 |
Byzantine warrior - Davd Mele wearing his construction of an 11th C klivanion.
(Pinterest) |
A Power Struggle in the Empire
This comes under the category "You can find anything on the Internet".
By accident I found a paper from Leiden University in the Netherlands dealing with the conflict between the Eastern Roman Emperor and his landed nobility. Mixed with that conflict was a weakening of the Byzantine economy, coinage, corruption, invasions and
attacks on the independent Farmer-Soldier who made up the backbone of the Roman Army.
By the 11th century the Roman Empire was again at the height of its power following campaigns in the East that
restored much territory lost to the Arabs in the seventh and eighth century.
Following the Arab conquests the Roman Empire was greatly reduced in size and less secure than before. The main economic unit had become
the independent farmer who lived in small communities and paid their taxes based on the land they
owned. The civil aristocracy of the Roman period had mostly disappeared, but
a new elite was forming
on the fringes of the empire. They held military functions in the provinces where they enjoyed great
power thanks to the thematic organisation of the empire; their military function was combined with
civil duties and authority.
During the ninth century this elite became more and more prominent, they increasingly found
their positions within the bureaucracy to be more or less hereditary since the emperors relied on these
military men. To prevent these aristocrats from endangering the fiscal backbone of the empire (the independent farmer) by acquiring their land the state started legislating against these aristocrats. The struggle over
land ownership was one not fought out over a decade but rather over centuries, during a period of
great change for the Byzantine Empire.
The land legislation uses the term dynatoi (δυνατοί) which literally means “powerful”. The
emperors, at least in theory, tried to defend others groups from these dynatoi.
Land in the possession of farmers was needed by the state in
order to receive the gold, through taxes, needed to effectively run the state. If this system was
endangered it could mean disaster for the state when it could no longer meet its obligations.
This is a scholarly work and very detailed. But it gives us a feel for a "swirl of anarchy" that was developing within the Empire before the disaster of Manzikert in 1071.
Below is a portion of the much longer paper.
_________________________
Prof. Dr. P. Stephenson and Prof. Dr. P.C.M. Hoppenbrouwers
History, University of Leiden
The conquests made by the Byzantines during the 10th century, and especially by the last three
emperors, would be the last conquests made for a long time. Haldon estimates the total number of
soldiers during the 10th century to have been around 110,000. This number would be brought down
during the 11th century as emperors after Basil II preferred to use diplomacy, tribute and intimidation
rather than military strength.
During the reign of Basil II buffer states were created to stabilize the
borders, which would be part of the policy followed by his successors. The army slowly moved away
from the thematic organisation and became a local undertaking. This meant that larger threats could
only be countered from Constantinople. There was a realisation among the 11th century emperors
that an army the size of Basil II’s army was too expensive to maintain on a permanent basis and
preference was given to mercenaries who could be maintained for shorter periods of time without the
additional training cost.
We get a glimpse of the state of the army just before the battle of Manzikert
(1071) which was a decisive defeat for the Byzantines.
John Zonaras comments that: “It was not
easy to give strength to the army, which had been neglected for such a long time”.
A few lines down
he also writes that the Sultan was fearful of the Roman army, especially since it was led by the
emperor in person, which gives the impression that the Roman army was not in such a deplorable state
as has been assumed.
 |
Manuel I Comnenus gold hyperpyron.
In 1034 we saw to start of the debasement of the Byzantine gold hyperpyron coins. The debasement was gradual at first, but then accelerated rapidly. about 21 carats (87.5% pure) during the reign of Constantine IX (1042–1055), 18 carats (75%) under Constantine X (1059–1067), 16 carats (66.7%) under Romanus IV (1068–1071), 14 carats (58%) under Michael VII (1071–1078), 8 carats (33%) under Nicephorus III (1078–1081) and 0 to 8 carats during the first eleven years of the reign of Alexius I (1081–1118). More . . . . |
A major economic theme during the eleventh century that affected the state and the aristocracy
was certainly
the debasement of the (golden) coinage and changes in the tax system. Both had great
effects for the state economy however more importantly they were intertwined and had numerous side
effects. The simple need for more money in order to pay expenses, both civil and military, was a
problem seen before and debasement had not been the solution or preferred method then.
