Dedicated to the military history and civilization of the Eastern Roman Empire (330 to 1453)

"Time in its irresistible and ceaseless flow carries along on its flood all created things and drowns them in the depths of obscurity."

- - - - Princess Anna Comnena (1083–1153) - Byzantine historian

Tuesday, April 14, 2015

Court Pageantry in the Court of Heraclius

Emperor Heraclius receiving the submission of Persian King Khosrau II

A Glimpse into the Past

Pageantry has always been part of nations.  Partly it exists to stroke the egos of the leadership class and partly to impress the common people as to how important that leadership class is and that they must be respected as their "betters".

We are blessed with a fairly large number of first person accounts and histories from the Roman Republic and the early Empire periods.  But those accounts become few and far between as we go deeper into the Byzantine period.

In the book Heraclius, Emperor of Byzantium the author Walter Kaegi provides a number of quotations from original accounts of official events during the Emperor's reign (610-641AD).

At this point below we are 162 years after the fall of Rome to the barbarians.  Imperial pageantry was in full swing as the 63 year old Eastern Emperor Heraclius crowned his son Constantine as co-Emperor to strengthen his dynasty's hold on the throne.

Pageantry helped present an image to the public of a strong and powerful empire and government during troubled times of invasion by Slavs in the Balkans and Muslims in Syria.
Roman coin depicting Heraclius and
his sons Constantine and Heraklonas

each with a crown.

July 4, 638

. . . on 4 July, eleventh indiction, the the Imperator (Autokrator) and great Emperor (Heraclius) wishing to announce the promotion of his son from the rank of Caesar to the dignity of Emperor acted in the following manner.

The Patriarch and all the Senators were summoned.  The Patriarch approached the Emperor, with Constantine his (Heraklonas') brother being present.  Prayer took place in the chapel of the holy Stephen of Daphen.  His kamelaukion (a kind of cap or head covering) was removed from his head and the Imperial crown was placed on his head.

There was a prayer for the despotes David as the kamelaukion was placed on his head as he ascended to the rank of Caesar.

That having been done, the most glorious Patricians were summoned according to custom, and they entered the Augusterm and received the great Emperor and his sons, with the Caesar being present.

All the ex-consuls and those with ranks as high as illustres departed and stood on the steps of the forecourt.  The gates of the armory we opened and all the standards (signa) and scholae and demes (factions) entered.  The Patriarch exited with them (the Emperor and his sons).  And with everyone acclaiming them, the Emperor and his sons departed for the Great Church.  Everything took place according to form in the Great Church.

January 12, 639

On the first month of January, 12th indiction, the Emperor made a procession to the Great Church.

The despotes Constantine departed with him, wearing a tunic, and despotes Heraclius and (his, the Emperor's) son wore the toga praetextata, and supported on the arm of his own brother.

The Patricians Niketas and John and the Patrician attached to Iesdem (Yazdin) and the Patrician Dometios and the magister Eustathios wore togas, while the other officials wore pure silk tunics, and some of the ex-consuls wore the consular loros (sash).  Having entered the Great Church they lit candles and everything went according to form and was valid.

(Editor  -  We see a splendid ceremony with great attention to dress and a show harmony within the Imperial family.  The presence of the Sasanian Perisan dignitary Yazdin, former Treasurer of the Persian Empire, underscores the vain hope of Rome and Persia working together even as both empires were being over run by Muslim armies.)

The impressive Great Church Hagia Sophia was prominently
featured in many important Roman functions.

January 15, 639

(Editor  -  This passage records a public demonstration of Imperial and familial solidarity with Heraclius' second wife Martina and their families.  Both Latin and Greek are used in the text.  The call "to conquer" is a reminder that the Empire is being invaded on every front as they speak.)

On the fourth of the same month, there being a horse race, the Emperor received the usual persons in the Augusteum, and he ordered them to come to him in the Hippodrome.

He received all of the officials, and having entered the Augusteum, they found the Emperor and the Augusta standing.  In front of them stood Augistina and Anastasia, their daughters and Augustae.

The Patricians were present and on the right stood the other children of the Emperor, and on the left were the cubicularii (chamberlains) and they cried out, saying:

"Good fortune to the government, good fortune to the government, good fortune to the government.  Heraclius Augustus, conquer!  Anastasia Martina, conquer!  Constantine Augustus, conquer!  Heraclius Augustus, conquer!  Augustina Augusta, conquer!  Davis Caesar, conquer!  Martina most noble, conquer!"

Then the Emperor left for the Hippodrome.

