, The Memoirs of the Lord of Joinville,

Minnesota: Kessinger Publishing, 2004

B Y Z A N T I U M

• 150 •

Web Pages

www.fordham.edu/halsall/byzantiumwww.en.wikipedia.org/wik/Byzantiumwww.byzantium.ac.ukwww.imperiobizantino.ac.ukwww.newadvent.org/cathen/03096a.htmwww://historymedren.about.com/cs/byzantinestud-ies/a/forgotten.htm

• 151 •

Adrianople, Battle of,43–46, 125, 140

Alaric, 50–52Alexander of Alexandria,

St, 24–25Alexandria, 24, 27, 31Alexius I Comnenus, 101,

103–111, 113Alexius III, 114–115Ambrose, Bishop, 47–48Ammianus, Marcellinus, 45Anatolia, 71, 81, 83, 85,

98, 101, 103, 106, 108,117, 121

ancient world, 12–13, 30,36–37, 65, 78, 137, 144

Andronicus Comnenus,98, 100, 111–112, 143

Anthemius, 55, 65Apollo, 22, 39, 61Arbogast, 48–49Arcadius, 49–53, 55Arianism, 24–25, 27–28,

31, 39, 42Arius, 24–28, 31–32Armenia, 29, 37, 42, 83,

94, 98Arslan, Alp, 97–101Asia Minor, 72, 75, 103,

108, 113, 116–117,122

Athanasius, 31–32Attila the Hun, 55Augusti, 16, 35Augustus, 18, 46–47, 73,

146

Baldwin I, 116–117Bardas Phocas, 92–93Basil, 90–91Basil II, 91–95Basil Lecapenus, 91Belisarius, 64, 67Benedict XVI, Pope, 147–8Blues, 57, 61, 83Bohemund, 105, 109–110

• 153 •

Index

Britain, 16, 18, 35–36,46–47

Brown, Dan, 12, 26, 146Bryennius, 99–100bubonic plague, 68Bulgars, 87–88, 90, 94,

117Byzantine art, 12Byzantine culture, 12, 52,

59, 85, 140, 145–146Byzantine Empire, 11–15,

26, 56, 67–68, 73, 75,79, 81, 83, 91, 94, 97,101, 103, 110, 112,123, 125, 137,143–145, 147

Byzantium, 11, 28–30,60, 63, 75, 101, 111,124, 137–139, 141,145–146

Byzas, 11

Christianity, 11–14, 25,37, 39, 89, 93, 147

Chrysostom, John, 52,65

Constans, 35–36Constans II, 80–82Constantine II, 35–36Constantine IV, 82

Constantine IXMonomachus, 95–96

Constantine the Great, 7,11–13, 15–23, 25,27–33, 36, 59–61, 65,132, 137, 141, 147

Constantine V, 87Constantine VI, 88Constantine XI, 122–123,

127–129, 131–133,138, 141

Constantinople, 7, 11,13–14, 28–32, 36, 38,43, 48, 50–53, 55–56,59, 60–62, 67–68,70–75, 78–82, 84–85,88–89, 93, 96–97, 101,104–108, 110–113,115–119, 121–128,131–134, 137–145, 147

Constantius II, 35–38, 40,65

Constantius Chlorus, 16,17–18, 23

Council of Nicaea, 12,25–26, 28, 31, 109,117–118, 147

Da Vinci Code,The, 12, 26,146

I N D E X

• 154 •

Dark Ages, 145Diocletian, 15–18, 22Ducas, Andronicus, 98,

100, 115, 118

Edict of Milan, 22Egypt, 15, 25, 65, 68,

70–71, 80, 113–115Ekthesis, 75Eudoxia, Empress, 50,

52–53Eugenius, 48–49Eutropius, 50–51

First Crusade, 14, 101,105, 110

Fourth Crusade, 14, 113,116, 138, 145

Franks, 37, 87, 118Frigidus River, Battle of

the, 49–50

Galerius, 16–18, 30Gaul, 17–18, 35, 37–38,

48Golden Horn, 124,

129–130, 140Goths, 43–44, 46, 50–51Gratian, 42–46Great Schism, the, 7, 13,

94, 106, 148Greece, 12, 50, 71, 105,

107, 121, 140Greek Fire, 13, 77, 79Greens, 57, 61, 69, 84Guiscard, Robert, 95,

104–105, 109

Hadrian’s Wall, 15, 18Hagia Sophia, church of,

13, 63, 65–66, 97, 140Helena, 16, 30, 37, 122,

132Heraclius, 70–75, 80, 82Hippodrome, 56–57,

59–64, 67Holy Apostles, 32–33,

140Holy Land, 108Holy See, 28Holy Sepulchre, Church of

the, 71, 73, 109Holy War, 106–107homoousians, 25Honorius, 49–51, 74Hypatius, Emperor, 63–64

