Ethnography After Antiquity

In our quest to read all of the books of Anthony Kaldellis, we tackled Ethnography After Antiquity: Foreign Lands and Peoples in Byzantine Literature. A detailed analysis of how ethnography disappeared or changed after Late Antiquity and then experienced a return of sorts in the 14th and 15th centuries, Kaldellis raises a number of questions and critiques of problematic notions like the "Byzantine Commonwealth" or attempts by some scholars to accuse Byzantine authors of not facing geopolitical reality due to their classicizing language or ethnonyms. For our purposes, it helps to understand why Byzantine sources are silent about Christian Nubia and Ethiopia, since not only was there a vast distance between them but a decline of ethnographic digressions in Byzantine literate precluded more explicit ethnographic accounts. Even fellow Christians among Slavic peoples or Christians in former Roman territory in the Near East were not usually written about ethnographically after Late Antiquity, making it unlikely that we will find anything like digressions by Procopius on Nubia or Aksum in authors like Psellos or Skylitzes. Instead, what happened was changes in the nature of historical writing and references to the barbarian/non-Christian Other for imperial panegyric writings, imperial biographies, or, in the cases of military manuals, occasional references to others like the "Persians." The Other was often used by Byzantine authors to help define what Roman identity meant, which was primarily Roman rather than a religious one. This meant that Christian solidarity with Latins, Slavs who converted to Christian, or even the Bulgarians after their conversion was always outweighed by political concerns by the Byzantines. The loss of much of the empire's territory due to the Arab conquests led to another problem, since now Byzantine author truly wrote an ethnographic account of Islam until the 15th century. Coming to terms with Islam and the subsequent loss of territory raised a number of critical issues and although Byzantine intellectuals certainly knew much more about the Arabs and Muslim territories, coming to analyze it objectively remained difficult. By the last century and a half of its existence, ethnographic writings return and Byzantine authors have reconsidered the status of the Western "barbarians" due to their rising political, economic and intellectual status. This fascinating period, where some authors revive a Herodotean and even Hellenic identity, is the most fascinating one. 

Basil II's Empire

Basil II and the Governance of Empire (976-1025) by Catherine Holmes is an interesting but difficult study on the Byzantine Empire of one of the greatest emperors of Roman/Byzantine history. To really understand it, one would have to have read all or most of the chronicle of John Skylitzes (plus that of other Byzantine chroniclers and historians of the period from the late 900s into the 1200s). Holmes has a number of interesting ideas about the writing of Skylitzes's chronicle and the political/social conditions of late 11th century Byzantium that shaped his work. Supposedly, part of the reason he overstated the importance of Bardas Skleros is because one of his sources was a pro-Skleros source. He also overestimates the importance of various ancestors of prominent/aristocratic families who were not important until the reign of Alexios Komnenos or John Komnenos. 

Holmes tries to use non-Byzantine sources that do cover Basil II's reign (Yahya Ibn Said, Stephen of Taron, some others) but it is rather remarkable how little has survived that covers, in detail, the reign of Basil II. The guy who completed the conquest of Bulgaria and extended the Empire the furthest east/northeast it had been in centuries...and we have so few detailed, internal sources on him. Skylitzes is partly unreliable as a source due to his reliance on pro-Skleros materials, his telescoped passages which often lack dates, and his willingness to modify some details to further the political agenda of his own time in the court of Alexios Komnenos.

Ultimately, a lot of what Holmes is saying seems very conjectural, but she wisely limits her analysis to what can be corroborated by narrative sources, sigillographical evidence, and non-Byzantine sources. It does seem quite likely that Skylitzes highlighted and exaggerated the role of ancestors of contemporary elites (late 11th century) of Byzantium's political system in the wars in the Balkans just to highlight the role of aristocratic cooperation with the imperial court for the success of Byzantium. Similarly, Skylitzes's method for composing his chronicle does suggest one must use it extremely carefully to truly make sense of what transpired in the Balkans or anywhere else during the reign of Basil II. 

Holmes is also worth reading for her insightful commentary on Byzantine historiography and various themes in the study of medieval Byzantium. For example, questing one's facile agreement with past scholarship on a strict genre separation of chronicles and histories. Not all Byzantine chroniclers were monks who emphasized divine providence and avoided classicizing rhetoric or style. Just as not all Byzantine "historians" wrote in fine Attic Greek and modeled themselves on Thucydides or ancient historians. Furthermore, Holmes presents a mostly persuasive case for understanding imperial administration on the eastern and western frontiers as one in which Constantinople relied more on tributary relations (in the east for sure) while devolving local matters on indigenous notables or political actors, only later in Basil's reign sending more officials from Constantinople. Likewise, one finds her reading of the legislation against the Powerful and Basil's interests in presenting the image of omnipotence while allowing much local autonomy a convincing analysis of his administration. For the conditions of Byzantium and its neighbors in the 10th and early 11th centuries, Basil II represented the apogee of that system of imperial rhetoric, control of the army and institutions, and acceptance of the reality of distant frontier governance that was sadly almost destroyed in less than a century after his reign.

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. 