(Heraclius - Emperor of Byzantium, Chapter 8)        (Heraclius)

Wednesday, April 1, 2015

OSU Professor: The Byzantines were Romans

Wall of Constantinople

The Byzantine Republic

(From the Sandusky Register)  -  Conventional historical thinking is that the Roman Empire "fell" in A.D. 476, when the Germanic tribes finished their occupation of western Europe by deposing the last Western Roman emperor. 
But Byzantine and classical scholar Anthony Kaldellis, a professor in the Department of Classics of The Ohio State University, argues that not only did the eastern half of the empire survive for centuries, it kept its Roman identity, even though its citizens mostly spoke Greek.
His new book, "The Byzantine Republic: People and Power in New Rome" (Harvard University Press), defies the received wisdom in Byzantine studies by insisting that Byzantium, as the Eastern Roman Empire is usually known, was a Roman republic in which the people were sovereign. Although it had an emperor, he did not rule as the absolute monarch that he's usually depicted as, Kaldellis asserts.  His startling book is aimed at scholars but is well written enough to interest general readers who enjoy history. 

Kaldellis' official university website lists 18 different books that he wrote, translated or edited, and numerous articles, book chapters and reviews. His translations include major Byzantine historians such as Prokopios, the major source for figures such as Justinian I and Belisarius.

He's currently working on a narrative history of Byzantium from 955 to 1097 A.D., just before the beginning of the Crusades, and he has other projects in the works. He also shoulders a full load of classes, including classes in Latin, Greek, classical literature and classical  history.

Despite all that, he took time to answer our questions about his new book and other issues: 
Sandusky Register: Your new book, "The Byzantine Republic," argues that the Eastern Roman Empire was a republican state at least as much as it was a monarchy. How did the obvious effect that the people had on Byzantine governance (you assemble lots of evidence) escape the attention of historians for so long?
Kaldellis: Like economists, historians see what they are trained to see, and prioritize their attention based on the theories they have been taught. Suppose I tell you that you are about to enter a room that contains a powerful king, a queen, a general, and a bishop. You go in and, indeed, there they are, in all their finery, and make quite an impression. They are everything you expect. Then, when you come out, I ask you what you saw. You will say, a king, a queen, a general, and a bishop. You will most likely not mention the non-descript servant who entered now and then. But for all you know he was holding them hostage with a pistol. Gosford Park has a similar version of how this bias works.
There are many reasons why the role of the people is systematically overlooked. Like political scientists, historians are trained to think of politics as something that takes places among elites. It’s all about factions, alliances, economic interests, and the like. Even when they study democratic Athens, the most radically egalitarian society that has ever existed (for men), they still look for elites. Yet notice how unprepared all the experts are when the people rise up even today and try to overthrow regimes, in Paris, Cairo, Athens, and Istanbul. The experts don’t understand what’s going on, they don’t have the vocabulary for it, they can’t analyze it. It’s not how they think politics works. When it comes to popular interventions specifically, historians and other social scientists are averse to seeing instability as systemic. They like to know the rules of the game, and hate the idea that what no one can foresee or control comes along and upends everything, like Taleb’s Black Swan. 
Popular interventions were a regular but unpredictable fact of life in the Byzantine empire. Historians “see” them because they are all over the place in the evidence, but in every individual case they marginalize them, saying that it was only an isolated incident from which we can’t draw general conclusions. You often hear this kind of thing in the news today. Then suddenly there are a hundred thousand people in the streets screaming for blood.
Finally, Byzantine Studies is an extremely repetitive and conservative field. You read the same thing over and over again, that the emperor was there to do God’s work, and you don’t “see” that he was also there to do well by his people and that they could do something about it when he failed. Historians take all this imperial propaganda about “emperors protected by God” at face value as if that was how society worked. In reality, not a single emperor was protected by God. Go ask Mubakar.

The Hippodrome of Constantinople
(Antoine Helbert.com)

Sandusky Register: The ancient Greeks have enjoyed a good press for centuries for their contributions to the idea of liberty. (John Stuart Mill, the famous British libertarian philosopher, said the Battle of Marathon was an important "event in British history.") Why do the Byzantines get such bad press?
Kaldellis: First I should say that the Byzantines have been getting a much better press lately. Exhibitions of their art are great successes, and may even draw more visitors than exhibitions of classical or Renaissance art. Our courses in Byzantine history also draw large enrollments – in Ohio! But of course you’re right, historically Byzantium has not been served generously by opinion-makers in the west. There are reasons for this, but they will teach you more about how opinion is manufactured in the west than about Byzantium. Specifically, in the Enlightenment, a number of political theorists chose to use Byzantium as a negative model for absolutism and theocracy, for all the bad things that happen when Christianity takes over both culture and government. They couldn’t talk directly about their own nasty governments, often run by priests, so they talked about them indirectly as “Byzantium.” They did not know much about it, but they didn’t have to. It was a useful imaginary construct that promoted their enlightened projects. Then, once they had had their Revolutions and what not, the model ceased to be useful and they dropped the anti-Byzantine polemic, but the odium remained attached to the name.
There have been other reasons why the west has at times demonized Byzantium. During the Cold War, it was taken by some to be the matrix of the Soviet Union. While “free” ancient Greece explains the capitalist west, Byzantium explains everything wrong in the Russian Mind (i.e., servility, superstition, the outrageous idea that Christians should share with each other…). All complete nonsense, of course. Can we move on now? Let’s see.