The solution
often preferred and used by emperors was to simply
cut expenses of either the military or civil
apparatus. This was done by Heraklios, Isaac I, Nikephoros III, Alexios I and Andronikos II. A more
drastic alternative lay in confiscation, either from the populace or the Church, the latter being used by Isaac I and Michael VII in the period here discussed.
Michael IV was the first emperor to debase his
coinage (a 4% loss in gold content) and while he had the previously mentioned alternatives available
he did not use them, but rather resorted to debasement. He might have been familiar with the practice
through his profession as money-changer. The rapid debasement was stopped when Alexios I came to
power in 1081 and had military successes on all fronts, reformed the coinage, restructured the
financial administration and reformed the tax system. This chapter will describe not only the
debasement but also the combination with newer forms of taxation and how that effected the relation
between the aristocracy and the state.
With the end of Basil II’s reign there is also an end to land legislation as far as we know. It seems
unlikely that stricter laws were written and enacted when looking at the policy of many of the eleventh
century emperors. On the other hand it seems even more unlikely that legislation was not used when it
suited the emperor or his administration. . . . Even if the state no longer had the power it had during the
reign of Basil II the land legislation was still a valuable piece of propaganda. However it should also
be noted that the insertion of new text also included texts that actually helped magnates to gain more
land.
Other traces of the land legislation can be found in the histories, like Psellos or Skylitzes,
however most are favorable to the dynatoi rather than opposing them. Romanos III Argyros (1028 –
1034) abolished a law that was written by Basil II concerning something called allelengyon by
Skylitzes. Its function was to return great landowners to existing fiscal units so that they could not
escape the shared fiscal obligation active in village communities, rather than function autonomously
and creating their own fiscal unit. That this measure was unpopular with the great landowners and
perhaps more importantly, the church, is evident. Romanos lent them a sympathetic ear and abolished
this law.
As stated before Michael IV was the first emperor who debased his coinage, a process that
continued until the Komnenian reform of 1091. During the reign of
Constantine IX we see the first
significant debasement, with coins of 18 carats from the latter part of his rule. Modern day
historians have two main explanations. The first being that of a fiscal disaster (mostly linked to
military defeat) and subsequent emergency debasements to increase the state’s ability to spend. The
second is that of “expansionism” which states that debasement was an effect of the expanding
economy, more coins were needed for use in the market.
Costas Kaplanis has recently argued that
the debasement first started under Constantine IX
and was a response to the Pecheneg invasion in 1046/1047. The general debasement up to that point
was hardly noticeable and was conducted over a period of nearly a hundred years. The severity of the
Pecheneg invasion has up to this point been underestimated;
it left the empire bankrupt and vulnerable
to invasions in the East (which indeed then happened under the Seljuk Turks). Kaplanis’ reasoning
is a realistic explanation, one backed up by Hendy, Angold and to some extent Harvey. One need
not assume an advanced economical knowledge in the Byzantine Empire
The expansionist explanation was first put forward by Morrison and is supported by
Oikonomides and Lemerle. It describes the debasement as a method of increasing coins in
circulation (with a lower gold content so more coins can be struck) in order to meet economic growth.
