University of Florida Thesis Or Dissertation Formatting Template

Home , Anthypatos, Cappadocia (theme), Chaldia, Charsianon, Cherson (theme), Dalmatia (theme)

ON THE EVOLUTION OF THE BYZANTINE THEME SYSTEM

SEAN PLATZER

A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2013

For everybody who has ever educated me

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my committee, Dr. Curta, Dr. Kapparis, and Dr. Sterk. I would also like to thank Anna Lankina, Ralph Patrello, Kat Klos, Chris Bonura, Chris Wooley, and Chris

Borglum. Without the help of most of the medieval history graduate students, this paper would never have been written. Finally I would like to thank my parents.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... 4

LIST OF TABLES ...... 6

ABSTRACT ...... 7

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 8

2 MODERN HISTORIOGRAPHY AND THE CREATION OF THE “THEME SYSTEM” ...... 11

3 PROVIDING FOR SOLDIERS AND THE QUESTION OF MILITARY LANDS ...... 20

4 ICONOCLASM, THE REVOLT OF ARTAVASDOS, CONSTANTINE V, AND THE DIVISION OF THE OPSIKION THEME ...... 25

5 CHANGE OVER TIME REPRESENTED BY NUMBERS ...... 29

6 CONCLUSION...... 33

LIST OF REFERENCES ...... 36

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... 38

LIST OF TABLES

Table page

5-1 List of themes...... 29

Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts

ON THE EVOLUTION OF THE BYZANTINE THEME SYSTEM

Sean Platzer

December 2013

Chair: Florin Curta Major: History

This paper will illustrate the fact that the Byzantine theme system was not a single reform created by a single person, but rather a long, organic process by which system of military districts were created to defend against the nascent Arab Empire. They were eventually crafted after a series of changes into an effective defense system. As a case study, the theme of

Opsikion will be used as an example of how internal, as well as external forces caused this change. Also the fluctuating numbers of the themes from the seventh to the tenth centuries will illustrate just how much of an evolutionary process the themes went through.

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

In the seventh century, the Byzantine Empire faced a series of existential threats. In 602 the Byzantine-Sassanian War began and would last twenty-six more years. This would see the fall of two emperors by coup and end with the extended reign of Heraclius. In 634 the Arabs invaded and by 639, the empire had lost Syria, Palestine, and Egypt. By that point, the Sassanid

Empire was nearly gone and the Byzantine Empire was following suit, but at some point in the mid sixth century a series of reforms were undertaken in order to preserve what was left of the empire. The empire was in a state of shock and its defense led to the creation of the “theme system.” The earliest themes were Opsikion, Armeniakon, Anatolikon, Thrakesian, and

Kibyrrhaiotai, although this would change.1 The implementation of the theme system was far more of a series of experiments that took centuries rather than a single reform with all the qualities of what we consider the “themes” today.

The word “theme” itself, while of murky etymology, arguably referred to a military unit before it ever referred to a geographical location.2 In keeping with the theme of flexibility and changes over time, this is important. Some historians argue that originally a “theme” was a land military unit, eventually someone, possibly Heraclius, Constans II, Constantine IV, or some nameless general, placed themes on land and eventually they gave their name to those lands with their own capitals and their own borders. Eventually there were even naval themes established, giving a name for a unit of land forces to a base for ships with minimal land support. The word

1 Warren Treadgold. A History of the Byzantine State and Society. (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1997), 321. Sicily was technically ruled as a part of the Exarchate of Ravenna, until the Exarchate’s ultimate demise.

2 Warren Treadgold. Byzantium and its Army, 284-1081. (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1995), 23; John Haldon. Byzantium in the Seventh Century. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 215; Mark Whittow. The Making of Byzantium 600-1025. (Berkley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1996), 165; Walter Kaegi disagrees, which will be addressed in a separate chapter.