The New Roman Empire: A History of Byzantium

Reading Anthony Kaldellis's The New Roman Empire: A History of Byzantium took quite some time. Unlike Norwich's series, this vast work is a single volume. Unlike Norwich's work, however, it was written by a specialist whose work work benefits from the more recent scholarship on the history of Byzantium, Europe and the Mediterranean. Kaldellis's style is also very accessible and at times, rather hilarious. The sense of humor, sarcasm, and occasional references to contemporary events or phrases definitely made it easier to finish the massive tome. Nonetheless, the last few hundred pages were painful reading. The sad decline of Byzantium from the pillaging of Constantinople in the Fourth Crusade to the final fall of the capital in 1453 was one almost continual tale of territorial loss, destructive civil wars, dangerous alliances with Latins or Turks, and final reduction to impotence. 

While Byzantium undoubtedly made contributions to the world for its preservation of ancient texts, art and architecture, one of the true wonders of this state that lasted over 1000 years is its longevity. At multiple other times in its long history of over 1000 years, the Eastern Roman Empire suffered various setbacks, loss of territory, existential threats, and frequent rebellions, coups, and, to our modern eyes, pointless debates over Church doctrine. Yet, despite this, the empire endured and at various times, remained a major power in the Mediterranean. Indeed, even under the Komnenos, the Empire experienced a comeback of sorts that may have sown the seeds for its future destruction. Still, we sometimes wonder if the Empire was bound to experience a huge transformation or existential threat by the end of the "Middle Ages" due to the rise of peer polities and the growth of western Europe's power. 

But the Roman Empire's existence for so long shows us how a state with Roman institutions (which changed, sure, but still bearing a great degree of continuity with the ancient state) existed to the cusp of a new world. That remarkable endurance and strength of institutions does not appear to have ever seriously wavered until the changes in imperial rule ushered by the Komnenos and the later Palaiologos who ruled through their families, engaged in frequent conflicts over the throne within their extended family networks, and relied on paying their relations and officials with pronoia on land that was increasingly scarce as the "Byzantines" continued to lose territory. As so eloquently elucidated in Kaldellis's work, those without elite family connections to the ruling dynasty had fewer avenues to advance and the state lost land and the resources to support reconquest of former territories. The final 2 centuries of Byzantium are especially tragic, despite the cultural and literary accomplishments by some. 

Despite its length, anyone interested in Byzantium should read this. Kaldellis's perspective is intriguing, fresh, and deviates from past preoccupations or problematic frameworks. For instance, the greatness of Justinian is presented here in a more mixed manner, as the author points frequently to the problems of overextension and Justinian's brutality. The Crusades are presented unquestionably as colonial ventures, with the Latins doing to the Romans what they would go on to perfect in the Americas a few centuries later. The issue of iconoclasm is portrayed as something often exaggerated or overblown, at least based on the sources that have survived. And throughout it all, there's a deep sense of continuity for the 1000+ years of Byzantium's existence. The foundations of a state based on law, government responsibility its subjects, Christianity (not that the Church was always unified) and the role of the people (at least in Constantinople) in determining legitimacy were powerful factors that favored this type of longevity.

Streams of Gold, Rivers of Blood

Just read Anthony Kaldellis's Streams of Gold, Rivers of Blood. It's about the rise and fall of the renewed Byzantine Empire under the Macedonian dynasty expansionist phase and the rapid near collapse in the late 11th century. He really pushes back against the idea that Constantine Monomachos was an incompetent ruler. He also reemphasizes the weakness of the "feudalization" theory for understanding how the Empire declined. We also lack evidence of any extensive "fiscalization" of thematic lands that would have made the empire more dependent on professional soldiers instead of thematic ones, although the professional soldiers would have been more mobile and effective than the thematic soldiery. He also argues that the First Crusade, until the Latins took Antioch, was largely following the imperial agenda of Alexios Komnenos who supplied them and gave them direction after forcing/encouraging them to promise to return old Byzantine territories to  the Empire. 

While we are not entirely sure about that part of the book, the main argument he's making is that what caused the rapid decline of the empire (which had expanded in the east through the reconquest of parts of southeastern Anatolia, Antioch, northern Mesopotamia, Crete, Armenia, parts of the Caucasus, and Bulgaria and parts of the Balkans in the 900s and early 1000s), was the return to multipolarity at a bad time (war on three fronts with Seljuk Turks, Pechenegs, and Normans). The Empire had been so centralized by Basil II during his long reign and then returned to business as usual as the Macedonian dynasty entered several problematic successions as Basil II never had children and his brother only had 2 daughters. One daughter married different men and arrangements were made to preserve the line but Byzantium returned to business as usual (i.e., lack of established principle of succession and return to competition whenever the imperial center was or looked weak) led to succession conflicts and contested imperial rule.

Kaldellis is a funny academic. In the Introduction, he claims to harbor no affection for the Byzantine imperial project, but he repeatedly laments the treacherous Normans and others who seized and attacked Byzantium. We are a little disappointed he largely omitted the Norman-Byzantine wars of the 1080s to skip ahead to the First Crusade, but I guess his account really pushes back against Michael Psellos's Chronographia and Skylitzes to some extent. The Byzantine state was devaluing currency in the 1000s and appears to have become excessive with the giving of titles and gifts at each new succession to buy loyalty (which became necessary with emperors who had less legitimacy felt insecure), which sort ofsupports what Psellos wrote in the 11th century about how the emperors after Basil II began wasting a lot of funds of the imperial treasury. But since we lack enough hard data or facts about the nature of the economy, Kaldellis instead doesn't see any defunding of the military until after Constantine Monomachos, who is presented as one of the last decent emperors before Manzikert.

