The Byzantine Republic

Anthony Kaldellis's The Byzantine Republic: People and Power in New Rome is a provocative yet perhaps inaccessible text. To properly understand what the author was doing with this one requires a certain degree of familiarity and comprehension of the historiography on Byzantium's political order and origins. Alas, as novices to the field, some of the references here and critiques of ideas or old narratives championed by past generations of historians and scholars sometimes flew over our heads. Nonetheless, we were already indoctrinated by some of these old, inaccurate characterizations of Byzantium's republican monarchy, sometimes seeing it in comparisons made with medieval Ethiopia. And the legacy of the old stereotypes and "established" facts about Byzantium as a case of "oriental despotism" or theocracy were ingrained in our high school and university history courses. 

Rescuing the history of Byzantium from these aforementioned problematic, outdated, or outright biased perspectives is a must. Some of them were built on the flimsiest foundation by older generations of scholars who had been in taught to view Byzantium as less of a continuation of the Roman tradition but as something of an aberration or deviation. Instead, Kaldellis proposes that we accept the Roman self-identification of the Byzantines, including the way they conceived of and organized the state on a republican model. By republic, or res publica and politeia, Kaldellis means the emperor always had to rule with the consent of the governed in such a manner that promoted the common good of society. While the emperor had replaced the Republic in Antiquity, this ideal of a "republic" based on rulers who must abide by this ideal or risk losing the throne, remained relevant for Byzantium for most of its history (though Kaldellis focuses on events before 1204). Thus, instead of despotic emperors who ruled through divine will, the actual reality was one in which the "people" regularly played a role in legitimizing or toppling various emperors. 

The various civil wars, however, never sought to transform the polity, merely to pass imperial authority into new hands. Society, representing various classes, played a role in this process through popular acclamations, riots, supporting rebels, voicing opposition to specific emperors or officials, songs and chants, or actively promoting others to the throne. Indeed, the most stark example of this can be seen in the sorry fate of Michael V, who triggered the populace of the City's fury after turning on Zoe. However, numerous similar episodes can be found throughout the history of Byzantium from the 5th century to 12th, indicating a long-lasting tradition of popular consent as a requirement for the throne. Yes, the emperors did develop an imperial ideology reflected in court literature and claims of God's favor, but any emperor who did not cultivate his popularity with his subjects, pursue the common good, and win their consent, was not likely to last very long. This model has the benefit of elucidating the frequent coups and revolts throughout Byzantium's history while also demonstrating how the Empire was indeed Roman in its foundation. The several "states of exception" in Byzantine history now make a little more sense, since we can see how the politeia could engage in illegal or extralegal measures to establish or confirm an emperor they saw as promoting the interests of the people.

But I wonder if someone who specializes in, say, the history of China, would reach somewhat similar conclusions about a civilization with very distinct political traditions. The emperor had to rule on behalf of his subjects and win their consent or face rebellion, coups, riots, or assassination. And the theocratic elements of imperial courts were not necessarily reflective of the political reality. After all, so many kingdoms, empires or rulers sought to legitimize or sanction their rule with religion and ritual yet faced resistance, revolts, coups, or dynastic changes. Nevertheless, a distinctively Roman trait is discernable in the pattern of Byzantium, suggesting that it was indeed a republican monarchy. The lens of continuity helps us better contextualize the history of the Byzantines, who are more appropriately viewed through the Roman political tradition rather than misleading Christian theocracy or "oriental despotisms" of the past.