The nature and the effects of the disasters that befell the empire in the years after Justinian are relatively well understood, but their causes are not. Thus, referring to the overextension of the empire under Justinian is common and the financial problems caused by the conquests, and to point to a long series of conflicts with Persia. Nevertheless, these do not seem sufficient fully to explain the collapse, particularly when the collapse is compared with the splendor and apparent prosperity of the earlier period. Instead, fundamental changes must have taken place with Byzantine society, perhaps including the destruction of much of the empire's productivity and cohesiveness, and possible serious demographic changes.
In any case, Justinian's conquests did not long survive him. Within a few years of his death (565) the Lombards began their invasion of Italy and, more seriously, the Sassanid Persians became an ever increasing threat on the empire's eastern frontier while barbarian pressures built along the Danube.The barbarians in the north were now Avars and the Slavs, and they pushed deep into the Balkan peninsula in the latter years of the sixth century, destroying settlements that had survived earlier invasions and altering the ethnic character of the area. The successors of Justinian resisted these pressures as best they could, but after 602 the frontiers, both north and east, collapsed completely.
Emperor Heraklios brought some measure of stability (610-641), which probably saved the empire from complete destruction. In the early years of his reign he naturally could not rectify the situation, and by 626 the Persians and the Avars combined their forces to attack Constantinople. The Byzantines still had control of the sea, however, and thus the city was saved. Heraklios introduced new military tactics, including a greater reliance on heavy cavalry, and the tide of battle began to turn. The emperor spent years in the field, especially in the East, and by 628 he had decisively defeated the Persians and made their king his vassal.
Both sides were exhausted by the long struggle, and neither were a match for the Arabs, whom the teachings of Islam had united and who quickly overran both the Persian Empire and the eastern Byzantine provinces: Syria in 636, Egypt in 642. Thus, the richest and most populous areas of the empire fell to the Arabs, and Justinian's dream of a united world was only a distant memory.
The Arabs pushed into Asia Minor and raided key cities, further disrupting trade and settled life within the empire, but their lines of communication were strained and they could not conquer territory beyond the Taurus frontier in southern Asia Minor. A new threat was added, however, when they built a fleet that allowed them to attack the islands and coastal cities and to strike directly at Constantinople. The Byzantine capital endured two terrifying sieges, from 674 to 678 and again from 717 to 718. On both occasions Byzantine resolve remained high, while continued Byzantine naval supremacy and the use of Greek fire ensured the safety of Constantinople.
During the seventh-century invasions the old administrative system had broken down almost completely: the Balkans were now largely in the hands of the Slavs, while the East had been devastated first by the Persians and then by the Arabs. Byzantine resistance focused on fortified cities and other fortresses that could be held against the enemy, and the complex provincial system of Constantine was essentially abandoned.
A fundamental aspect of this new system was the creation of the theme (Gk: thema) as the basic unit of imperial administration. The theme was essentially a military district governed by a strategos (general) who had both civil and military authority. With the breakdown of the distinction between civil and military power, the praetorian prefects lost their positions and the strategoi were made directly responsible to the emperor. This gave the strategoi considerable power and independence of action, both of which were necessary in the chaotic situation of the age.
At the central level, administration was coordinated by the logothetes in charge of the various accounts of state. These officials had originally been little more than accountants, but they gradually became more important until some were virtual ministers of state or department heads. For example, the logothete of the drome was originally in charge of the imperial post, including the messengers sent on diplomatic missions, and from this function he attained a position very much like that of a foreign minister.
The military disruptions of the seventh century had obvious social and economic effects, as revenue was lost to the state and trade and populations were seriously displaced. There were considerable ethnic changes within the empire, but the overall result was to emphasize its cultural unity. Areas that had been different in either speech or religion had been lost to the western barbarians or the Arabs, and the remaining central part of the empire was overwhelmingly Hellenic in language and culture, and orthodox in religious sentiment. During the reign of Heraklios, for example, Greek finally replaced Latin as the language of administration.
The invasions had also broken up the large landed estates of the empire, and it was probably from this source that the state made distributions to individuals on condition that they provide their own military equipment and devote some of their time to military service. These "soldiers' lands" (stratiotika ktimata) saved the state the considerable expense of hiring mercenary troops and provided a loyal native soldiery that was the basis of the Byzantine army during the centuries to come.
The difficulties of this period may also have contributed to an increase in religious devotion and to the growth of the cult of icons. Not everyone was pleased with the veneration of icons, some regarding it as idolatry and ultimately responsible for the military disasters of the age. Such opposition remained in the background throughout most of this period, but it came to the fore in the early eighth century when a sympathetic emperor came to the throne.
