Preface
I very much regret that I started late in publishing a work that I conceived at least 25 years ago. I often doubt whether I will be able to complete the task, as I am approaching the limit of my life. In the course of forty years of studying various departments of Byzantium, I had the opportunity to dwell on many issues, and many departments were processed at different times and for different purposes. But when the time came to summarize what had been prepared so far, the difference in mood and the dissimilarity of the general idea were reflected in different departments. Does this come from the conditions of age or from the conditions of a gradual expansion of horizons? Unfortunately, I hesitate to answer this question, i.e. I'm afraid of doing wrong. Undoubtedly, 20 years ago I spoke more boldly, made more generalizations and conclusions, and was not so careful in my judgments: now I often had to soften my expressions, smooth out the harshness of my thoughts, redo entire chapters to fit them into a new mood. Is this good for business? Again, I can’t say anything positive. There are, however, some details that should benefit from the fact that the appearance of my work in print has been too slow.
Since 1895, living in Constantinople, I had the opportunity to study the people whose ancestors created the history of Byzantium, get directly acquainted with the monuments and delve into the psychology of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which is largely responsible for the fact that the majority of peoples subordinate to the cultural influence of Byzantium are still in such miserable situation. Since the clergy and monasticism have always occupied a leading place in the history of Byzantium, then, of course, the circumstance in which church affairs are presented is of no small importance. Perhaps, without living so much time among the Greeks and without directly studying the life of the patriarchy, it would have been impossible for me to renounce the theoretical constructs and fictions with which we are so abundantly endowed at school. Meanwhile, it is extremely timely for us to establish a real view of the ecumenical patriarchate, casting excommunications on the Slavic peoples who violate its phyletic policy, both for Russian church politics and for our national self-determination, if only in view of the consideration that that moment is not far off , when, by the political course of things and the successes of Catholic and Protestant propaganda, it will be brought to the position of the Alexandrian or Jerusalem patriarchate, i.e. when it will lose almost the entire Balkan Peninsula and a significant part of the eastern departments. Then, only a long stay in the East and associated travel through Asia Minor, Syria and Palestine could clarify for me the historical fate of the Byzantine Empire, which for its existence is connected more with the East than with the West. I understand not only that both the Constantinople Empire and the Turkish Empire that replaced it owe their main material forces (military people and income) to the East and have always depended on the loyalty of the eastern provinces, but also actual traditions and historical facts. Not one of the Slavic sovereigns could cope with the tempting idea of founding an empire in Europe on the site of the Greek-Byzantine one; none of the European principalities founded in Europe after the IV Crusade - whether it was led by the Franks or local Greeks - had a long history and did not attract popular sympathy, and meanwhile in the Nicene Empire the idea of restoring the Byzantine Empire in the XIII V. The lesson of history must be strictly tested and weighed by those who are currently awaiting the division of the inheritance after the “dangerously ill” on the Bosporus.
Since this publication cannot be considered as a commercial enterprise and is not caused by either official or career goals, I find it appropriate to explain here that the Brockhaus-Efron company has agreed to publish the “History of the Byzantine Empire” in the form in which it appears before the public at the present time, greatly influenced my final decision to begin preparing the text for publication, i.e. to decide on an enterprise, the implementation of which always faced difficult difficulties.
The book coming into the hands of the reader does not aim to replace the existing old and new histories of Byzantium. This is not an exhaustive account of all the events that comprised the circle of the more than thousand-year-old empire - it therefore contains not six or seven volumes, but three. Without competing or trying to replace the published histories of Byzantium, I, however, cherish the cherished idea of giving my compatriots an integral system in such an area, which I consider the most important after national history for the national self-awareness of the cultural Russian man in the street. For this purpose and in the desire to be publicly accessible, I did not consider it necessary to give a large scientific apparatus either in footnotes or at the end of chapters. References to manuals and quotations of sources were allowed to the extent that it was considered necessary so that an inquisitive reader would not be deprived of the opportunity, if desired, to master the material that was at the author’s disposal: sources are indicated where original conclusions are given based on their special study; The manuals show guidelines that make it easy to find references to the literature of the subject. Not to give large footnotes - this was also a condition on the part of the publisher, which I found justified. Maybe I cited a lot of passages in Russian translation from documents and literary works of the described time, but it always seemed to me that this best introduces the era and conveys the mood of society.