Hagia Sophia

Sandusky Register: Is there a good survey of Byzantine history that you can recommend to an interested amateur such as myself?
Kaldellis: There used to be such a book, but it is now hopelessly outdated. More recent efforts are closer to textbooks, or dry narratives, or way too long, or extremely condensed. One that is neither too long nor too condensed is my colleague Tim Gregory’s History of Byzantium. There are also books that try to present the civilization as a whole to beginners, and that is a good way to go about it for a state that lasted over 1100 years. Here I recommend Judith Herrin’s Byzantium: The Surprising Life of a Medieval Empire, though it plays it too safe for me at times, still too much about emperors, monks, and orthodoxy. Do you know that still today, in the year 2015, we have only a single book about the Byzantines’ interest in erotic matters, and that was written thirty years ago in German? The material is all there, but Byzantinists don’t “see” it, even when it’s right there, and they are too addicted to the model of the “Orthodox society” to make sense of it. The Byzantines were not as prudish as modern Byzantinists are, and hardly as respectful of imperial authority or the Church. The field is suffocating in its own incense.
If I may deviate from your question, I would recommend that you bypass modern historians and go straight to the sources: start with translations of the historians Ammianus Marcellinus (fourth century), Prokopios (sixth), Psellos and Attaleiates (eleventh), and Choniates (twelfth-thirteenth). That is how I started my study of Byzantium: I read the sequence of the historians in Greek from beginning to end. Man, was that a good investment of my time! And it kept me out of trouble during my twenties.

The Palace of Boukoleon, Constantinople
Built by Theodosius II in the 5th century. The palace is located on the shore of the Sea of Marmara, to the south of the Hippodrome and east of the Little Hagia Sophia.

Sandusky Register: A bestselling book, "How the Irish Saved Civilization," argued back in 1995 that Irish monks deserve credit for preserving classical literature. Shouldn't the Byzantines get more credit than the Irish?
Kaldellis: Other than that book, which made a lot of money by catering to a specific demographic in the U.S., I am not aware of anyone else believing or promoting such amusing claims. I mean, a lot of people played a part, whether large or small, in the huge story that was the preservation of classical culture. It is an ongoing story, and it remains to be seen whether our own civilization will do as well as the Byzantines or the Arabs did. They were the two peoples who played the major roles during the Middle Ages, the Byzantines mostly for the poetry, history writing, and rhetoric, the Arabs for the philosophy and science, including medicine.
Actually, the Byzantines get recognition for this service, but it is often grudging. Down to about 1900, historians had an incentive to present Byzantine culture as radically unclassical. This was because the western powers were in the business of stealing classical art, manuscripts, and monuments from the former-Byzantine lands and they had to invent rationalizations for doing so, such as “they never liked this stuff anyway,” “they don’t appreciate what they’ve got,” “they believe statues are full of demons.” So you, a modern European, can take it from them, because you are its “true” heir, and you put in a museum or a library. But you acknowledge that they kept it through all those centuries, even if you believe that it was “meaningless” to them. These attitudes are still very much around, by the way. In this view, Byzantium was not part of Europe. Recently, however, there have been moves to include Byzantium in a generalized European preservation of classical literature, but I am skeptical. The goal seems to be to deny that Europe needed the Arabic contributions – which were in fact crucial – because they had the Byzantine ones. Byzantinists should resist this poisoned gift. So now they want to include us… but not because they like us; they just need us to fight Islam. Thanks, but no thanks.

Equestrian Statue of Justinian

Sandusky Register: You have written, and other historians have written, that the Greek speakers in the Byzantine Empire referred to themselves as "Romans." Did they do that right up until 1453? And if so, when did they finally stop?
Kaldellis: The short answers are, Yes, and, Around 1900 AD. Of course, technically there weren’t any Byzantines after 1453. Being Roman in Byzantium – just as in ancient Rome – meant being part of the Roman polity: sharing its customs, obeying its laws, serving in its armies, taking part in its politics, and worshipping its gods (or God). But there was no Roman polity in Constantinople after 1453, only a multi-lingual Orthodox population which the Ottoman sultans grouped together, for their own purposes, as the Rum (Romans). The Greek-speaking portion of that group continued to call itself Roman well into the nineteenth century, and in some places into the twentieth. After the Greek Revolution in 1821, it had to be reeducated into accepting a Greek national identity. For a while the two labels and identities coexisted, then finally the Greek one won out.
The real question is, will western scholars ever accept the Byzantines as true Romans? Not merely to say that “they called themselves Romans” – a strange way of putting it that we use for no other people in history – but to actually accept them as such. I am not saying that we abandon the term “Byzantium,” but that we understand better what it refers to. This will require some serious rethinking about who “owns” the Roman tradition. I put it to you that just as strong a case can be made for the Greek-speaking Byzantines as for the Latin-speaking Catholics of the Middle Ages. Are we ready for a Roman Byzantium? To finally accept the Byzantines for who they (said they) were? 