One of the key arguments is that the debasement was gradual and was not really noticed by contemporaries. It is not until the 1070’s that we see a rapid debasement that was certainly linked to
crisis (following the loss of Bari in 1071, the defeat of Manzikert and the internal chaos that
followed). Though the expansionist view is rather sophisticated and for it to work a lot has to be
assumed concerning demographics, increase in trade and economic expansion can be seen in a broader
context, as Oikonomides has done. He shows that the need for gold (mostly in coins) was not
something that first started after 1046/1047, when we assume the first debasement was made in
reaction to the Pecheneg wars. The Peira shows an increase in interest rates, certainly before 1045,
from 6% to 8,33% which is an indication that money was in short supply.
 |
The Senate from HBO's Rome
Selling The Post of Senator
By the sixth century the Senate had ceased to meet in its own building and instead assembled in the Palace of Constantinople under the watchful eye of the Emperor. The power of the Senate progressively decreased over the centuries. By this point becoming a Senator was little more than social status and had become just another fundraising tool for the Empire's annual budget. (Senate) |
Though not necessarily
linked with the increased interest rate,
the return of investment on honorary titles decreased, due to a
price increase. For example the title of protospatharios now cost 20 litrai of gold instead of 18.
Constantine IX Monomachos and Constantine X Doukas opened the doors of the senate for the
“noveaux riches”. Psellos notes during the reign of Constantine IX:
- “The doors of the Senate were thrown open to nearly all the rascally vagabonds of the market,
and the honor was bestowed not on two or three, nor on a mere handful, but the whole gang
was elevated to the highest offices of state by a single decree, immediately after he became
emperor.”
And on the reign of Constantine X:
- “The government officials, their deputies, the minor dignitaries, even the manual
workers, all received something. In the case of the last-named, he actually raised their
social status. Until his time there had been a sharp distinction between the class of
ordinary citizens and the Senate, but Constantine did away with it. Henceforth no
discrimination was made between worker and Senator, and they were merged in one
body.”
This new influx of senators generated revenue for the treasury as they indubitably had to buy their
offices and high honors. It also shows that honors at court were still very much in demand and popular
even if it was unlikely you would regain your investment.
New capital was found as these new senators had been outside of the rogai system, but the social fabric of court was also affected. The
opening of the senate has mostly been explained in a fiscal sense, which was undoubtedly the main
reason behind it, it can however also be seen in a political sense. By opening the senate to groups that
had previously been banned from participation in the political elite both emperors created a new
aristocracy of noveaux riches. But perhaps more importantly these new senators were representatives
of the increasingly richer people of Constantinople rather than cultured courtiers or provincial
aristocracy.
Michael V made the mistake of going against the wishes of the populace of
Constantinople by banning Zoë and Theodora, the last living heirs of the Macedonian line and the
nieces of Basil II. He even tried to ally himself with the people; his proclamation was read out loud at
the forum of Constantine the Great to the citizens. He promised them: ‘as for you, my people, if you
maintain your favorable disposition towards me, you will acquire great honours and benefits, living an
untroubled life. ‘.
The citizens were not impressed by these words and took offence that someone
like Michael V (of relatively lowly birth) would oust the nieces of Basil II and last representatives of
the Macedonian dynasty. They replied: ‘we don’t want a cross-trampling caulker for emperor, but the
original and hereditary ruler: our mother Zoe!’ Constantine IX and X both gave out honors to the
representatives of the people, mostly through the guilds, when they established their rule, no doubt in
part to gain their support.
We can also find other clues that gold had become scarce early on in the eleventh century and
that the state had to devise ways of acquiring it. John the Orphanotrophos was a shrewd politician and
devised several ways to increase taxation and state income. Skylitzes mentions John’s tax-regime on
multiple occasions:
- “He added this over and above the public taxes: that every village should pay an
aerikon tax, each one according to its ability: one village four pieces of gold, another
six and so on up to twenty, plus other shameful tolls to generate income which it
would be a disgrace to mention. John put the official’s appointment up for sale and gave everybody his head in
wrongdoing, filling the world with ten thousand woes. Judges were levying taxes on
the people with impunity and nobody cared a farthing for what was going on. . . . they rebelled and threw off the Roman yoke as on account of the Orphanotrophos’
greed and insatiate desire for riches.”
