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.

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. 

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? 

Kassia's Music

Although we don't usually listen to this type of music, our ongoing obsession with Byzantium has brought it to our attention and we find it enchanting and irresistibly beautiful.

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...

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.