Emperor Constantine I presents a representation of the city of Constantinople as tribute to an enthroned Mary and Christ Child in this church mosaic. St Sophia, c. 1000

Roman Emperor Constantine IV (652 to 685) and his court.
 Constantine's reign saw the first serious check to nearly 50 years of uninterrupted Islamic expansion.

(Sandusky Register.com)        (www.antoine-helbert.com/fr)

Wednesday, March 18, 2015

The Byzantine Theme of Cherson (Crimea)

Mangup Kale  -  Byzantine Fortress in the Crimea and is 
located on a plateau about 9 miles due east of Sevastopol (ancient Chersones)

The Roman Theme System

In Rome the province was the basic and largest territorial and administrative unit of the empire's territorial possessions outside of Italy.  Provinces were generally governed by politicians of senatorial rank, usually former consuls or former praetors

In the late empire the provinces were grouped originally into twelve dioceses, headed usually by a vicarius, who oversaw their affairs. Only the proconsuls and the urban prefect of Rome (and later Constantinople) were exempt from this, and were directly subordinated to the tetrarchs.

Justinian I made the next great changes in 534–536 by abolishing, in some provinces, the strict separation of civil and military authority that Diocletian had established. This process was continued on a larger scale with the creation of extraordinary Exarchates in the 580s.

The themes or themata were the main administrative divisions of the middle Byzantine Empire. They were established in the mid-7th century in the aftermath of the Muslim conquests of parts of Byzantine territory.

In most of the Empire, the old system continued to function until the 640s, when the eastern part of the Empire collapsed under the onslaught of the Muslim Caliphate. The rapid Muslim conquest of Syria and Egypt and consequent Byzantine losses in manpower and territory meant that the Empire found itself struggling for survival.

In order to respond to this unprecedented crisis, the Empire was drastically reorganized. The remaining imperial territory in Asia Minor was divided into four large themes, and although some elements of the earlier civil administration survived, they were subordinated to the governing general or stratēgos.

The traditional view holds that the establishment of the themes meant the creation of a new type of army. Instead of the old force, heavily reliant on foreign mercenaries, the new Byzantine army was mostly based on native farmer-soldiers living on state-leased military estates.

A theme was an arrangement of plots of land given for farming to the soldiers. The soldiers were still technically a military unit, under the command of a strategos, and they did not own the land they worked as it was still controlled by the state. Therefore, for its use the soldiers' pay was reduced. 

By accepting this proposition, the participants agreed that their descendants would also serve in the military and work in a theme, thus simultaneously reducing the need for unpopular conscription as well as cheaply maintaining the military. It also allowed for the settling of conquered lands, as there was always a substantial addition made to public lands during a conquest.

The Theme of Cherson

Formally called the Klimata, Cherson was a Byzantine theme (a military-civilian province) located in the southern Crimea, headquartered at Cherson.
The theme was officially established in the early 830s and was an important centre of Black Sea commerce. Despite the destruction of the city of Cherson in the 980s, the theme recovered and prospered, enduring until it became a part of the Empire of Trebizond after the dissolution of the Byzantine Empire in 1204.

Crimea in the "Regnum Bosporanum" during
Roman Emperor 
Trajan's conquests (98 to 117 AD).

Greek and Roman Crimea

Greek city-states began establishing colonies along the Black Sea coast of Crimea in the 7th or 6th century BC.  In the 5th century BC, Dorians from Heraclea Pontica founded the sea port of Chersonesos (in modern Sevastopol).

During the AD 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries, Taurica was host to Roman legions and colonists in Charax, Crimea. The Charax colony was founded under Vespasian with the intention of protecting Chersonesos and other Bosporean trade emporiums from the Scythians

The Roman colony was protected by a vexillatio of the Legio I Italica; it also hosted a detachment of the Legio XI Claudia at the end of the 2nd century. The camp was abandoned by the Romans in the mid-3rd century. This de facto province would have been controlled by the legatus of one of the Legions stationed in Charax.

Military Theme of Cherson in Crimea
In order to implement its policy in the northern Black Sea, Byzantium relied on maintaining control over Cherson and other regions along the southeastern coast of the Crimea, from which it kept an eye on developments and moves by potential enemies in the steppe of south Russia. Therefore, the Crimea was the key in a Byzantine early-warning system on the empire’s northern frontier. 

Byzantine Crimea

In the 6th century the Eastern Roman Empire again took control of the region under Justinian I.

In the 6th century, probably at the end of the reign of Justinian I, the status of Roman Crimea changed. Taurica became the Province of Chersonesos, which also included Bosporos and the southern coast of Crimea.

This enlargement of Byzantine Taurica resulted in the elevation of the ranks of its governors. In the second half of the 6th century, the military and civil authorities in the region were entrusted to the military deputy, "doux Chersonos".