“theme” thus would have changed over about a century to encompass something very different from what it originally meant. It is also possible that the word “theme” has its etymological roots in relation to borders, and gained a more martial connotation as time went on. With this in mind not only did the word’s meaning change, but what it didn’t really settle into an established concept for even longer. The signifier “theme” represented a shifting signified theme. The reasoning behind this seems simple: the Byzantine Empire, in a state of self-preservation, experimented with a new system of self-defense in the seventh century and continued until at least the tenth century. Modern historians cannot even agree on when or how the theme system was established, but there are theories that make more sense than others. The very lack of a mention by historians from the middle ages about the establishment of the theme system would make more sense if it was the product of a long process of experimentation, rather than a one- time reform that sprang fully formed from the forehead of Heraclius.

To this end, the purpose of this short study is to establish what a “theme” was at various points of time, as well as how historians have interpreted what they were at various points in the twentieth century. To that end, it will be important to see how modern historians view the establishment of the theme system. From there, a look at some of the intricacies of the themes, how they operated, the ubiquitous “military lands” that certain modern historians write about, and other things will be studied. Finally there will be a case study of the Opsikion theme, a theme whose very existence seemed suicidal in the early days of implementing the system and nearly ended the reign of Constantine V. As a result, the theme was decimated, the threat removed, and it became demonstrative of the experimental qualities of the system as a whole.

This is an example of how internal forces, in addition to the threat of outside enemies, were responsible for crafting the theme system. This illustrates how internal pressures were

responsible for shaping the theme system in addition to outside forces. Finally, there will be a short look at three Taktika that illustrate numerically just how the system as a whole changed over time. By the tenth century, as the empire was recovering, the fluctuating numbers of themes show how the government integrated new land and appropriated old land as it needed.

This represents a process the system underwent which ultimately turned rather disappointing military districts into an effective defense system over the course of around 300 years.

CHAPTER 2 MODERN HISTORIOGRAPHY AND THE CREATION OF THE “THEME SYSTEM”

The question of when or why the Byzantine Empire decided to replace the old Roman provinces with the so-called “theme system” has been asked often over the past century. During that time, a few discernible schools of thought have formed around different answers to that question, although their ideologies can generally be summed up as either static or gradualist.

Either the themes were set up in a very short period of time under one or two emperors, or they were the result of years, decades, or even centuries of slow development.

One of the first studies of the theme system is Charles Diehl’s “L’origine du régime des themes dans l’Empire Byzantin.”1 In this article, Diehl asserts that the creation of the themes was the logical conclusion of the process that began with the creation of Maurice’s exarchates, which he asserts were basically themes themselves. He also believed firmly, as would most historians during the first half of the twentieth century, that the theme system was put into place during the reign of Heraclius, although pointing out that the move toward the theme system had its origins in the reign of Justinian.2 Despite the fact that many historians who have written since this article was published have disagreed with that assertion, some of whom will be addressed in this section, it still has its defenders today, like Walter Kaegi. The paper also puts forth one of the most defining assumptions about the themes themselves. It begins “un trait [que] caractérise essentiellement le régime des thèmes: c’est la réunion entre les mains d’un même gouverneur des pouvoirs civils et militaires.”3 The idea that the themes are the result of the fusion of military

1 Charles Diehl. “L’origin du régime des thèmes dans l’Empire Byzantin.“ Études Byzantines (Paris, 1905), 276- 292.

2 Diehl, “L’origine,” 289.

3 Diehl, “L’origine,” 277.

and civil powers into one office, instead of that fusion being a byproduct of the introduction of the themes, is rarely questioned until much later in the twentieth century. Still, that being said,

Diehl’s short study of the themes is still cited today as one of the foundational texts on the subject.