The situation in the 1070s-1080s was a disaster (one of the Normans hired by the Byzantines also made things worse by plundering and demanding protection money and then rebelling against the Byzantines while the Seljuks were raiding and seizing more lands). But when the Komnenos take back large sections of Asia Minor, was there a large enough Christian population resettling in those areas? I assume the Armenians in Cilicia and whatnot remained to a large extent and the area that later became Trebizond south of the Black Sea held out against the Ottomans until the 1400s but in terms of demographics, it does appear that so much of Asia Minor was permanently lost. Perhaps, with better luck, the Byzantines may have been able to hold Asia Minor if they did not have to address threats and attacks from other fronts. 

Africanobyzantina

Africanobyzantina is one of those deeply flawed but potentially fruitful analyses of the pre-Islamic past of Sudanic Africa. Positing a significant influence of Byzantium and medieval Nubian civilization on Sudanic Africa in the period of the 500s-700s, Theodōros Papadopoullos essentially restates the Hamitic Hypothesis for elucidating the rise of complex states and kingdoms in the Central and Western Sudan. However, he largely ignores pre-6th century history, overlooking any Egyptian and Kushite influences that permeated "Negro-Sudanese" Africa in Antiquity. So, using the Byzantine-sponsored Christianization of Nubia in the 6th century and the medieval Nubian kingdoms adoption of at least part of the Roman/Byzantine state apparatus and civilization, Papadopoullos endeavors to use a migration of said Nubians to the west to explain the development of civilizations like Kanem, Songhay, the Hausa states, and even the origins of the Jukun, Borgu, and Nupe. 

Like other theories based on the Hamitic Hypothesis, the vector of this civilizing current is presented as likely Zaghawa (although the Tuareg and their possible part eastern origins in northeast Africa is also considered), although the author fails to clarify how nomadic or seminomadic populations in the Sahara or Darfur and Chad were able to create kingdoms that brought Byzantine and oriental (Middle Eastern) statecraft to Black Africans. Presumably, actual Nubians and perhaps Copts and Persians, traveled to West Africa in large enough numbers to transfer aspects of their more "advanced" cultures but, naturally, our oral traditions and legends cited by the author fail to demonstrate this persuasively. Instead, what Papadopoullos achieves is a confused speculative theory based on outdated translations of Arabic sources (which he sometimes fails to address the contradictions of), problematic interpretations of said sources, and a large corpus of oral traditions collected by Frobenius, Meek, H.R. Palmer, and other Western colonial administrator-scholars and ethnographers. While there is undoubtedly great value in some of these traditions and, in the case of Palmer, local manuscripts written by locals in northern Nigeria, the methodological issues, language barriers, colonial context, and disturbing racialized framework adopted by these European scholars are never addressed or interrogated by Papadopoullos.

In spite of our criticisms of the book, there is nonetheless some merit to it. For instance, linguistic evidence studied by Claude Rilly does point to medieval Nubian contacts with peoples in western Sudan and eastern Chad. Some medieval Arabic sources do indeed reference contact between Nubia and the lands to their west. The Tuareg language does indeed include words of Latin or Greek origin that suggest a Christian past. And even some of the Kisra traditions analyzed by Papadopoullos seem to refer to historical events and personages relevant to the Persian conquest of Egypt and Sassanian conflict with the Byzantine Empire. And snippets of a pre-Islamic past that may have once been influenced by Christian Nubia can be occasionally seen here or there, if the references to Nasara or Christian-sounding practices are reliable in the traditions and accounts collected by Meeks, Frobenius and Palmer. Recent scholarship has also pointed out possible links between Nubia and the Lake Chad region through analysis of beads found at a site believed to have been a royal capital of Kanem, possibly Njimi. If the bead assemblage analyzed there was closer to those found in East Africa, and highly unlike the chemical composition of beads found at medieval sites in West Africa, the authors are probably correct to suspect trade links to the east that likely traversed Darfur and Nubia. 

Similarly, the aforementioned linguistic evidence of medieval Nubian influence on languages spoken between the Nile and Lake Chad points to potential Nubian trade, settlement, or migration into some of these areas. Some potential evidence of this can be seen in archaeological sites showing medieval Nubian extension west into Kordofan. Indeed, perhaps Muhammad Bello's tale of the Tuareg migration into Air from Kanem and Borno may have a kernel of truth, too, showing evidence of a Tubu, Kanuri, Tuareg, and Hausa interaction sphere by the 7th or 8th century that may have had ties to Nubia through trade. Archaeological evidence of pre-Islamic trans-Saharan at Marandet, Kissi and other sites that may have traded through the Fazzan or further east with the Nile Valley is also possible. Indeed, the Zaghawa word for king, kire, based on one Beria dictionary, sounds like it may be related to the Meroitic qore. In short, there are number of possible areas of influence from the Nubian civilizations, both Kushite and medieval, in the lands to the west. To what extent they actually influenced the Central and Western Sudan is unknown, but contacts were probable and likely predate medieval Nubia. 

