
- •Variety of reasons: a healthier economy, more diversified pattern of urban and
- •Influenced by the empress Theodora (d. 548) swung between the two. Theodora lent
- •J u s t in I I το herakleios ( 5 6 5 - 6 4 1)
- •The r I s e of islam
- •Byzantium in the s e V e n th century
- •The eighth century and iconoclasm
- •It met, was claimed as the seventh general (ecumenical) council of the Church,
J u s t in I I το herakleios ( 5 6 5 - 6 4 1)
Justinian died in 565, leaving a vastly expanded but perilously overstretched empire,
in financial as well as in military terms. His successors were faced with the reality
of dealing with new enemies, lack of ready cash, and internal discontent over high
taxation and constant demands for soldiers and the necessities to support them.
Justin II, Justinian's successor and his nephew, opened his reign by cancelling the
yearly subsidy (in effect, a substantial bribe paid to keep the Persian king at a distance,
and regarded by the latter as tribute) to Persia, beginning a costly war in the
east. In 568 the Germanic Lombards crossed from their homeland along the western
Danube and Drava region into Italy, in their efforts to flee the approaching Avars,
a Turkic nomadic power which, like the Huns two centuries earlier, were in the
process of establishing a vast steppe empire. While the Lombards rapidly overran
Roman defensive positions in the north of the peninsula, soon establishing also
a number of independent chiefdoms in the centre and south, the Avars occupied
the Lombards' former lands and established themselves as a major challenge to
imperial power in the northern Balkan region. Between the mid-570s and the end
of the reign of the emperor Maurice (582-602), the empire was able to re-establish a
precarious balance in the east. Although the Romans suffered a number of defeats,
they were able to stabilize the Danube frontier in the north. However, the lands
over which the campaigning took place, especially in Italy and the Balkans, were
increasingly devastated and unable to support prolonged military activity. Maurice
cleverly exploited a civil war in Persia in 590-1 by supporting the young, deposed
king Chosroes II. When, with Roman help, the war ended in the defeat of Chosroes'
enemies, the peace arrangements between the two empires rewarded the Romans
with the return of swathes of territory and a number of fortresses which had been
lost in the previous conflicts.
Maurice was unpopular with the army in the Balkans because of the hard nature
of the campaigning there, as well as because of his efforts to maintain some control
over the expenses of this constant warfare. This was, rightly or wrongly, perceived as
miserly and penny-pinching by the soldiers, and in 602 the Danube army mutinied,
marched on Constantinople, and imposed their own candidate as emperor, the centurion
Phokas. Maurice's entire family was massacred, and the tyranny of Phokas
(602-10) began. While he appears to have been a fairly incompetent politician, his
armies seem to have held their own in the Balkans, and against the Persians who,
on the pretext of avenging Maurice, had invaded the eastern provinces. Phokas
was popular in many regions of the empire, but in 610 Herakleios, the military
governor (exarch) of Africa, at Carthage, set out with a fleet to depose him, while his
cousin Niketas took a land force across the North African provinces, through Egypt
and northwards into Asia Minor. Phokas was deposed with little opposition, and
Herakleios was crowned emperor. Some troops remained loyal to Phokas, and his
deposition was followed by a short period of civil war in Egypt and Asia Minor. But
the empire was now unable to maintain its defences intact, and within a few years
the Avars and Slavs had overrun much of the Balkans, while the Persians occupied
Syria and Egypt between 614 and 618, and continued to push into Asia Minor.
Italy was now divided into a number of military commands isolated from each
other by Lombard enclaves; these commands became increasingly autonomous,
and eventually independent in all but name. In 626, a combined Persian-Avar
siege of Constantinople was defeated (contemporaries attributed the victory to the
intercession of the Mother of God), while from 623 Herakleios boldly took the war
into Persian territory and, in a series of brilliant campaigns, destroyed Chosroes'
armies and forced the Persian generals to sue for peace (Chosroes was deposed and
murdered). The status quo ante was re-established, and the dominant position of
the Roman Empire seemed assured. Although the Danube remained nominally
the frontier, the Balkans were, in practice, no longer under imperial authority,
except where an army appeared; while the financial situation of the empire, whose
resources were quite exhausted by the long wars, was desperate (Whitby 2000:
86-111; Whittow 1996: 69-82; Haldon 1997: 41-53).
The complex ecclesiastical politics of the Church continued to play a crucial
role. The disaffection brought about by Constantinopolitan persecution of the
Monophysites in particular—under Justin II, for example—rendered some sort of
compromise formula an essential for the reincorporation of the territories whose
populations had been largely Monophysite and which had been lost to the Persians.
Under Herakleios, the patriarch Sergios and his advisers came up with two possible
solutions, the first referred to as 'monoenergism', whereby a single energy was
postulated in which both divine and human aspects were unified. At this point,
the arrival of Islam on the historical stage made the need for a compromise which
would heal the divisions even more urgent. Even more importantly, the defeats
at the hands of the Arabs were interpreted (in keeping with the fundamental
assumptions of the era) as a sign of God's displeasure, requiring some sort of
action on the part of the Romans, or their guardian and God's representative
on earth, the emperor, to make amends. Herakleios and his patriarch, Sergios,
undoubtedly framed their proposals for compromise with monophysitism with
these considerations in mind. But monoenergism was rejected by several leading
churchmen. The alternative, the doctrine of a single will—'monotheletism'—
although supported by moderate Monophysites, was eventually rejected, both by
hard-line Monophysites and by the majority of the western Chalcedonian clergy,
surviving as an imperial policy which had to be enforced by decree after Herakleios'
death in 641. By this time, of course, the Monophysite lands had been lost
to the Arabs and the point of the compromise no longer existed (Haldon 1997:
48-59).