The author tried to make every effort so that this work, the result of a long, persistent and - may I add - not unsuccessful scientific activity of the Russian professor, was worthy of its purpose and subject. I was born in 1845 and can complete this last scientific undertaking by the time of seventy years of life, when it is natural for a person to take stock of everything he has experienced and summarize the results of his activities. It is easy to understand that I wanted to give such reading into the hands of the Russian reader, which, on the one hand, with its rigor and seriousness would give him the idea of a thoughtful and carefully weighed system, and on the other hand, would leave a good memory of the author who, deciding to publish to the light of the history of Byzantium compiled by him, obeyed an internal attraction emanating from the conviction that the establishment of knowledge about Byzantium and the clarification of our relations to it is highly obligatory for a Russian scientist and no less useful both for education and for guiding the Russian on the right path political and national identity. Let the reader think about the content of the chapters dedicated to the southern Slavs, and look there for illustrations of the sad events currently being experienced on the Balkan Peninsula!
F. Uspensky Constantinople. October 1912
F.I.Uspensky
History of the Byzantine Empire. Volume I
Period I (before 527)
Period II (518–610)
Preface
I very much regret that I started late in publishing a work that I conceived at least 25 years ago. I often doubt whether I will be able to complete the task, as I am approaching the limit of my life. In the course of forty years of studying various departments of Byzantium, I had the opportunity to dwell on many issues, and many departments were processed at different times and for different purposes. But when the time came to summarize what had been prepared so far, the difference in mood and the dissimilarity of the general idea were reflected in different departments. Does this come from the conditions of age or from the conditions of a gradual expansion of horizons? Unfortunately, I hesitate to answer this question, i.e. I'm afraid of doing wrong. Undoubtedly, 20 years ago I spoke more boldly, made more generalizations and conclusions, and was not so careful in my judgments: now I often had to soften my expressions, smooth out the harshness of my thoughts, redo entire chapters to fit them into a new mood. Is this good for business? Again, I can’t say anything positive. There are, however, some details that should benefit from the fact that the appearance of my work in print has been too slow.
Since 1895, living in Constantinople, I had the opportunity to study the people whose ancestors created the history of Byzantium, get directly acquainted with the monuments and delve into the psychology of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which is largely responsible for the fact that the majority of peoples subordinate to the cultural influence of Byzantium are still in such miserable situation. Since the clergy and monasticism have always occupied a leading place in the history of Byzantium, then, of course, the circumstance in which church affairs are presented is of no small importance. Perhaps, without living so much time among the Greeks and without directly studying the life of the patriarchy, it would have been impossible for me to renounce the theoretical constructs and fictions with which we are so abundantly endowed at school. Meanwhile, it is extremely timely for us to establish a real view of the ecumenical patriarchate, casting excommunications on the Slavic peoples who violate its phyletic policy, both for Russian church politics and for our national self-determination, if only in view of the consideration that that moment is not far off , when, by the political course of things and the successes of Catholic and Protestant propaganda, it will be brought to the position of the Alexandrian or Jerusalem patriarchate, i.e. when it will lose almost the entire Balkan Peninsula and a significant part of the eastern departments. Then, only a long stay in the East and associated travel through Asia Minor, Syria and Palestine could clarify for me the historical fate of the Byzantine Empire, which for its existence is connected more with the East than with the West. I understand not only that both the Constantinople Empire and the Turkish Empire that replaced it owe their main material forces (military people and income) to the East and have always depended on the loyalty of the eastern provinces, but also actual traditions and historical facts. Not one of the Slavic sovereigns could cope with the tempting idea of founding an empire in Europe on the site of the Greek-Byzantine one; none of the European principalities founded in Europe after the IV Crusade - whether it was led by the Franks or local Greeks - had a long history and did not attract popular sympathy, and meanwhile in the Nicene Empire the idea of restoring the Byzantine Empire in the XIII V. The lesson of history must be strictly tested and weighed by those who are currently awaiting the division of the inheritance after the “dangerously ill” on the Bosporus.