Nonetheless, a deeper study of these aforementioned traditions and sources is required, especially with scholars who are well-versed local languages and have an understanding of how Islamic-influenced histories and legends draw on Jewish and Christian traditions. Due to his reliance on these highly problematic colonial-era scholars and colonial administrators, and the author's reliance on sometimes flawed translations of Arabic materials, he ends up promoting the Hamitic Hypothesis in a slightly different manner yet still flawed and lacking merit. It is also likely that some of the traditions recorded by locals, upon the insistence of Palmer or with his sponsorship, were influenced by more erudite traditions of Islamic history that included more specific knowledge of Sassanian Persian wars with the Byzantine Empire. Indeed, in East Africa, a Swahili poet even wrote about the Heraclius. To what degree the traditions collected by individuals like these actually reflect the Mandara, Borno, Nupe, or Hausa traditions of origin must be addressed, particularly in the ways traditions mutate or incorporate new figures over time. One must also look for actual evidence of migration of Persians, Copts, or Nubians in the period from the 6th century to the 8th century, too, since the author seems to think these Byzantine and eastern influences arrived via actual migratory movements that were associated with the Zaghawa (and, possibly, Tuareg, whose ancestors may have come from the east as well as Berber North Africa). Finally, scholars must also look to local and intra-regional factors and developments to avoid hyperdiffusionist thinking. Perhaps a deeper look at non-Islamic societies in West or Central Africa may have helped the author avoid assuming complex state administrative features or court rituals are only a product of contact with the Mediterranean and Middle Eastern worlds. 

Kekaumenos's Consilia et Narrationes

Kekaumenos's Consilia et Narrationes is sadly missing some sections, but it remains a fascinating source. Examples of admonitory literature that shed light on social relations and politics in 11th century Byzantium are another opportunity to understand this period besides chronicles, histories, coinage, or imperial administrative records. Indeed, Kekaumenos, whose musings, anecdotes, and advice reflect the literary tastes and social views of a lettered but non-intellectual Byzantine man, also corroborate some of Michael Psellos's observations on the emperors of the 11th century. Furthermore, Kekaumenos's constant references to the prevalence of buying offices, accepting bribes, the unreliability and danger of friends and supporters, and military strategy point to the troubles of the Empire in the period leading to Manizkert. If judges, commanders of themes, and frontier governors were truly as corrupt as Kekaumeno's work addressed to his children suggest, then the Empire was indeed heading for trouble in the final years of the Macedonian dynasty. One cannot help but think that the failure of Basil II to sire a male heir made this negative outcome more likely, although the problems with Byzantine expansion on the frontiers may have been unstable if conditions in the Balkans and Armenia are reliable indicators. Perhaps there was too rapid of an expansion under Basil II that subsequent emperors were unable to effectively administer. Then, with the threats of the Pechenegs, Vlachs, Normans, and later the Turks, the Empire began to lose some of the gains achieved under the Macedonian line. Of course, unlike Michael Psellos, who was closer to the heart of imperial government in Constantinople, Kekaumenos was mainly writing about events in the provinces and frontiers and did not locate the problems of the Empire with the emperors. While it is true that subjects will follow the patterns of the emperor or ruler's behavior, Kekaumenos supported a political theory espousing the emperor as a God on earth who must be supported and  defended by those who accept the hierarchy. Naturally, this was not always true due to the frequency of revolts, palace intrigues and coups, but Kekaumenos could not go there in a work like this. 

Chronicle of Theophanes

Harry Turtledove's partial translation of The Chronicle of Theophanes covers the important years 602-813. A pivotal two centuries which saw the rise of Islam and the loss of Byzantine or Roman rule in various important provinces like Egypt and parts of the Middle East, Theophanes's chronicle is one of our major sources. Beginning with the fall of Emperor Maurice and Byzantine wars with Sassanian Persia, the sources utilized for this chronicle partly elucidate why Byzantium struggled with the expansion of Islam. Meanwhile, in addition to wars in the Middle East and Mediterranean, Byzantium faced a threat in the Balkans from the Avars and later the Bulgars. This war on two fronts exposed the Empire to several threats that most of the emperors either lacked the ability or resources to address fully. The problem of iconoclasm in the 8th century added more problems since it created divisions in the Empire among the Christian population and the factions which supported iconoclasm or opposed it. Some emperors, if Theophanes is indeed reliable for the reigns of Leo and Constantine Copronymus, appear to have even taken advantage of iconoclasm to seize wealth and goods from monasteries and laypeople. 

Of course, one must use Theophanes carefully as a source. His repeated references to iconoclastic emperors as impious, evil, and a threat to the world illustrate how the chronicler's own biases may have led him to exaggerate. Nonetheless, given the intense internal divisions within the Empire and the ongoing threat from the Bulgars and Arabs, it is sometimes surprising that it survived. It probably helped that the caliphates appeared to lack the ability to conquer Anatolia and their sieges of Constantinople were thwarted. One's impression from reading Theophanes is that frequent border raids and violations of treaties or agreements were common, but neither side was truly able to achieve a substantial victory against the other. In addition, population movements and relocations must have helped sustain Byzantine rule in areas of conflict, such as the movement of Armenian and Syrian Christians into regions near the Bulgars and the movement of Slavs into Anatolia. Alliances with Western powers like the Franks and even the Khazars could also be of use for protecting Byzantine interests in Europe and the east. 

What stood out to us, however, is the possible reference to someone from East Africa or India who married the wife of a spatharios named Helias. Punished by Emperor Justinian Rhinotmetus, this woman was wed to an "Indian"  cook who, due to the occasional conflation of India and Ethiopia in Greek writings, may have been someone from Africa. Moreover, people from Africa, particularly Nubia and Ethiopia, would have been known to Late Antique Byzantium. Indeed, there were even pagans still living in Harran well into Islamic times, demonstrating the religious diversity of the Middle East long after the establishment of the early caliphates. But what, if any, were the possible links between Byzantium and Nubia or Ethiopia during this centuries? 