The first mentioned aerikon tax was a tax that had existed during Justinian’s reign in the sixth century
and was still in existence in the eleventh. It is unclear what it was a tax on, most likely cattle or other
animals that were needed for the army (since it is mentioned in Leo VI’s Taktika as a tax paid by
soldiers). This tax was not invented but increased by John the Orphanotrophos and is a prime example
of the increase in secondary taxes.
 |
Emperor Constantine IX
With one hand the Emperor organized an allied army to face a Turkish invasion. But with the other hand he deliberately disbanded the eastern frontier border forces in order to raise quick cash. |
One of his most notorious measures was to start taxing Bulgaria in gold rather than in kind as
had been the case since Basil II conquered Bulgaria (which the last quote alludes to). The belief that
this caused the rebellion of Deljan has recently been refuted, however unpopular such changes may
have been. Other increases of secondary taxes were employed, especially through the possibility to
buy out military service and other special corvées. These special corvées were named angareiai and
could be anything from road, bridge or fortification building right up to the cutting of wood and even
ship building.
Constantine IX Monomachos even
disbanded the 5,000 soldiers of the Iberian theme,
which was the main defensive line against invasions from the East like Seljuk Turks.
He made it
mandatory for them to pay ‘heavy taxes’ instead of serving the army.
(EDITOR - This portion of the paper is so important. The Emperor was so consumed with the need for gold coin that he foolishly and deliberately weakened the Roman Army in Anatolia facing invasion by the Turks.)
Perhaps the most well known measure John the Orphanotrophos took is the increase in taxfarming
(the second from the above quotes mentions tax farming). This was not in itself a new
phenomenon; tax-farming was done until the seventh century. The Isaurian emperors put a hold to this
practice (which is in line with their fiscal policy and other centralizing initiatives). It slowly returned
during the 10th century, but it was still an exception, by the 11th century the practice had become quite
common. John the Orphanotrophos began selling offices on a larger scale during the reign of
Michael IV when he was basically in command of the empire.
Though the accounts are biased against John the Orphanotrophos it is still clear that his regime
added to the growing tax pressure in the provinces, were there was little to no control over the taxfarmers.
In this case he sold the office of provincial judge but gave them the right to levy taxes, which
was meant that it was also very hard to do anything in legal terms. One way or the other this increased the tax in the provinces as these judges strove to make a profit (legally or illegally). Being part of the
financial administration of the empire could be lucrative as Kekaumenos tells us it was believed that
by the eleventh century all major mansions in Constantinople were build by those who had ran the
financial administration or worked for that department. He also adds a warning, one John Maios who
was a strategos ended up with a deficit of 60 pounds of gold when he was responsible for the tax
collection in the tax district of Arabissos.
Although this deficit was quiet large it was a rather limited
tax-district meaning large profits could be made when administering larger tax-districts. This increase
in
tax-farming and the money that could be made by such an enterprise was slowly replacing the rogai
system. We can see the first signs of this general decline during the reign of Michael IV when John the
Orphanotrophos was looking for ways to increase income. Other signs that the rogai system was in
decline come from the rule of Isaak Komnenos who cut “gifts” for the offikion. Nikephoros III
Botaneiates stopped paying his administration altogether because he had been too lavish in his gifts
and honors (which he gave out for free). Alexios I Komnenos later abolished the rogai system
altogether
This general increase in taxes can be seen in a very clear example in 1082, when the
monastery of Vatopedi was obliged to pay 19 nomismata in land tax. The secondary tax which was
called kaniskion was also collected. It was usually paid in kind directly to fiscal officials (since it was
meant as upkeep for the tax officials) since it seems to refer to a round loaf of bread, a half measure of
wine, a modios of barley and a chicken. This kaniskion was set a total of 20 nomismata meaning this
supplementary tax could also be bought out.
The secondary tax that had to be paid was now greater
than the primary, land tax. One of the effects of this increase, mainly in secondary tax that taxes
became increasingly hard to predict especially in combination with tax farming. Hoarding was still a
popular practice in the eleventh century and we have two examples of hoards created by high officials.