Since this publication cannot be considered as a commercial enterprise and is not caused by either official or career goals, I find it appropriate to explain here that the Brockhaus-Efron company has agreed to publish the “History of the Byzantine Empire” in the form in which it appears before the public at the present time, greatly influenced my final decision to begin preparing the text for publication, i.e. to decide on an enterprise, the implementation of which always faced difficult difficulties.
The book coming into the hands of the reader does not aim to replace the existing old and new histories of Byzantium. This is not an exhaustive account of all the events that comprised the circle of the more than thousand-year-old empire - it therefore contains not six or seven volumes, but three. Without competing or trying to replace the published histories of Byzantium, I, however, cherish the cherished idea of giving my compatriots an integral system in such an area, which I consider the most important after national history for the national self-awareness of the cultural Russian man in the street. For this purpose and in the desire to be publicly accessible, I did not consider it necessary to give a large scientific apparatus either in footnotes or at the end of chapters. References to manuals and quotations of sources were allowed to the extent that it was considered necessary so that an inquisitive reader would not be deprived of the opportunity, if desired, to master the material that was at the author’s disposal: sources are indicated where original conclusions are given based on their special study; The manuals show guidelines that make it easy to find references to the literature of the subject. Not to give large footnotes - this was also a condition on the part of the publisher, which I found justified. Maybe I cited a lot of passages in Russian translation from documents and literary works of the described time, but it always seemed to me that this best introduces the era and conveys the mood of society.
The author tried to make every effort so that this work, the result of a long, persistent and - may I add - not unsuccessful scientific activity of the Russian professor, was worthy of its purpose and subject. I was born in 1845 and can complete this last scientific undertaking by the time of seventy years of life, when it is natural for a person to take stock of everything he has experienced and summarize the results of his activities. It is easy to understand that I wanted to give such reading into the hands of the Russian reader, which, on the one hand, with its rigor and seriousness would give him the idea of a thoughtful and carefully weighed system, and on the other hand, would leave a good memory of the author who, deciding to publish to the light of the history of Byzantium compiled by him, obeyed an internal attraction emanating from the conviction that the establishment of knowledge about Byzantium and the clarification of our relations to it is highly obligatory for a Russian scientist and no less useful both for education and for guiding the Russian on the right path political and national identity. Let the reader think about the content of the chapters dedicated to the southern Slavs, and look there for illustrations of the sad events currently being experienced on the Balkan Peninsula!
Current page: 1 (book has 42 pages total) [available reading passage: 10 pages]
Fyodor Ivanovich Uspensky
History of the Byzantine Empire VI–IX centuries. Volume 2. Period III (610–716) Heraclius and his successors. Iconoclastic period (717–867)
(History of the Byzantine Empire – 2)
PERIOD III (610–716) Heraclius and his successors
Chapter I
General characteristics. Military preparations,
Origin of the thematic device
Since the beginning of the 7th century. In the history of Byzantium, one can outline not only certain facts that serve as an indicator of the final break with Roman traditions and ideals, but, at the same time, one can encounter new features in the character and mood of statesmen and society, brought by new people and new views. The reign of Heraclius opens a new era in the history of Byzantium, establishing the boundary between the old and the newly born historical movement. But to present in proper light the nature of Heraclius’s activities is extremely difficult both due to the paucity of information that has reached us about his internal activities, and the fact that the new elements of statehood, gradually entering life from that time, have not found either a proper assessment or a definite place in historical accounts.