Iconoclasm, 84–5, 87–9Innocent III, Pope,

113–114

I N D E X

• 155 •

Irene, 63, 87–88Islam, 7, 13–14, 74–77,

85, 127, 147Italy, 13, 18–19, 29, 36,

49, 51, 55, 67, 69,94–96, 103–105, 139,143

Janissaries, 127, 130, 134Jerusalem, 31, 70, 73–74,

77, 106–107, 109,112–114, 118

Jesus, 25–26, 77, 147John the Cappadocian, 58,

63Jovian, 41–42Julian the Apostate, 35–41Justin II, 68–69Justinian I, Emperor,

12–13, 56–59, 62–68Justinian II, 82–84

Lactantius, 20Leo III, 13, 84–85, 87–88Leo IV, 87Leontius, 83–84Licinius, 22–23Lord of the Rings, 147

Magnentius, 36

Manuel I Comnenus,110–111, 121

Manzikert, Battle of, 13,97, 103, 106

Maxentius, 18–19, 21Maximian, 15–18Maximus, 47–48medieval period, 12, 14,

144Mehmet II, 122–127, 131,

134–140, 142Mercurius, 41Mesopotamia, 37, 79Michael III, 89–90Michael VII Ducas, 101,

103–104Middle Ages, 12, 144Middle East, 108, 113Milan, 16, 22, 37, 47–49Milvian Bridge, Battle of

the, 19–23Mithras, 22Mohammed, 75–77, 136,

147Monophysites, 73–74Monothelitism, 74–75, 82Moses, 77, 85Muawiya, 81, 83

New Testament, 32

I N D E X

• 156 •

Nicene Creed, 26, 31, 42,89

Nicephorus III Botaneiates,103–104

Nicomedia, 16–17, 32Nika riots, 61, 65, 67Normans, 95–96,

103–105, 112Nova Roma/New Rome,

11, 30

Orthodox Church, 14, 32,139–140, 148

Ottoman Empire, 123,125, 137, 140, 143–144

Ottoman Turks, 12, 14,121

Palaeologus, Michael,118–119, 121–122, 143

Persia, 37, 39, 58Persians, 29, 40, 61,

67–68, 70–73, 75Peter the Hermit, 107Philip Augustus, 113Probus, 63

Ravenna, 52, 55, 67, 69,72, 87

Renaissance, 14, 143

Richard the Lionheart, 113Roman Empire, 7, 11, 15,

23, 28, 88, 137, 144Romans, 30, 88, 139Romanus II, 91Romanus IV, 97–100Rome, 11, 12, 15–17, 19,

21, 28–30, 48–49,52–53, 67, 74, 82, 89,106

Romulus Augustulus, 55Rufinus, 50

Saladin, 111–112Scholarius, 125, 140Second Crusade, 110–111Seljuk Turks, 13, 97–98,

108–109Shapur, 37, 40, 42Sicily, 67, 69, 81, 94–95,

104Silk Road, 14, 143Socrates, 20Sol Invictus, 22Sophronius, 74Spain, 4, 35, 46Stilicho, 49–51

Tarchaniotes, Joseph, 98Tetrachy, 16

I N D E X

• 157 •

Theodora, 16, 56–58,63–64, 68–89

Theodosian Walls, 55Theodosius, 46–51, 60,

65, 72Theodosius II, 55Theophilus, 89Thessalonica, 24, 47, 93,

104, 112, 116, 121Third Crusade, 112–113Thrace, 43, 69, 90,

116–117, 126–127Tribonian, 58–59, 63True Cross, the, 30, 71,

73–74

Turks, 97, 99, 100, 106,108–109, 121–122,124, 126, 129–131,135

Urban II, Pope, 106–107

Valens, 42–46Valentinian, 42Valentinian II, 47–49Vandals, 50, 67

William of Malmesbury, 29

Yeats,WB, 146

I N D E X

• 158 •

other pocket essentials books by giles morgan · pdf fileother pocket essentials books by...

Documents