During the reign of Michael IV the archbishop of Thessalonica had hoarded 3,300 lb of gold (237,600
nomismata) which was to be distributed to the poor and the clergy of Thessalonica. In 1043 we learn
that on his death the Patriarch Alexios Stoudites had left 2,500 lb of gold (180,000 nomismata) in his
monastery (which the Emperor confiscated). For large landowners with hoarded gold the
unpredictability of the tax was unpleasant but at least bearable.
 |
(Pinterest)
Byzantine Skoutatoi Heavy Infantry X Century
Most of the foot-soldiers of the empire were the armored infantry Skutatoi. Their training was very much like that of the legionaries, with the soldiers taught close quarters, melee techniques with their swords and archery was extensively practiced.
.
Tax policies played an important role in weakening the military theme system which fielded local armies of Farmer-Soldiers to meet invaders. As these loyal citizen independent troops declined the Emperor was forced to spend more and more of his limited tax income on often unreliable foreign mercenary units. |
For the
small landowning peasants,
however, the increasing tax pressure and its unpredictability became a real problem. This more or less
forced them to seek protection of greater landowners who could offer reductions in secondary taxes through privileges such as exkousseia. This meant that it became increasingly attractive to work as a
paroikos for an ecclesiastical institution or lay magnate that had to power to acquire exkoussiea or
other privilege rights.
An example of a village community searching the protection of a lord, is
Michael Psellos. In 1060 the villagers of Atzikome asked Michael Psellos to become their lord so he
could protect them and intersect on their behalf with the krites/praitor of the Opsikion theme whom
the villagers did not know. Because Psellos was influential at court and knew the system he was
much more likely to acquire tax relieve for the villagers than they could acquire by themselves.
This
is not to say that the independent farmers disappeared during the eleventh century. The coastal plains
and themes close to Constantinople and the conquered themes of the tenth century were still either in
imperial hands or at least not in the hands of magnates. However we do see a line that would
became clearer during the Komnenian period, paroikoi working the land of great institutions that had
developed during the tenth and eleventh century.
Toward the end of the eleventh century (after 1071)
we can see the financial crisis deepen.
The purity started to deteriorate quickly, 1071 was a year of crisis in the empire as a large army was
defeated by the Turks at Manzikert and the emperor captured in battle. What followed was a period
of rebellions and general hardship. Gold content in golden coinage fell to 58.1% under Michael VII
Doukas (r. 1071 – 1078), 35.8% under Nikephoros III Botaneiates (r. 1078 – 1081) and finally to
10.6% under Alexios I pre-reform. Though many historians have blamed this sharp reduction of
gold content in the coinage to the battle of Manzikert this is probably not the case.
Byzantium had
been defeated in many battles before Manzikert without this drastic action. The difference lies in the
ensuing internal unrest, Michael VII was not a strong ruler who was led by his bureaucrats (like
Psellos). The rebellions during his reign aimed at re-establishing some sense of order which was
finally achieved by Alexios I Komnenos. By that time the Byzantine Empire had changed radically yet
again. Power was divided by those who were of the Komnenos clan and their close allies,while the
church gained more power yet again and held vast tracts of land that were worked by paroikoi.
Anatolia was never really recovered which meant that the Eastern magnates disappeared, they either
came to Constantinople to form the elite around the Komnenian dynasty or they settled in the Balkans
were they never acquired quite as much land as they had had in Anatolia.
 |
Eastern border of Byzantium in 1025
The Turks invaded the Byzantine military theme of Iberia during the period of this article. While the Turkish threat grew in the east we see the Emperor cutting border forces in order to raise quick cash for the Treasury.
...
Read More:
First Contact - Seljuqs vs Byzantines at the Battle of Kapetron |
(openaccess.leidenuniv.nl) (Byzantine battle tactics)