The Byzantium of Heraclius's time is not like the empire of Justinian's time. The extraordinary tension of forces under Justinian was aimed at reviving the idea of the Roman Empire and connecting the various nationalities within the empire with the unity of faith and law; this idea was practically realized thanks to the extraordinary energy of Justinian, as well as his art of assessing people and giving them assignments corresponding to their abilities. But there was no vitality in the very idea of a worldwide empire, and the creation of Justinian was not politically durable. On the contrary, Heraclius’s task was definite and specific; it was not about new conquests, but about means to preserve what could be saved from destruction. The previous era of military disturbances, as a result of which on the throne of emperors there were often random people who reached the highest power by the whim of fate, was accompanied by extreme disruption of economic means, a decline in prosperity, a decrease in the army and the extermination of an enormous number of people, especially from the wealthy and ruling classes. There is news that Heraclius, taking a census of the composition of his army, found that only two of the entire available number served under Phocas, and the entire composition belonged to the new recruit. This observation applies to other conditions as well. At first, after his accession to the throne, Heraclius was in hesitation. The government does not take decisive measures, does not dare to enter into a decisive struggle with the enemies of the empire and is negotiating for peace and alliance, which, however, was not successful. Only in 622, when Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine and Egypt were already under the rule of the Persians, Heraclius came out with a certain foreign policy and became the head of the newly organized and himself trained army. So, the preliminary period of preparation for military activity remains little understood for us.
About where Heraclius got the funds for the war and how he prepared an army capable of enduring the incredible hardships of service in the war with the Persians, the best page is given by the writer Theophanes: “In 622, April 4, having celebrated Easter, on Monday evening Heraclius set out in campaign against the Persians. Being in extreme need, he borrowed money from churches and monasteries, ordered the chandelier and other church vessels to be taken from the Great Church and minted gold and small change coins from them. To manage affairs in his absence, he appointed a regency, which included, in addition to his son, Patriarch Sergius and Patrician Vaughn, a man of subtle mind and wise with reason and experience. Having sent a letter to the Avar Khagan, he asked him to pay attention to the Roman kingdom, with which he had entered into an alliance of friendship, and appointed him the guardian of his son. From the capital, Heraclius traveled by sea to an area called Pyla 1
Bithynian city in the Gulf of Astakos near Nicomedia.
From where they came to the areas that received the thematic device 2
έντεϋ9εν δε επί τάς των δεμάτων χώρας άφικόμενος. The Latin translation of this passage proves how vague the ideas about that time are. Illinc vero per ceteras regiones sibi subiectas profectus.
He gathered the army into the camp and began to teach them military service according to the new system, training them in gymnastics and the art of war. Dividing the detachment into two parts, he ordered them to make exemplary bloodless skirmishes among themselves and accustomed them to war cries, and paans, and exclamations, and movements, with the goal that when wartime came, they would not seem like beginners, but boldly, as if as a joke, they went at the enemy. Having found the army reduced to a state of great debauchery and cowardice, a decline in discipline and order, and scattered in different places, he soon united everyone together” 1 . The writer once again returns to the description of military exercises in two formations with exemplary battles with the sound of trumpets and blows with shields, from which we can conclude that he had at his disposal significant material for this side of Heraclius’s activity. But in the above excerpt the most interesting part is about themes, a term that appears for the first time in historiography and denotes a major reform relating to civil and military administration. The division of the empire into themes was already a well-defined fact under Heraclius and operating in practice. It is also very interesting that the reforms in military science that Feofan introduces us to are related to themes. This is an absolutely correct view, since the organization of themes achieved primarily military goals, and the reorganization of the army was determined by the special structure of the civilian population in those administrative-military districts, which were called themes. So, we outline here one of the important moments of Heraclius’s preparatory activities, to which the first ten years of his reign were devoted; this is a military and civil reform, expressed in the structure of fems. Regardless, Theophanes hints at a number of other activities with which Heraclius tried to ensure success in the military enterprises that constituted the goal of his life. This, by the way, is the question of the regency and especially of succession to the throne.
Not only a natural feeling of affection for relatives guided Heraclius in distributing the highest titles and positions, but also a lack of people, since most of the well-born and wealthy people were either destroyed or weakened by torture, confiscation of property, imprisonment and murder. So, around the throne we see relatives of Heraclius. The dignity of the Kuropalat was granted to his brother Theodore; his cousin Nikita was the main support of the kingdom. Only Priscus, the son-in-law of Phocas, remained in favor with Heraclius among outsiders, and even then for a short time. He paid special attention to the organization of his family's fate. He appointed his daughter Epiphania, born from his first wife, as Augusta, and in the same way he crowned the kingdom in the first years after the accession of his young son Constantine. Perhaps the same motive for strengthening his own dynasty explains his marriage to his own niece Marina, the daughter of his sister Maria, which caused a great stir. Queen Marina, however, did not rise to the occasion. In a difficult moment of Heraclius’s life, she was far from supporting him, as before Theodore Justinian, but, on the contrary, according to her suggestions, Heraclius made a cowardly decision to move his capital to Carthage in 618, when the circumstances in Constantinople were extremely unfavorable, and only perseverance Patriarch Sergius prevented the execution of this decision.