During the middle of the twentieth century, one of the most prolific authors on this subject was George Ostrogorsky. In his History of the Byzantine State, he argues that the introduction of the themata occurred during Heraclius’s reign and it was a result of the Persian

Wars.4 This is the basic argument that prevailed in the middle of the twentieth century, and was rather unopposed. He bases his argument on both the above mentioned article by Charles Diehl as well as a pair of contested passages in the Chronography of Theophanes the Confessor, and a corresponding passage from the Paschal Chronicle.5 The two passages in Theophanes’s

Chronicle that mention themes are interesting because they occur quite close to each other and the first occurrence could likely be an anachronism, or different use of the word.6 The anachronism comes from a passage lifted from Thoephylact Simocatta’s early seventh century

History which does not use the word “theme” but Theophanes uses the same wording as

Theophylact with the word “theme” inserted in place of the words “army in review.”7 Both anecdotes cover the same event, an investigation into the army of conspirators against Maurice in

4 George Ostrogorsky. History of the Byzantine State. (New Brunswick, Rutgers University Press, 1969), 100-101.

5Ostrogorsky. History. p. 101 n.

6 The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor: Byzantine and Near Eastern History, AD 284-813. Translated by Cyril Mango and Roger Scott. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 429, 435.

7 Theophylact Simocatta. History. VIII 12.12, edited by Carl de Boor and Peter Wirth (Stuttgart: Teubner, 1972), 308; English version from The History of Theophylact Simocatta, Translated By Michael and Mary Whitby. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986), p. 230. The words translated by Whitby as “inspected his army in review are “ἐξέτασιν τοῦ ὁπλιτικοῦ,” which are replaced by Theophanes woth “ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς θέμασιν” (“in all of the themes”).

622 by Heraclius, a full 24 years after Muarice’s overthrow. Theophylact is the earlier source dating from the reign of Heraclius, who ruled between the years 610 and 641. Heraclius’s inspection of his army occurred in 622, so Theophylact must have written his book after 622.

Theophanes wrote in the early ninth century, probably between 811 and 818.8 The absence of any mention of themes, or military restructuring of the antiquated Roman limes seems curious from the earlier source that was written far closer to the events in question, especially when a source written two centuries later anachronistically inserts the word “theme” into a line from the earlier work. It is also possible that he was using the word to mean “army.” The passage from the Paschal Chronicle mentions a “Leontias, Comes of the Opsarion.” Ostrogorsky believes this to be the first mention of the comes (count) of the Opsikion theme.9 The name of that theme is derived from the late Roman obsequium.10 The obsequium were retainers to the emperor, and they were indeed led by a comes.11 After the foundation of the Opsikion theme, the leader did not get the title “strategos,” but rather kept the title “comes.” This means that the title might have predated the existence of the theme (as the body of soldiers the theme was named for would have) and it does not definitively illustrate the existence of the Opsikion theme during the middle of Heraclius’s reign. That being said, in keeping with the linguistic opening to this thesis, these authors may have had a different meaning in mind when they used the word “theme.” It may have originally meant a standing army and in the context that Theophanes used the word, he clearly meant “army.” Heraclius was performing a purge of that particular army to rid it of

8 Chronicle of Theophanes, lii-lxiii.

9 Paschal Chronicle. TLG 715.20. (my translation)

10 Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), 1528-1528. s.v. “Opsikion.”

11 Warren Treadgold. History, 315. Treadgold states that the obsequiam were indeed the “army in the presence of the emperor.”

Phocas’ conspirators. He certainly would not have purged an entire province and he clearly states that he found few conspirators because he performed the purge twenty years after Phocas’ coup. The conspirators would have retired, and one does not retire from a province, one retires from the army. Ostrogorsky’s thesis that asserts the creation of the themes during the reign of

Heraclius seems to lie on shaky ground at best.

Walter Kaegi, as early as 1967, argued for a complete reevaluation of the “theme system.” He went as far as to say that calling it a “system” may be erroneous because of a lack of evidence of its “systematic” foundation.12 In an argument that has as much to do with the foundation of the “military lands” as the military aspect of the themes, Kaegi argues that the preservation of the empire during the late seventh century had as much or more to do with the internal struggles of the Caliphate as it did with the establishment of thematic boundaries and soldiers. He asserts that there is no evidence that places the granting of military lands to soldiers as a method of recruitment or payment before the tenth century, citing Karayanopolis and

Lemerle for his chief argument. By 1992, Kaegi, while still affirming that the themes were not in place “on the eve of the Muslim invasions,” does assert that they were founded as a result of processes that began during the reign of Heraclius.13 He states that the structures that would become themes were created from structures that Heraclius as “improvising” during the crisis of the initial Arab invasions. Kaegi is careful not to directly tie that to the question of military lands, strategoi, or other hallmarks of the “theme system,” rather he points to Heraclius’

12 Walter Kaegi, “Some Reconsiderations on the Themes (Seventh to Ninth Centuries).” Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinischen Gesellschaft. no. 16 (1967), 39-57.