Chronographia of Michael Psellos

Reading a certain science fiction novel partly inspired by the Byzantine Empire has motivated us to read more chronicles and histories by authors from that ancient civilization. This time, Michael Psellos, the pompous philosopher and intellectual, provided our reading material. Focusing on the reigns of 14 emperors of Byzantium during the 11th century, our arrogant intellectual provides interesting insights into the nature of Byzantine imperial politics during the pivotal century that witnessed the decline of the empire after its apogee under Basil II. According to Psellos, the successors to Basil II were, although not invariably, corrupting forces who squandered the riches of the imperial treasury through gifts, promotions and luxuries that were not put in good use to protect the Empire's borders and power. Though he occasionally found positive things to say about some emperors, such as Constantine IX, Michael (Zoe's boytoy), Isaac Comnenos, and even Michael VII, especially those who courted his favor or admired his philosophical and rhetorical accomplishment, the overall trend he portrays is one of decay. 

The failure of Basil II to sire a male heir and the problematic marriages and reign of Zoe and Theodora opened the door to more problems as the end of the Macedonian dynasty drew near. Instead of securing the eastern frontier from the Turks or protecting the west, emperors wasted time and resources on conflicts with their own generals, putting down rebellions, or promoting people to high positions who did not earn it on merit. Likewise, extravagant spending on churches, monasteries, lavish living, and the waste of the imperial treasury made the Empire weaker. The one emperor who seemed determine to eradicate the causes of the decadence of the Empire, Isaac Comnenos, was, according to Psellos, too eager and tried to cure or cauterize the Empire too quickly, sparking opposition and frustrating his aims. 

While one may certainly take issue with the way Psellos portrayed 11th century emperors and the role of his own bias as someone actively involved in the events he described, his history does suggest that the Macedonian dynasty's troubles with succession after Constantine VIII's daughters and corrupt habits did play a major role in weakening the Empire. Nonetheless, things were not quite as bad as they would later become after the loss of much of Anatolia. In fact, Byzantine power still made it a major power, particularly in relations with the Fatimids of Egypt and various Muslim and Christian powers. The Byzantines were able to defeat a Russian invasion in the Black Sea, too. Byzantine ships were also active in the Atlantic during the reign of Romanos III, if Psellos is reliable. Furthermore, the Empire was able to defeat a Bulgar rebellion while Empress Zoe was able to import spices from India and Egypt. Thus, despite the aforementioned problems faced by Byzantium, the Empire was still in a relatively strong position. Indeed, even Manzikert was not the doomsday it could have been, since the captured emperor was released by the Seljuq sultan. One just wishes the military, which arose to dominance under Isaac, had been able to consolidate the attempted reforms and fiscal changes ushered by Isaac to bolster the frontier defenses.

De Administrando Imperio

De Administrando Imperio is an interesting document. Written by or under the auspices of Constantine VII for his son, it provides a Byzantine imperial perspective on the Empire's foreign policy and how to navigate its sometimes warring and belligerent subjects and neighboring polities. Various peoples, such as Pechenegs, Chazars, Turks, Franks, Bulgars, Slavs, Russians, Arabs and other peoples are the subject of several short chapters on the history of Byzantine relations with said peoples and the foreign policy of the Empire with regard to said peoples. Byzantine diplomacy and clever use of groups like the Pechenegs as a buffer helped to keep the Empire afloat during this era. For instance, securing the friendship of the Pechenegs helped protect the Byzantines from hostile peoples. Part of the Empire's strength and longevity was undoubtedly due to this skillful interaction with various "barbarian" peoples and enemies along the frontiers, using one group against the other or as a buffer. In addition, cultural diplomacy and the use of religion was similarly important, converting groups like the Slavs to Eastern Christianity or bestowing Roman gifts, titles, or houses in Constantinople for vassal or tributary rulers. The Arabs and the threat of Islam is also a subject of chapters, particularly the conflicts with the Abbasids and Ummayads before them, as well as the Islamic attacks on Cyprus, Italy, Anatolia, or the Arab sieges of Constantinople. Muhammad, according to Constantine VII, was an epileptic (an idea borrowed from Theophanes the Confessor) who successfully established a false religion. In addition,  Constantine VII's text makes a reference to black slaves who were paid to the Byzantine Empire under Justinian II, in a treaty with Abimelech. Sadly, there is no other mention of blacks or to sub-Saharan Africans...

A Memory Called Empire

Arkady Martine's A Memory Called Empire was recommended to us a few years ago by an avid science fiction reader. We purchased a copy last year and recently read the novel. It's an excellent example of science fiction borrowing from the history of empires to craft engaging space operas or tales of galactic imperial sagas. In this case, Martine has drawn from both the Roman/Byzantine Empire (like Asimov in Foundation) and the Aztecs. A number of words in the Teixcalaanli Teixcalaanli Empire's language are clearly inspired by Nahuatl, as are references to the Sun, sacrifices, the names of the citizens of the City, and even their physical features. Of course, references to the Byzantine Empire can also be found, such as a text referred to as The Buildings, a nice nod to Procopius. The City itself, a planetary metropolis and capital of the Empire, features pyramids and features that also reference Tenochtitlan. In short, it's an impressive example of crafting an intriguing empire in the far future with some inspiration from the Aztecs. 