When Heraclius ascended the throne, the political situation of the empire was desperate. The northern provinces of the empire were overrun by Slavs and Avars. Heraclius immediately assessed the situation here and took a number of measures that were of fundamental importance for the coming centuries on the Balkan Peninsula. First of all, he realized that the empire should not waste its energy fruitlessly fighting Slavic immigration; Having abandoned the areas occupied by the Slavs, Heraclius found enough statesmanship in himself to leave the Slavs alone until the empire gathered its strength and could begin a cultural and political struggle with them.
The main attention was paid to the East, where, under the rule of Khosroes II, the Persian Empire revealed enormous tension and aggressive power, taking Syria, Palestine and Egypt from Byzantium over the course of several years and inflicting an incredible moral defeat on the Christian empire by the fact that fire worshipers took possession of the Life-giving Tree of the Cross of Christ. In the period from 622 to 628, Heraclius achieved such success in several campaigns in the East that the Persians abandoned their conquests in Egypt, Syria and Palestine and received such a blow from which they never recovered. Among Justinian's successors, Heraclius ranks highest.
Back at the end of the 4th century, when the imperial army was overrun by barbarian troops, and when the German-Goths threatened to overrun the capital itself, the voices of patriots began to rise in favor of the nationalization of the army. “A war for the defense of the state,” said Bishop of Ptolemais Sinesius in his speech to Arcadius, “cannot be successfully waged by foreign troops. Take the defenders of the fatherland from your own fields and from subject cities, for in them you will find real protection of that state order and those laws in which they themselves were born and raised. Isn’t there an extreme danger in the fact that those military men alien to us, who are entrusted with the defense of our country, may want to impose their power on the unarmed population? Try to multiply your own regiments, and at the same time the national spirit will rise, which will successfully withstand the fight against the barbarian invasion” 2.
However, the Byzantine government failed to switch from the system of hiring foreign troops to a national army either in the 5th or 6th centuries. Under Justinian, when the empire developed its military strength to the most extreme limits, brilliant military deeds were accomplished under the leadership of Belisarius, Narses and other generals, not by the national army, but by mercenaries from the eye peoples, who entered into a special treaty with the empire and bore the name of federates. Almost every leader of Justinian's time had his own squad of hired foreigners, who, as a personal retinue, served as the core of the army as squires. The last case of hiring a large foreign detachment into military service dates back to the reign of Tiberius (578–582), who formed a special corps of 15,000 people, which he entrusted to Mauritius, a committee of federates, later proclaimed king.
Awareness of the unsatisfactory nature of this system and the enormous danger to the empire from the Persians and Slavs prompted the government to make attempts to change the military system. However, this issue was not resolved immediately. On the path along which the reform of military affairs was being prepared, the Byzantine government had to reckon with two circumstances: the lack of population, especially on the borders threatened by enemy invasions, and the abundance of empty, unoccupied and uncultivated lands. Administratively, the central government had to abandon the system of separation of civil and military power that had prevailed since the reforms of Diocletian and Constantine and strengthen its authorities in the province by combining in one person the military command over local military people and civil power over the population of a certain territory. In this regard, it is very interesting to trace the preparatory measures for the new system, noted even before the time of Heraclius.
Signs of new views are found partly in the isolated attempts of Justinian I to reform military affairs. A similar conclusion is reached by examining his measures to organize the province of Armenia, as reported by historians Malala, Feofan and Kedrin 3 . Comparing the three versions of the named writers regarding Justinian’s orders in Armenia, we can imagine the matter as follows.