13 Walter Kaegi. Byzantium and the Early Islamic Conquests. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), 279.

appointment of military leaders to civilian positions during the crisis in order to keep outer provincial governors from forming separate peaces with the Arabs.14

In more recent years, Warren Treadgold has modified Ostrogorsky’s take on the foundation of the themes. By using numismatics as well as “plausible guesswork,” he argues that they were founded during the reign of Constans II (r. 641-668).15 He argues that the “a large number of Anatolian fortifications [date] to the reign of Constans II.”16 Also, he states that 659-

662 were the only years when it would have been calm enough to transplant the soldiers in

Anatolia. This is a modification of the old theory that the themes clearly came from the reign of

Heraclius. There is little reason to doubt his logic, but he does make quite a few assumptions, especially regarding military lands and the soldier-farmers. The real doubts come from the

“who” question of who created the themes. It is entirely possible that it was Constans II, while he was in Italy, although it seems unlikely that an emperor who spent so much time away from

Constantinople would have positioned the largest theme in close proximity to the capital. If one were to date the creation of the themes to Constans II’s reign, it would make more sense if the emperor had little to do with it and instead assigned the task to a general, or group of generals.

Building on the work of Ioannas Karayannopulos and Ralph J. Lilie, some historians have taken a more “gradualist” approach to the origin and implementation of the theme system.

Karayannopulos traced the themes back to the Roman limitanei. The limitanei were soldiers stationed along the borders, but after the death of Justinian in 565, they were composed of only

14 Kaegi, Byzantium, 280.

15 Treadgold. A History of the Byzantine State and Society, 314-316.

16 Treadgold. A History of the Byzantine State and Society, 316-317.

unpaid irregular soldiers.17 He argued that the limitanei evolved from the sixth century to the tenth century into the classic “theme system” as described by Ostrogorsky.18 Lilie differentiates his own theory from that of Karayannopulos by its focus on timing and causation.19 Namely, he thinks the process began much later and he focuses more on the fusion of civil with military powers. This is when the definition of what a theme actually is comes into question. At its core, it may have been a military body, although it might have been associated with borders as well.

Either way it eventually became defined geographically. Finally it became associated with land grants to soldiers as a method of recruitment. This is what Ostrogorsky means when he uses the words “theme system.” He and his followers believe that this all happened at once, with a single piece of legislation or group of legislations during the reign of Heraclius or one of his successors, and that the military and civil administrations coexisted side by side.20 Lilie believes that this happened over the course of about 200 years, culminating with the complete fusion of civil and military powers in the hands of a single individual. It one has to define a “theme” with all three of those parameters, the former theory seems less and less likely.

To understand the creation of the theme system, it is important to look at the system to which it was reacting. Specifically it was reacting to the Umayyad Caliphate. If we take into account that the theme system was designed as a reaction to the Arab conquests, then we must look at the Umayyad military administration on the Byzantine border. As Treadgold points out,

17 Treadgold. Byzantium and its Army, 17.

18 Ionnas Karayannopulos. “Contribution au problème des Thémes byzantines.” Hellénisme Contemporain 10, 1956, 455-502.

19 R.J. Lilie, “Die Zweihundertjährige Reform. Zu den Anfängen der Themenorganisation im 7. und 8. Jahrhundert.” Byzantinoslavica, 45 (1984), 28.