The city of Chersonnesos was used by the Romans as a place of banishment: St. Clement of Rome was exiled there and first preached to Gospel. Another exile was Justinian II, who is said to have destroyed the city in revenge.

Most of Roman Crimea fell under Khazar overlordship in the late 7th century.

Emperor Theophilus, in the Chronicle of John Skylitzes.
Theophilus reestablished Roman rule in Crimea.

Byzantine authority was re-established by Emperor Theophilos (r. 829–842), who displayed interest in the northern littoral of the Black Sea and especially his relations with the Khazars.

Petronas Kamateros is credited as the theme's first governor (strategos) in 840/1. The new province was at first called ta Klimata, "the regions/districts", but due to the prominence of the capital Cherson, by ca. 860 it was known even in official documents as the "Theme of Cherson".

The province played an important role in Byzantine relations with the Khazars and later, after the Khazar Khaganate's collapse, with the Pechenegs and the Rus'. It was a center for Byzantine diplomacy rather than military activity, since the military establishment in the theme seems to have been small and to have chiefly consisted of a locally-raised militia. Its weakness is underlined by the stipulation, in the Byzantine treaties with the Rus' of 945 and 971, of the latter's undertaking to defend it against the Volga Bulgars.

Cherson prospered greatly during the 9th–11th centuries as a centre of Black Sea commerce, despite the city's destruction by Vladimir of Kiev in 988/9. The city recovered quickly: the city's fortifications were restored and extended to the harbour in the early 11th century. At the same time, possibly after the defeat of Georgius Tzul in 1016, the theme was extended over the eastern Crimea as well, as evidenced by the styling of a certain Leo Aliates as "strategos of Cherson and Sougdaia" in 1059. The region however was lost again in the late 11th century to the Cumans. Almost nothing is known of Cherson in the 12th century, pointing to a rather tranquil period. 

Cherson and its province remained under Byzantine control until the dissolution of the Empire by the Fourth Crusade in 1204, when they passed under the sovereignty of the breakaway Empire of Trebizond (see Perateia).

Later in 1204, Constantinople fell to the Fourth Crusade and Cherson passed to the Byzantine successor state of Trebizond. But Cherson was allowed to become more and more distant from Byzantium because of Turkish pirates and the long distance of the sea. The other threat to the rule of Byzantium in the Crimea was the Genoese who rapidly began to take over the Crimea for their own commercial interests. 

By the middle of fourteenth century, almost all the peninsula was in Genoese hands. However Cherson's death blow didn't come from these traders, but from the barbarians the city had always fought against in the form of the armies of the Golden Horde who finally took the city in 1399 and completely destroyed it to the point that it was never again resettled. All that remains of this venerable city is a few ruins in the suburbs of the modern city of Sevastopol.

Theme Administration

The Theme of Cherson appears to have been organized in typical fashion, with the full array of thematic officials, of whom a tourmarches of Gothia is known at the turn of the 11th century, as well as the ubiquitous fiscal and customs officials known as kommerkiarioi. 

The cities of the theme, however, appear to have retained considerable autonomy in their own government, as exemplified by Cherson itself, which was administered by the local magnates (archontes) under a proteuon ("the first"). 

Cherson also retained the right to issue its own coins, having resumed minting under Emperor Michael III (r. 842–867), and was for a long time the only provincial mint outside Constantinople. Its autonomy is also evidenced by the fact that the imperial government paid annual subsidies (pakta) to the city leaders in the fashion of allied rulers, and in the advice of Emperor Constantine Porphyrogennetos (r. 913–959) in his De Administrando Imperio to the local strategos concerning the possibility of a revolt in the city: he was to cease payment of the subsidies and relocate to some other city in the theme. In the late 11th century, the theme was governed by a katepano.

Cherson and its province remained under Byzantine control until the dissolution of the Empire by the Fourth Crusade in 1204, when they passed under the sovereignty of the breakaway Empire of Trebizond.

(Themes)      (Roman provinces)      (History of Crimea)

(Roman Crimea)      (Cherson)      (blacksea.ehw.gr)

(Xenophon-mil.org)      (Roman and Byzantine Crimea)


Tuesday, March 3, 2015

Battle of Versinikia, 813 AD

Bulgarian Warrior Reenactor

Bulgaria on the March

In 629 AD the Eastern Roman Empire has reached perhaps the peak of its power.  The ancient enemy of Rome, the Persian Empire, had been totally crushed and Roman rule was restored from the Pillars of Hercules to the Euphrates River.

It was not to last.  The year 629 saw the first invasions of militant Jihadist Arab armies that ultimately conquered the Roman Middle East, North Africa and besieged Constantinople itself.

While the Arabs were pressing Roman forces in the south, in 681 AD a new pagan enemy appeared - The Bulgarians.

Though Roman armies managed to win a number of victories, the Bulgarians steadily pressed beyond the Danube River frontier deeper and deeper into Roman territory.