The creative decisions by the author in the use of technology, especially the imago technology which allows the memory of someone who passed away to be implanted into another, raises a number of interesting questions about identity just as Mahit Dzmare, the Lsel ambassador, confronts her own position as a barbarian in love with the empire poised to devour her homeland. This, I believe, is where Martine's book really shines as a space opera. There are no epic space battles, but the internal tension of Mahit as she struggles to protect her people's independence and juggle her own loyalties while desiring so strongly to be accepted as something other than a barbarian. However, no matter how hard she tries, that sense of being a barbarian never truly accepted in the heart of Empire is inescapable. Anyone familiar with the literature of colonized people can immediately sense something deeper in this novel, as it explores the depths to which imperialism can wreak havoc on colonized (or, in the case of Lsel, semi-colonial territories, since it retains its independence) peoples. 

Fortunately for Mahit, however, Lsel possesses information on a greater threat that will preserve the station's autonomy for at least a little longer. So, even though we felt the ultimate conflict over imperial succession could have been resolved in a better fashion in this novel than the diplomat's political maneuver, and there are still so many loose threads, this novel was so suspenseful and captivating that we must read the sequel. We cannot wait to see how Mahit and Three Seagrass will communicate with the unknown threat beyond Lsel that is nearing the Empire. 

John Skylitzes

John Skylitzes was a Byzantine Greek historian. A member of the aristocracy, Skylitzes had the titles of kouropalates and droungarios tes viglas under Alexios Komnenos. Writing his Synopsis Historiarum as a continuation of Theophano’s Chronicle during the reign of Alexios Komnenos, Skylitzes includes Basil II’s campaign in Bulgaria and ends in the year 1057. Indeed, Skylitzes’ account of Basil’s victory at the 1014 Battle of Kleidion reworks the battle, claiming Basil blinded 15,000 Bulgarian, which had even been questioned by contemporary historians of the time. The aforementioned work was later recopied in 12th  century Sicily and accompanied by illustrations of various episodes from Byzantium’s history, thereafter called the Madrid Skylitzes. A sequel, called Skylitzes Continuatus, perhaps written by John Skylitzes, includes the years 1057-79 and is a revision of the Historia of Michael Attaleiates. Skylitzes’ intention was to write an objective history that would include more details left out by other historians, such as Psellos. In addition, Skylitzes also had training as a jurist and completed three surviving legal writings and known for drafting one treatise on marriage. Skylitzes was also known as John the Thrakesian and served as a Komnenian official in Alexios’ administration.

Bibliography

Holmes, Catherine. Basil II and the Governance of the Empire (976-1025). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Alexander Kazhdan, Anthony Cutler, "Skylitzes, John" in The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. Ed. Alexander P. Kazhdan. © 1991, 2005 by Oxford University Press, Inc.

Stephanson, Peter. "The legend of Basil the Bulgar-slayer." Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 24 (2000): 102-132.

Grettir's Saga

We finally completed our reading of Grettir's Saga, translated by Jesse Byock. This saga was somewhat easier to follow than our last one, as it was focused mostly on a single character instead of a community with its complex genealogies. Of course, the reader is treated to long genealogies and a large cast of characters in this tale of Grettir. Centered on an outlaw who, though physically strong, intelligent, and a clever wordsmith, lacked impulse control and was not inclined to labor, the saga is destined to end poorly for Grettir. His personal disposition and bad luck (particularly after a defeating Glam, a revenant that was terrorizing a part of Iceland) curse him to wander the lands, living on the margins of society yet still respected for defeating berserkers, trolls, and the undead. So the quasi-heroic figure of the outlaw was clearly something that appealed to Icelandic audiences when this saga was written (probably) in the 14th century. 

Perhaps every society requires non-conformers to "rock the boat" and challenge the status quo, as Grettir's complicated life exemplifies. Despite robbing for his survival, and even raping a maidservant in one particularly disturbing episode, even Grettir's enemies eventually support his kinsman after the killer of our protagonist resorts to sorcery to defeat him. Indeed, Grettir's death caused the Althing to prohibit sorcery with the threat of the death penalty, if we recall correctly. Furthermore, the manner in which his brother avenges his death in Constantinople is certainly exceptional, adding to Grettir's renown even after death. Of course, as a saga written by a Christian author, of the Middle Ages, the social order cannot be truly upended or overthrown by the likes of Grettir. Ultimately, rank, status and lineage rule the day, and those who transgress Christian morality will eventually make amends. Thus, the adulterous Spes, who eventually marries Grettir's brother, compensates for her misdeeds and the two end their lives in Rome after seeking penance for their sins. 

Yet one can see a celebration of the Icelandic lifestyle and individuality of the settlers and their early descendants, a period where men (and usually men, although women like Asdis are certainly admired as powerful matriarchs) stood up for their honor and that of their kinsmen without a centralized state attempting to police their behavior. Presumably this explains the appeal of Grettir's Saga to modern Icelanders and foreign readers, who can enjoy the understatement of the characters' lines, Grettir's proverbial speech, and the attempts by one man who refuses to conform forging his own path. Such character archetypes are always appealing to a variety of readers, across time and space. 