20 Ostrogorsky, A History of the Byzantine State, 96.

that is the “no man’s land” that was largely depopulated by the eighth century.21 The array of

Umayyad troops in Syria kept native Syrian soldiers stationed in the center of the border, they were former Byzantine auxiliary soldiers who were familiar with their new enemy. They were flanked on the north and south by Arab soldiers.22 This has begged the question again of whether or not Heraclius invented the theme system, as some historians have assumed that the anjad were analogous to Heraclian themes. The opposite may, in fact, be true. The creation of the initial themes of Armeniakon and Anatolikon may have been a reaction to some part of the provocation of the creation of those anjad. John Haldon argues that the anjad did not represent a continuation of some type of a Heraclean theme system.23 The Arabs were acutely aware of the themes, and left an earlier description of them than did the Byzantines, but that only dates to the ninth century.24 Logically, a military power that vanquishes another military power handily would probably not want to adopt the military policies of their vanquished foes. Theophanes the

Confessor’s Chronography does mention that the in 635-636 the governor of Osrhoene, a Roman province situated around the city of Edessa, was exiled for making a separate peace with the

Arab general Iad. This was three or four years before Heraclius died, illustrating that very late into Heraclius’s reign, the provinces still operated under civilian leadership.25 Kaegi believes that these very separate peaces that the civil leadership signed where the reason that the themes were created in the first place; however replacing civil leadership positions with military

21 Treadgold. A History of Byzantine State and Society, 368.

22 Hamilton A.R. Gibb. “Arab-Byzantine Relations under the Umayyad Caliphate.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers. 12 (1958), 223.

23 John Haldon. “The Ajnad and the Thematic Myth.” In Arab Byzantine Relations in Early Islamic Times. Ed. Michael Bonner. (Burlington, VT, Ashgate Publishing: 2004), 95-97.

24 E. W. Brooks. “Arabic List of the Byzantine Themes.” The Journal of Hellenic Studies. (21, 1901), 67-77.

25 Theophanes, 472.

personnel does not automatically lend itself to a complete revamp of the entire method of ruling the empire. One of the only mentions of the foundation of the themes is from Constantine VII

Porphyrogenitus’s de Thematibus, in which he states that the themes were created “after the reign of Heraclius.”26 He had access to more documents than we do and wrote one of the only treatises that touched on the subject, although he is frustratingly vague.

Also for consideration is that Walter Kaegi doubted their practical effectiveness at defending the empire. 27 He contends that the themes were not as effective as Greek fire, the navy, or the imperial army (until the reign of Constantine V, this was the Opsikion theme) at helping the empire survive the eighth and ninth centuries but these armies were certainly not intended to stop a large army or determined force. Their purpose was to defend the empire against their more quotidian enemies that came across the border. From the foundation of the

Caliphate, the Arabs launched annual raids against the empire. Theophanes indeed only really mentions themes and strategoi when they lose battles, but those are battles against large armies, not usually small raiding parties.28 Their successes were more than likely on a smaller scale.

They would not be able to prevent every town from being sacked or every monastery from being raided, but the smaller victories that were not noteworthy enough for Theophanes to mention must have been there because the emperors kept the system in place. If the themes were as worthless as Kaegi implies, the empire would not have bothered arming them. Also, if they were so ineffective, but the imperial army was so effective, how is it that thematic armies occasionally

26 De Thematibus. Translated by A. Pertusi. (Vatican City: Vatican Apostolic Library, 1952), 60.

27 Kaegi. “Reconsiderations,” 43-44.

28 Chronographia. p. 596. Paul, the strategos of the Armeniakon, along with his theme, met a grisly end in 758, for example. Also, 651. In 798, another Paul, comes of the (now reduced) Opsikion met the same fate due to an Arab naval raid.

beat the imperial army when overthrowing emperors? This occurred with Leo III and his son

Constantine V in the eighth century. Both of them used the two eastern themes to overthrow people who had the support of the Opsikion theme. That being said, Kaegi does make good point, the themes did lose often and with disastrous results, which is why they were constantly in a state of flux, constantly changing to make some of them more effective and some less.