The Bulgarians won a great victory over the Romans at the Battle of Pliska in 811.  The Roman Emperor Nikephoros I led the army into battle.  During Nikephoros' retreat, the Byzantine army was ambushed and destroyed in the mountain passes by Bulgarian Khan Krum. Nikephoros was killed in the battle, the second Eastern Emperor to suffer this fate since Valens in the Battle of Adrianople (August 9, 378). Krum is said to have made a drinking-cup of Nikephoros' skull.

The Bulgarian Kahn Krum is said to have made a drinking cup out
of the skull of Roman Emperor Nikephoros.

The Emperor is dead, long live . . . somebody?!?

Controlled anarchy.  That is as good a description as any of the Byzantine system of government.  Rule by thuggery if you will.  If you had enough troops then you too could be Emperor.  Watching your back was a full time occupation.

In the time period we are addressing, Byzantium had four Emperors in three years.  Paranoia in the ruling class would have been on hyperdrive.

  • (811 died) Nikephoros I, who became a drinking cup, was killed with almost his entire army a the Battle of Pliska.
  • (811) Nikephoros' son, Staurakios, served as Emperor for an entire two months.  Staurakios has been paralyzed by a sword wound near his neck at Pliska and was saved by the Imperial guard which retreated from the battlefield towards the safety of Adrianople.  There was also a popular rumor that Staurakios planned to abolish the Empire and re-establish a republic.  In any case, Staurakios retired to a monastery where he died from the effects of his wound on January 11, 812.
  • (811 - 813) Michael I Rangabe survived Nikephoros' disastrous campaign against Krum of Bulgaria, and was considered a more appropriate candidate for the throne than his severely injured brother-in-law Staurakios.  Michael went on to be defeated at the Battle of Versinikia.
  • (813) Leo V the Armenian assumed the throne. He ended the decade-long war with the Bulgars.

Michael I Rhangabe

Bulgaria, which also suffered heavy losses and great material damage during Nicephorus' campaign, had to reorganize its army and resources and was not able to advance until next year. The Bulgarian attacks were concentrated mainly in Thrace but also along the valley of Strymōn (Struma) river. Many towns were seized and their population was sent far to the north beyond the Danube. 

The attack created such panic among the Byzantine population that several towns were emptied even without being attacked by the Bulgarians. The attempts of Michael I to resist were fruitless - he organized an army but soon after he set off from Constantinople he had to go back due to a conspiracy.
In the meantime the Bulgarians continued to strike Thrace but in the autumn of 812 they were offered peace. The Bulgarian delegation was led by Dobromir but the Byzantine Emperor refused to conclude peace due to "his foul advisors' suggestions" as the historian Theophanes says. 

However the real reason was most probably Item 3 in the Byzantine–Bulgarian Treaty of 716 which stated that "The refugees [emigrants, deserters] from both sides shall be mutually surrendered, if they are plotting against the authorities." 

That item was important for the Byzantines during the 8th century because the authority of their Emperors was weakened but, after the crisis in Bulgaria in the mid 8th century, it became inconvenient for them. In response to the refusal the Bulgarians besieged Mesembria (Nessebar). They had excellent siege machines built by an Arab emigrant and soon captured the town where they found 36 copper siphons used to throw the famous Greek fire and a large quantity of gold and silver.

Bulgarian Warrior Reenactor

The Growing Bulgarian Empire
The Eastern Romans did not have enough on their hands with the Muslim Arab invasions of the Middle East, Africa and two massive sieges of Constantinople itself.  Staring in 681 AD the pagan Bulgarian tribes appeared on the norther Danube frontier and aggressively pushed deeper and deeper into Roman territory.

Bulgarian armies were marching up to the
gates of Constantinople itself.

Preparations for Battle

The 811 Battle of Pliska was one of the worst defeats in Byzantine history.  An huge army of perhaps 60,000 troops has been gathered for the attack on the Bulgarians.  Based on past Byzantine campaigns I think that the number of troops is too high.  But virtually the entire royal family joined in on the march so maybe the number is not inflated too much.

More important is virtually the entire Byzantine army was slaughtered.  That massive defeat deterred Byzantine rulers from sending their troops north of the Balkans for more than 150 years afterwards, which increased the influence and spread of the Bulgarians to the west and south of the Balkan Peninsula, resulting in a great territorial enlargement of the First Bulgarian Empire.

Despite the loss of land and soldiers to the Bulgars, the Byzantines were unwilling to settle peace. During the winter of 812 - 813 Khan Krum started intense preparations for an attack against Byzantium and Michael I was preparing for defense. In February 813 Bulgarian forces made several investigation raids in Thrace but quickly pulled back after several clashes with the Byzantines. The retreat was considered by the Byzantine Emperor as a victory "according to God's providence" and encouraged him to counter-attack.

The Byzantines again summoned an enormous army gathered from all themes of their Empire including the guards of the Syrian passes.  These kleisourai from Syria were called Lykoanians, Cilicians, Isuarians, Cappadocians and Galatians.