Byzantium: The Decline and Fall

The final volume of Norwich's history of Byzantium is a depressing read. After the brief brilliance of the Komnenian Restoration, the disastrous Fourth Crusade and continual imperial disintegration make for repeated disappointment as Anatolia and the Balkans were lost to Western Latins, Balkan powers, and the Turks. However, as Norwich demonstrates, the consequences of Manzikert did not have to lead to the Fourth Crusade. As usual, internal dissension, civil wars, squabbling over the throne, and conflicts with other Christian powers made it increasingly likely that a Turkish victory over Constantinople was inevitable. Along the long road to the 1453 fall,  the reader of this final volume is treated to the various blunders and brilliant tactics made during the Crusades, papal schisms, and shifting realities of the European and Mediterranean Middle Ages. We root for Byzantium, despite see the constant mistakes, errors, and misplaced pleas for help from the West. But, perhaps, the world had long passed the need and room for this Roman Empire. 

Byzantium: The Apogee

We finally finished the second volume of Norwich's Byzantium. As the title indicates, it covers the apogee of the Byzantine Empire, with occasional crises, coups, bad emperors, and the end of the conflict over icons. We see the Empire becoming more and more influential and important in the Balkans and parts of Syria and the East. But by the end of the volume, the Byzantine Empire is losing much of Anatolia to the Seljuk Turks while losing Apulia and Balkan states. If only Basil II had sired a male heir, or if only Romanus (or those who overthrew him after Manzikert) maintained the truce with the Seljuk sultan. If only Byzantium found a way to combine the best of the military aristocracy and civil administration to ensure stability, continuity, and protection or even expansion of imperial territory. Alas, the Empire continued to struggle with problems of succession and civil versus military elite while squandering the best accomplishments of the Macedonian dynasty. True, Norwich acknowledges intellectual, religious, cultural, and artistic achievements of this era between Empress Irene and Alexius Komnenos. But even at its apogee, it is not hard to see why any outstanding emperors were often undone by their successors, rivals, and perhaps over-reliance on foreign mercenaries and states to suppress revolts or coups. The perennial internal conflicts and weaknesses of Byzantium make it easy to understand why some of its most seminal conflicts or crises did not have to be so. Perhaps the Empire could have even lived on as a stronger power in Syria, Anatolia, Armenia, and the Balkans, with an emphasis on retaining Asia Minor and the Balkans.

Byzantium: The Early Centuries

Norwich's rich narrative history of the Byzantine Empire is known for its questionable accuracy. It is definitely outdated, too, in its rather politically incorrect and denigrating remarks on some of the so-called barbarian peoples, particularly the Huns, Turkic peoples, and nomadic Central Asians. He may, at times, be too willing to support Gibbon's contentions. Yet, in spite of its flaws, Norwich wrote an endlessly entertaining history of the pivotal first 5 centuries of the Empire, showing how the Empire derived many of its institutions and practices from the Roman foundation but developed into something new, distinct, and historically significant. While some of the ground covered in the text, especially the reign of Justinian, which has occupied the attention of this blog, was quite familiar to us, it was very enlightening to learn more about the specific reigns of the various predecessors and successors to Justinian. It is easier to see and why Arab Muslims were able to so quickly takeover large chunks of the Empire in light of the numerous internal conflicts and religious divisions. It is hard not to cheer for Byzantium, as Norwich does, as the reader finds oneself overly invested in the future of the Empire. The tragedy of Heraclius, for instance, or the frustrated ambitions of Justinian or Justinian II make for great history.

The Wars of Justinian

While the lengthy and sometimes tedious Wars of Justinian by Procopius can be occasionally daunting and scattershot, it raises so many questions when considered in relationship with Secret History. In the latter work, Procopius openly criticizes Belisarius and Justinian quite often, while Wars mostly praises Belisarius as a brilliant general and virtuous man. The truth was likely somewhere in the middle. However, before one can even begin to ponder that, this vast history, directly inspired by Thucydides and classical historians, contains a huge wealth of ethnographic data, anecdotal stories, legends, and accounts of military encounters across the known world. 

The sheer scale of the world as known by Procopius takes the reader on a journey across the oikumene, including rich details on the cultures and peoples of Thule (Scandinavia), the Black Sea, Persia, Mesopotamia, Nubia, Himyar and Aksumite Ethiopia, North Africa, Gothic Italy, and Germanic Europe. For us here at the blog, Procopius is a priceless source for understanding Christianization in Nubia during the 6th century in relation to the foreign policy interests of Justinian. He also provides a direct source on the proposed alliance between the Roman Empire and the Aksumites against the Sassanid Persians, which hints at the thwarted attempts on the part of the Aksumites to directly access silk goods through direct trade with India (blocked by Persia). Whether or not some of the other ethnographic, political and geographic observations and anecdotes by Justinian are true, they make up the most entertaining aspects of his long work.

As for the text's uneasy relationship with the other writings of Procopius, there is definitely a shared current of criticism of imperial policy. Justinian, for instance, comes across as distracted and unwise in his appointment of military commanders and policy during the lengthy Gothic War in Italy. For example, while the Roman forces in Italy were falling apart, and Slavic hordes raiding Illyria and Thrace, Justinian, said to never sleep, was involving himself in theological and religious disputes among Christians. And after various wars and broken truces with the Persians, Procopius sums up the result being essentially Rome paying tribute to the Sassanians. According to Procopius, Justinian did not punish or properly chastise military commanders for their mistakes in the various campaigns in the East or West. The Roman emperor, and his wife, Theodora, allegedly expressed unwise political decisions, with Theodora always siding with women in distress. Of course, according to Procopius, it was Theodora whose will and determination to remain Empress which forced Justinian to fight the rebels in Byzantion during the Nika riots. Antonina, unlike Belisarius, Theodora and Justinian, does not receive as much criticism as in Secret History.