In the province of Armenia, which was of particular importance for its proximity to Persia, Justinian concentrated military power in one person with the title of stratilate. But since there was little settled population in the province that would participate in military service, for the Armenians “were distinguished by vagrancy and instability,” 4 the composition of the military units was strengthened by four regiments called from Anatolik. The most significant, however, must be recognized as those measures that provided for the involvement of local elements in military service, the importance of which was determined by knowledge of communication routes in Armenia. In addition, civil officials of the region were included in military service or military lists. No matter how dry the news about the military organization of Armenia is, the following conclusions can be drawn from it: Justinian or, perhaps, his successors made an attempt to concentrate military power in one hand, the native population was involved in serving military service, civil power partly became subordinate to the military, partly individual civilian ranks were renamed military. The same goal of strengthening provincial power in case of exceptional circumstances dictated another measure to the Byzantine government, which unusually strengthened civil power by assigning military powers to it. This measure was carried out in Egypt by strengthening the power of the governor of Alexandria with the title of Augustalia, who was granted military power “for the sake of the large population of Alexandria” with the subordination of all military forces both in the city of Alexandria and in the two Egypts 5 .
At the very end of the 6th century, precisely under Mauritius (582–602), the marked tendency to deviate from the Roman system spread in a different direction with greater consistency than in the Justinian era. It was in two provinces, remote from the center and placed in an exceptional position due to the fact that the population of these provinces was completely alien to Byzantine culture, that governorships called exarchates were organized. Such administrative reform was carried out in Italy and Africa. On the occasion of the invasion of Italy by the Lombards, almost two-thirds of the Italian territory departed from the empire, and the remaining garrisons in the large cities could barely stay under the protection of the walls. To strengthen and centralize military power in Italy, an exarchate was created with its capital in Ravenna to replace the former magister militum. For the same reasons and almost at the same time, an exarchate was formed in Africa with central administration in Carthage. The military means that Heraclius had at his disposal in 610 during his campaign to Constantinople sufficiently explain the extent to which the power of the exarch was independent and independent. It must be admitted that the establishment of the exarchate was influenced by the great practicality and administrative experience of the government, which was able to place civil and military power in the exarchate within proper boundaries, giving the decisive role to the military power, but without depriving the civil ranks of proper competence. In the organization of the exarchate, it is important to note the excellent experience of creating an independent and self-sufficient administrative unit in which all parts are subordinate and which performs military and civil functions at the expense of material resources obtained in a given province. Before moving on with these observations to the time of Heraclius, let us recall that the initial role of Phocas in the military camp on the Danube was apparently also aimed at the formation of an exarchate, unless Theophanes, who speaks of his election as exarch by the army, made a mistake 7 .
When Heraclius undertook a campaign in Persia in 622, he stopped for quite a long time in areas that had already received a thematic structure, and here he trained recruits in a new system of military art. Here for the first time we encounter the term "theme" with a very special technical meaning in relation to the civil and military administration of the Byzantine state. They think that the thematic system owes its beginnings to the reforms of Justinian, and that in the organization of the exarchates one can find some elements of the same thematic system, although it is hardly possible to defend this opinion in all details. Unfortunately, no positive evidence from writers regarding the thematic structure, so characteristic of Byzantium, has been preserved. When Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus (911–947) began to collect information on the issue of the thematic structure in the archives of the empire, he found very little accurate and reliable and therefore limited himself to designating the contemporary administrative division of the empire into themes. The extent to which the information found by Constantine was insufficient is evident from the uncertainty and extreme caution with which he supposedly traces this institution to the name of Heraclius. Thus, about the theme Armeniak he expresses himself as follows: “It seems that one can think that it received such a name under King Heraclius and in the near future” 8. In the same way, in the preface to the essay on themes, he with greater confidence brings down for the time of Heraclius and his successors a new system of theme structure 9.