The battle of Versinikia from the 14th century Bulgarian 
copy of the Manasses Chronicle.

That the Emperor had to strip troops from the far away Syrian front is not good.  On the plus side, the Arab Caliphate was in the middle of a civil war.  In 812 Baghdad was being besieged by one Arab faction allowing the Emperor to transfer large thematic contingents from Asia Minor to the Balkans.  The levy of troops from the themes included recent recruits.  They were ordered to march into Thrace before spring.  

The Byzantines had some recent successes against the Arabs. It was hoped that the higher morale among the Asian troops would swing the psychological advantage back to the Byzantines.

Whatever morale advantage the Asian troops brought might have been offset by being so far away from home and all the tales being told of the 811 slaughter of the Byzantine army.  Add in that many of these soldiers were part-time.  They would have been worried about missing the spring crop planting season back home.

It was reported that the Armeniacs and the Cappadocians openly expressed their resentments to the Emperor.

The Emperor pulling troops from far away sounds like a thoughtless campaign of revenge or panic or both.  The new Emperor may have felt the political need to prove himself to the ruling class and military or risk being murdered and replaced by someone willing to fight.

As it is there was unrest in the army, and the campaign was delayed. But the troops finally set off from Constantinople in May. The departure was a celebration and the population of the city including the Empress accompanied the troops outside the city wall. They even gave presents to the military commanders and invoked them to guard the Emperor and fight for the Christians.

The fact that "presents" were given to the commanders to do what they were supposed to be doing anyway says a lot about the political situation. 

Byzantine infantry reenactor

The Battle

The front lines of the Bulgarian wars kept getting closer and closer to Constantinople.  The battle at Versinikia took place in Thrace perhaps 147 miles from the capitol.  When Emperor Michael I Rangabe marched his army out of Constantinople it was almost a leisurely stroll through the countryside to find the Bulgars.

Perhaps because of fear or their smaller size, the Byzantine army did not appear to be in a hurry.  They  marched to the north but did not take any actions to take back Mesembria. 

On 4 May there was a solar eclipse which frightened the Byzantine soldiers and lowered their morale. They encamped in the vicinity of Adrianople where the army looted and robbed its own country.  That action says much about the quality of the troops and discipline.

In May Khan Krum also headed to Adrianople.  In June both armies set their camps close to each other near the small fortress Versinikia to the north of Adrianople.

A historical account from the 11th century historian John Skylitzes stated that the Byzantine army was 10 times bigger than the Bulgarian hosts. That is the usual ridiculous inflation of forces involved in battles.  The Romans may have had 26,000 troops and the Bulgars maybe 12,000.
Bulgarian Warrior Reenactor
(Screenshot HunHorda)

But undoubtedly the Byzantine army was to some degree larger than the Bulgarian. Therefore, the Bulgarians were kept on a defensive position. 

Despite the numerical, logistic and strategic superiority the Byzantine army did not confront the Bulgars.  The Emperor and his generals mush have been frightened of the Bulgars, frightened of the "quality" of their own troops or unsure of their generalship. So both armies got tense and anxious waiting in full armor for 13 days in the hot summer of Thrace. 

Any experienced commander would have understood that leaving the army inactive under poor conditions would undermine battlefield effectiveness.  But Michael and his generals appeared to be paralyzed with inaction, perhaps frightened to attack the Bulgars.  

On the other hand, the Bulgars were in no hurry to attack and seemed content to raid Byzantine supply lines, skirmish and conduct long distance shooting. 

The Byzantine commanders failed the test of nerve and stamina. Some of them were eager to attack and on 22 June the strategos of Macedonia John Aplakes addressed Emperor Michael and said: "How much are we going to wait and die? I will attack first in the name of God and you will follow me bravely. And victory shall be ours because we are ten times more than them [the Bulgarians]."

The battle was short: in the morning of the same day the Byzantines attacked and the division of John Aplakes engaged the Bulgarians first.  They launched the initial assault down the slopes of a ridge driving back the Slav infantry.

At this point the rest of the Byzantine army was to join the Thracian and Macedonian contingents to prevent the Bulgars from regrouping and then defeat them.  That never happened.  Michael may have never given the order or the timid Byzantine troops failed to move.

The uncommitted Bulgar heavy cavalry in the center rallied to support the troops in the front and counter charged the Byzantines.  Seeing this, the Bulgar mobile cavalry on both wings swept into Aplakes' rear completing an encircling movement.
Gold solidus of
Leo the Armenian

Surrounded and outnumbered the Byzantines began to fall back and were cut to pieces.  Aplakes himself was among the fallen, although some of his men were able to escape.

These developments caused the rest of the army to lose heart.  The troops were watching the massacre of Aplakes' men right in front of them while the Emperor stood by hesitating to act.  The Anatolikon units broke ranks and fled.