Leo III (717-741) rose to prominence t a time when the empire was suffering from a series of weak emperors. The Arabs were poised for their second siege of Constantinople, and Leo's first task was to defend the empire from this mortal danger. As emperor he was a shrewd administrator and a talented military strategist. Particularly toward the end of his reign Leo enjoyed considerable success against the Arabs. He also sought to render more effective imperial control over the strategoi by founding new themes in frontier areas and by dividing the existing themes into more manageable units. In addition, Leo issues a codification ad simplification of Byzantine law, the Ekloga (726), that demonstrated a concern for the realities of provincial life and sought to apply Christian principles to the legal structure of the state.
Leo III is, however, best known as the first of the iconoclast emperors. He probably was personally opposed to the veneration of icons, and he seems to have felt that the disasters of the age were the result of God's displeasure with the practice. As a result, Leo began to speak openly against the veneration of icons, and in 730 he issued an edict ordering the destruction of all icons. Opinion naturally was divided on this issue, among both clergy and lay members, and feelings were deeply held. The iconoclastic controversy therefore affected nearly every aspect of Byzantine society and went far beyond the religious issues. First, iconoclasm naturally had a tremendous impact on religious art, since all figural monasteries were forbidden. Second, the monasteries were severely affected, not so much under Leo III as under his son and successor, Constantine V (741-775), since the monks were the foremost supporters of the veneration of icons. Iconoclasm also raised the question of the ability of the emperor to intervene in religious disputes and even to define Christian truth. Finally, we can see iconoclasm as the last great struggle between "Eastern" and "Western" ideas in the formation of Byzantine culture.
The successes of Leo III and Constantine V against the Arabs, and the removal of the caliphate from Umayyad Damascus to Abbasid Baghdad in 751-752, allowed the empire to turn its attention to the Balkans, where the foundation of the Bulgarian state in the seventh century had raised a new danger. Constantine V overwhelmingly defeated the Bulgars and put a stop to their advance into Thrace. Meanwhile, he devoted practically no attention to the West, where the people were already alienated by iconoclasm and was seeking alliance with the Frankish kings, signaling an end to Byzantine political influence in central Italy.
Unlike her predecessors, Empress Irene (780-802) was a supporter of the icons and arranged for their restoration at the Second Council of Nicaea (787). The monks and their supporters, however, did not favor her willingness to allow the reconciliation of former iconoclasts and opposed the empress and her patriarch, Tarasius. This disagreement between the "Zealots" (monks and their supporters) and the "politicians" (those willing to bend strict church regulations for the greater good) was to trouble the empire for several centuries.
At the same time, Byzantium had to face the threat posed by the growing power of the Frankish monarchs and, more particularly, the military power of Charlemagne and his coronation as emperor in 800. To the Byzantines this latter action was a direct affront and a challenge since, in their view, there could be only one empire and one imperial power. Charlemagne, for his part, realized that no claim of imperial power was worthwhile without some reference to Byzantium, so he used his military success in Dalmatia to put pressure on the empire. He proposed some form of marital alliance, first through his daughter Rotrud to Irene's son Constantine VI and later through his own marriage to the empress herself. Opinion at the Byzantine court, however, was unanimous against any such arrangement, and this contributed to Irene's fall from power in 802.
The historical sourced for this period are unusually poor emperor Nikephoros I (802-811) was a moderate iconophile and an administrator of considerable ability. He made important changes in the imperial fiscal system and established Byzantine control on a firmer basis, especially in the Balkans, where he prepared the way for a large-scale campaign against the Bulgars. After notable successes, however, Nikephoros fell into a trap set by the Bulgarian khan Krum, and he and his army were destroyed.
The foreign failures of Irene and Nikephoros produced an iconoclast reaction led by Emperor Leo V (813-820), who modeled himself on the great iconoclast emperors of the past. Under the intellectual leadership of John Grammaticus, iconoclasm again became a potent force, but it was opposed by the no less resolute leadership of the monks, especially the learned Theodore of Studios. Theophilos (829-842) provided the last impetus for that revived movement. He had an eclectic mind and was genuinely interested in the art and earning of Baghdad, even constructing his palace on an Arab model. The period of revived iconoclasm, however, was not one of military success. The revolt of Thomas the Slav (821-823), the beginning of the Arab invasion of Sicily (827), and successful raids in Asia Minor all weakened the credibility of the emperors and made the collapse of the iconoclastic movement all but inevitable.
Return to the Theben Tribunal Sourcebook
Last modified: Thurs Dec 10, 1998