Nevertheless, there is an underlying current of criticism of Justinian and his various wars, pointing out their questionable benefits in places like Libya, where the Romans eventually defeated Moorish forces but were left with a depopulated province. Indeed, waging wars on two fronts with powerful foes while using disloyal barbarian mercenaries or allies probably did not help, either. Moreover, as the empire's boundaries expanded, disputes over Christian doctrine, social unrest among the fan club factions, an assassination plot that endeavored to include Justinian's nephew, and a deadly plague in 542 point to several internal problems that threatened the foundation of the growing empire. In conjunction with Anecdota, one seems to see in all this war and folly of Justinian a critique of tyranny and misrule of an empire which was supposed to be favored by God. Critiques of tyrannical and murderous Persian rulers or barbarian kings must be veiled criticisms of the emperor, whose lack of proper governance and virtue threatened to unravel all the gains of the Empire. Belisarius, on the other hand, in Wars, may have been virtuous and only impeded by Justinian, but the truth was likely somewhere in the middle.

The World of Late Antiquity

Finally read Peter Brown's The World of Late Anqituity, a far more accessible essay on the period than the lectures The Making of Late Antiquity. Here, Brown's classic essay provides a great overview of the period, challenging the Gibbonesque paradigm of decline and fall. Instead, changes in the social, economic, religious, and spiritual conditions in the Roman Empire and its environs beginning in the 3rd century gradually brought about the features now known as "Late Antique," which created a different type of Roman Empire and new orientation to spirituality that favored Christianity's expansion. While there was undoubtedly a collapse of the western empire's political administration, when looking at the entirety of the region during the period, it is not really a tale of decline and fall brought about by Christianity. The book's definite strength lies in its analysis of religious and spiritual changes in the eastern Mediterranean and the western empire. The chapters on Sassanian Persia and early Islam may have been necessary to provide a complete overview of the "Near East" that led to the "end" of a united Mediterranean world centered on a single empire, but they are clearly not the author's area of specialization. The figure of the holy man, the growing importance of bishops and monastic communities in the eastern Mediterranean and the increasing importance of the Roman Catholic Church in the west as the inheritor of the aristocratic senatorial classes are all fascinating processes.

Secret History

Now for a writer who brings to mind the polemics of Baron de Vastey on Petion. Procopius's Secret History is an entertaining list of the various flaws, shortcomings, gossip, and demonic traits of Emperor Justinian and Empress Theodora. Of course, General Belisarius and his wife Antonina come into the narrative for the first section, with Belisarius coming off as one of the biggest dupes of the Byzantine Empire for allowing his wife to cheat on him with various men. Justinian and Theodora, however, were even worse. According the invectives of Procopius, Justinian may or may not have really been a demon and his wife was an infamous whore. Together, they were hell-bent on destroying the Roman Empire and ruining their subjects, overthrowing the rule of law, and corrupting every institution. Of course, the reality of the Byzantine Empire during the Age of Justinian was likely quite different, yet the various issues of constant wars, imperial overexpansion, the plague, factional conflict between the Greens and Blues and conflicts over religious doctrine support some of Procopius's concerns with the direction of the Empire. While one must be careful with taking the character portraits of Procopius too literally, one gains insights into the nature of the Byzantine Empire during the crucial 6th century. 

Rhodanthe and Dosikles

Theodore Prodromos wrote a far more thrilling romance than the author of Drosilla and Charikles. Heavily indebted to Helidorus, Prodromos begins the narrative in media res while borrowing all of the typical plot conventions of the ancient romances of his predecessors. So, we have the assumed death of the heroine, miracles, oracles, shipwrecks, piracy, close friendships with fellow unfortunate slaves of high status, lustful and envious obstacles, constant invocations of the gods (especially Hermes, in this case), and some ekphrasis. As a performance piece, the narrative's often lengthy speeches and rhetorical exercises must have worked better when performed at the Komnenian court. 

Nevertheless, this romance manages to be more entertaining than that of Drosilla while featuring a fuller plot and interesting escapades. There's even more awesome battle scenes, such as the naval scene pitting the troops of the bandit/emperor Mistylos against Bryaxes. I had no idea divers armed with hammers were used to sink enemy ships. The novel's attempts at placing the two lovers at the heart of an imperial conflict does add some dramatic stature to their adventures, although lacking in the historical grandeur of some of the conflicts in the ancient romances (Egyptians, Meroe, the mighty Persian Empire). Indeed, is Pissa supposed to be Pisa, Italy? The epic scope given to the military scene and the lengthy speech of Bryaxes before the battle does lend a serious political air to the romance, but Rhodanthe and Dosikles play no role in the battle. 

Unfortunately, Prodromos, perhaps in the interest of simplifying the story and condensing characters, cannot tell a tale as long or as engaging as Heliodoros. Moreover, our heroes, Rhodante and Dosikles, play no role in the epic aforementioned battle. Dosikles has a few moments where his logic and eloquence impress, but he is not as heroic or compelling a character as Theagenes. However, as a Byzantine 12th century revival of the ancient novels,  adds some interesting Biblical references and themes from a Christian writer admonishing human sacrifice and other customs of the pagan past. Luckily, the prose translation of Elizabeth Jeffrey makes it even easier to see how Prodromos modeled this work on Heliodorus, Chariton, and Achilles Tatius.