Although the question of themes from the point of view of their origin has recently been carefully studied by Professors Diehl and Geltser 10, there are still quite a few unclear aspects to it. Researchers of the Byzantine thematic structure proceeded from the idea that a theme means a military detachment-division or corps, stationed in a certain territory and consisting of a certain military organization and subordination of units under the command of a military leader with the rank of strategist. Meanwhile, upon a more careful study of the sources, one cannot help but come to the conclusion that although theme means in a narrow sense a corps or division, but, on the other hand, this term has never lost its original broader meaning. The original meaning of the theme denotes a civil administrative district, which includes residents of cities and villages, governed by civil officials and serving various state duties, including military taxes. The relationship of the theme as a military term to the theme - the administrative district with its administrative, judicial and financial system - remained little affected, which is why the study of the theme structure itself lost a significant share of its general historical interest. In the sense of an institution that arose in the 7th century. and developed under the Isaurians, the fem structure designates a special organization of the civilian population of the province, adapted specifically for serving military service. Thus, to reveal the history of the fem structure means to clarify the government’s measures in relation to land ownership and the land structure of the peasant population, since the military tax system, after all, was based on the organization of military tax land plots 11 .
Without going into detail here, we will confine ourselves to the analysis of one passage [from the work of] Constantine Porphyrogenitus, which introduces the very essence of the thematic structure: “Protospatharius Theodore Pankrati undertakes to recruit in the Anatolian theme in the village of Plataniata and in the nearest villages 500 warriors capable of shooting and fit for horse service. If the warriors find themselves in possession of a full plot of land, they undertake to make cavalry equipment at their own expense; if their allotment is insufficient, then they have the right to receive horses from state horse bases or take them from singles - co-payers of the Anatolian theme" 12. This passage, which contains several technical expressions, reveals a phenomenon that has hitherto remained unnoticed, that the essence of the thematic structure lies not in military detachments located in cities and villages, but in the very nature of the economic and land structure of the rural population. So, the above-mentioned protospatharius had to carry out a property census in a certain area and make a military recruitment of 500 warriors. If it turned out that, due to its property status, the village of Plataniata was not able to field the required number of recruits, then other villages should have been subject to a census. Further, since the task ahead was to enlist some warriors in infantry regiments and others in cavalry regiments, some special conditions arose here that had to be met.
Infantry service was cheaper; therefore, a more modest financial position was required for an infantryman; service in the cavalry was more expensive, and therefore the one who had the largest land allotment was appointed to the cavalry. Thus, if a recruit had a full allotment corresponding to equestrian service, he was obliged to prepare cavalry equipment at his own expense; otherwise, the horse was given to him from the horse state reserve or from single co-payers, by which we should mean singles by marital status, serving military service according to the pooling system - one warrior from several peasants.
The main merit of the Byzantine government was that with the introduction of the thematic organization, it made military service dependent on land ownership, which determined the stability and vitality of the thematic structure. Service was based on the ground, and the average person served in such a department of the army as corresponded to the plot of land in his use. Accordingly, there were sections for infantry, cavalry and naval service. These are the main features of the thematic structure, which in its beginnings dates back to the time of Heraclius.
We are unable to judge in what area the fem device was first used. One thing is certain: in 622, when setting out on the first Persian campaign, Heraclius went from Nicomedia to the region with a thematic structure and trained recruits here. Subsequently, there was the Opsiki theme here, which served as a guard for the capital and surrounding areas, and therefore, with some justification, the first orders in relation to the theme organization could be attributed to the region closest to the capital on the Asian side. But later, under the closest successors of Heraclius, the theme of Anatolica acquired particular importance. More extensive information has been preserved about the organization and origin of this theme. Already under Mauritius, here we find the first measures to strengthen military power. The strategist of Anatolica, in which rank we see Philippicus, married to Mauritius's sister Gordia, was subordinate to the provinces of Asia and Lydia and parts of Caria, Phrygia, Lycaonia, Pisidia, Cappadocia and Isauria. This was the most important theme, and its strategist with the rank of patrician occupied one of the highest places in the table of ranks... The military corps subordinate to him, approximately 10 thousand people, often played a role in the political destinies of Constantinople.