Seeing what was happening on his left, Leo the Armenian ordered his own panicking troops on the right to withdraw.  We can guess that Leo wanted to keep his own troops together and organized against any Bulgar attack.

But that was not the case with the thematic contingents in the center where all semblance of cohesion was lost.  Even the Emperor and his elite guards retreated in confusion.

Kahn Krum at first thought the Byzantines had feigned retreat, in classic steppe warfare style, in order to draw the Bulgars into a trap.  But when he saw the retreat was real he ordered the pursuit.

One ancient account tells a graphic tale of Byzantine panic.  It speaks of fleeing Byzantines trampling each other.  Every time they heard hooves or feet behind them they would run even faster.  Horses weak from lack of water falling dead.  Soldiers casting aside arms and armor that was collected by the Bulgarians.

The Bulgarians did not advance much beyond the Imperial encampment.  There they looted the Byzantine baggage train.

The actual Byzantine casualties were on the lighter side.  The Thracian and Macedonian contingents under Aplakes were hit hard and may have lost 2,000 to 3,000 men.  But the Emperor's guard escaped and the division under Leo the Armenian marched back to Constantinople in good order.  A number of Byzantine infantry units that were separated from their cavalry support hid in different fortresses which were taken by the Bulgarians one by one.  The remaining infantry managed to find their way back to Constantinople.

What about Leo? 

Later Byzantine historians Genesius and Theophanes Continuatus accused Leo the Armenian (the next Emperor) as primarily responsible for the defeat, claiming that he deliberately ordered the flight of the units that were still not engaged in the battle. This view is accepted by a large number of scholars, while others reject Leo's responsibility.

I would say that most Roman generals would never let opportunity pass them by.  The new Emperor Michael was obviously weak.  Opportunity was knocking on Leo's door.  

The Roman army was collapsing on its own right in front of Leo.  With his own troops wavering it is doubtful that Leo could have saved the rest of the army from defeat all by himself.  What he could do is save his own division from slaughter in order to fight another day.

It was a long march back to Constantinople, and Leo had the only organized armed force in the area.  I don't believe Leo planned in advance to lose the battle, but he must have thought deeply about the danger the empire was in under Michael's weak leadership.

The contemporary account Scriptor incertus de Leone says the Emperor Michael blamed himself for the defeat and blamed the troops who refused to fight.

Bulgarian Cavalry Reenactors

The Aftermath

The defeat sealed the fate of Emperor Michael I Rangabe.

With conspiracy in the air, Michael preempted events by abdicating in favor of the general Leo the Armenian and becoming a monk (under the name Athanasios). His sons were castrated and relegated into monasteries, one of them, Niketas (renamed Ignatios), eventually becoming Patriarch of Constantinople. Michael died peacefully on 11 January 844.

The victory at Versinikia further worsened the grim situation of Byzantium and gave the Bulgarian Khan an opportunity to launch attacks in the vicinity of Constantinople itself.

The way to Constantionople was clear and the Bulgarian army headed straight to the city without facing any resistance. There were still several fortresses in Thrace which remained in Byzantine hands, particularly Adrianople which was besieged by Krum's brother. 

On 17 July 813 Krum himself reached the walls of Constantinople and set his camp without hindrance. Within the sight of the citizens of Constantinople, Krum who was also the high priest made a sacrifice to the Bulgar god Tangra, performed some pagan rituals, then the Bulgarians built trenches along the whole length of the city's walls and then suddenly Krum offered peace.

Leo V agreed to negotiations but he intended to treacherously kill Khan Krum and eliminate the threat over the Byzantine Empire. During the negotiations, the Byzantines fired arrows on the Bulgarian delegation killing some of them, including the kavkhan or other high official, but Krum himself remained intact.

Infuriated by the treachery of the Byzantines, Krum ordered all churches, monasteries and palaces outside Constantinople to be destroyed, the captured Byzantines were slain and the riches from the palaces were sent to Bulgaria on carts. After that all enemy fortresses in the surroundings of Constantinople and Marmara Sea were seized and razed to the ground. The castles and settlements in the interior of Eastern Thrace were looted and the whole region devastated. Then Krum returned to Adrianople and strengthened the besieging forces. With the help of mangonels and battering rams he forced the city to surrender. 

The Bulgarians captured 10,000 people who were resettled in Bulgaria across the Danube. Further 50,000 from other settlements in Thrace were deported there. During the winter Krum returned to Bulgaria and launched serious preparation for the final assault on Constantinople. The siege machines had to be transported to Constantinople by 5,000 iron-covered carts hauled by 10,000 oxen. However, he died during the height of the preparations on 13 April 814.

Bulgarian Warrior Reenactors
(Screenshot HunHorda)

(youtube.com)        (Byzantium and Bulgaria, 775-831 By Panos Sophoulis)

(Warfare, State And Society In The Byzantine World 560-1204 By John Haldon)


(Battle of Versinikia)        (Battle_of_Versinikia)