Another theme, also formed before Heraclius, is the Armeniak theme. The military organization of these themes gradually grew in the 7th century. under the pressure of circumstances, since Anatolica and Armeniak were in a constant state of war due to the increasing power of the Arabs and their raids on Byzantium. As for the European provinces, here, first of all, Thrace was organized into the theme, which included Diocletian’s provinces: Europe, Rhodope, Thrace, Amymont, Scythia and Mysia. Although under Heraclius great changes took place on the Balkan Peninsula due to the weakening of the Avars and the establishment of peaceful relations with the Slavs, to whom the areas occupied by them were ceded on certain conditions, nevertheless, the strategist of the theme of Thrace with the military forces subordinate to him was of enormous importance, because in place of the Avars in the 7th century The power and influence of the Bulgarian Khan begins to grow on the Balkan Peninsula. With the full development of the thematic structure in the empire, there were 26 military districts with the same structure.
“Grandfather, read Uspensky to me!” - “Okay, grandson! “Similarities and differences in the historical development of the West and the East...” - “No, grandpa, I wanted to talk about Prostokvashino!” - “Damn you, you worthless one! Give him Uspensky! Here you go, a tome - right on top of your head!"
.. However, I got distracted. And the book before us, of course, belongs to the category of scientific classics. For well-known historical and cultural reasons, Byzantium turned out to be close to domestic researchers, but for a long time its path did not find comprehensive coverage in a truly extensive work. I think this was not least due to the heirs of the Empire, the Turks, who occupied its lands and were not interested in studying the former enemy with the current enemy. Academician Uspensky, who lived in Istanbul-Constantinople before the First World War, did a great job of searching for sources and systematizing fragmentary information about events a thousand years ago. The result of his research became a reference work for all subsequent Byzantinists. The first volume covers the period from the founding of the city by Constantine the Great in the 4th century to the overthrow of the bloody tyrant Phocas in 610: here are the barbarian invasions, the attempt of Emperor Justinian to revive the Roman Empire, disputes over the creed and the persecution of heretics, the growth of the capital and the establishment of laws. The next period covers the 7th-9th centuries: the reader is faced with treacherous Arabs, powerful Slavs, frantic Lombards, cunning Bulgarians, stubborn Franks; The empire fights back on all borders, but this is not enough for it, and a massacre begins within its own country: iconoclasts against icon-worshipers; in the capital, bloody despots are overthrown and blinded, on the throne - oh, horror! - woman, Patriarch Photius splits the church and becomes the figure of the century, eclipsing the king - Troubles as it is! Naturally, everyone missed stability, and the Macedonian dynasty reigned for almost 200 years, first emperors to which the third volume is dedicated.For those who are not in the know: This is not popular science literature at all. On the contrary, it is a serious historical study. I'd like to see the daredevil who took on a 1,000-page tome out of curiosity. The author sets many traps for the daring: a titanic preface in the spirit of geopolitical views about the East-West of the late 19th century, a brick style almost completely devoid of lightness, extensive quotes from sources written in archaic language, a detailed analysis of church disputes of the era, constant digressions to talk about destinies Slavism. In general, reading is not recommended for a person without special training. Sometimes the author seems to deliberately not notice the winning parts of his narrative, connected primarily with the personal characteristics of certain of her characters. No, he is stubbornly interested in the dead stuff of “historical processes”, without even trying to color the story with characteristic incidents and paint a more vivid portrait of the era.
For those in the know: Those who have an unhealthy attraction to the dawns and twilights of Empires and bold books, they will find something interesting. As mentioned above, the author rightly views Byzantine history as closely intertwined with religion. At times, religious strife even became decisive for the internal politics of the Empire, as for example during the iconoclastic period (726-843). Of course, anyone interested in Orthodoxy will find a lot of important information here. The book will not disappoint researchers of the early past of the Slavic peoples: although Uspensky stipulates the lack of reliable sources, he manages to examine this ethnic group in the darkest centuries of its history. The above emphases will almost certainly disappoint the modern history buff, who is usually not interested in either Orthodoxy or Slavism (bad form!). As an enthusiastic amateur, I was interested in reading about the early history of Italy, the gradual weakening of ties between the two Churches, and Franco-Greek diplomacy. Unfortunately, these questions do not occupy a primary position on the pages of the book.