This is where semantics become important: how are we using the word “theme” and how did they use it? Kaegi’s argument places the importance of the strategos’ civil administrative role first. His position is that the “themes” were actually provinces all along; they were just militarized and their name changed. As mentioned before, Lilie, Haldon, Treadgold, and others take the position that they were armies that lent their names to the new governance system. As mentioned before, Theophanes seems to be using the word with reference to an army in his earliest reference to it. If it meant “army” before it meant “province,” the earlier emergency militarization of the provinces by Heraclius may have been an inspiration for the genesis of the

“theme system” but was by no means the beginning of it. Even if the strategos held a strictly military position at first, by the ninth century they were given the civilian title of “patrikios” in addition to their existing title.29 If that was an inspiration for the creation of the themes, then the creation of the exarchates by Maurice was as well. They both represent a decentralization of the

Byzantine military command.

29 Nicolas Oikonomidès. Les Lists de Préséance Byzantines Des IX et X Siècles: Introduction, Texte, Teaduction et Commentaire. (Paris: Éditions Du Centre National De La Recherche Scientifique, 1972). 47-51. This is one of the most valuable sources for the number and names of the themes at various points from the ninth and tenth centuries. The Taktika presented show how, over the course of two hundred years, the number of themes multiplied.

CHAPTER 3 PROVIDING FOR SOLDIERS AND THE QUESTION OF MILITARY LANDS

The themes were integrated into the existing Byzantine state in such a way that it required restructuring the bureaucracy that was in place. This involved the transformation of the kommerkiarioi from proto-customs agents into officials that acquired locally the arms and armor that the themes would need to operate.

John Haldon argues that the question of military lands is complex, but can be seen more prominently as time went on. While lands were granted, specifically to transplanted people who were to serve as auxiliaries to the regular soldiers, this was done on an “emphyteutic” basis.1

This was the case with the Slavs transplanted to Anatolia by Constans II and Justinian II. Later

Armenians were transplanted further south and west and given land on a military corps level, rather than individual level. The regular soldiers must have still been paid in kind or coin, depending on where they were stationed. He is echoed by Mark Whittow who claims that coin is a better recruitment tool than land.2 Both historians agree that there is little evidence of the empire using large scale land settlement to regular soldiers before the tenth century. In fact, in

Europe there is numismatic evidence of soldiers being paid in coin, and in the east, the infrastructure built around the apotheke and the kommerkiarioi suggests that those soldiers were paid at least in kind during the seventh and eighth centuries. The presence of small denomination coins in port cities in Greece that were previously thought to have been occupied by Slavs in the eighth century suggest that sailors were being paid in coin in those areas.3 The

1 Haldon, John. Byzantium in the Seventh Century, 244-251.

2 History of Teophylact, 117-118.

3 Florin Curta. “Byzantium in Dark Age Greece (the numismatic evidence in its Baltic context).” Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies. (29, no. 2: 2005), 113-146.

opposite is true of Anatolia, where according to Haldon, “finds of copper coin die out almost completely during the latter years of Constans II.”4 This would make a bit more sense in geographical context. In the European port cities, sailors would have been concentrated. The sailors would have been paid in coin to buy provisions from the agora in the city. In the east this was not necessarily the case; the farmers and armorers were more secure and would have been able to provide the soldiers with payment in kind. Next, there is the question of how the thematic soldiers would have been paid, which is possibly answered by the role of the kommerkiarioi in the seventh and eighth centuries.

There is contention surrounding the nature of the occupation of the kommerkiarioi.

These officers of the empire, at least their official seals suggest they were officers of the empire, had a role that changed from the sixth to the seventh century and that role is often questioned. It is generally accepted that they acted in the sixth century as a type of customs agent and were stationed along the borders.5 At some point in the seventh century, they were apparently associated with the silk trade.6 They appear to have transitioned to something that far more resembled a tax farmer after that. Haldon argues that they may have become instrumental to the arming and equipping of armies following the collapse of the eastern provinces of the empire.

The empire at that time was working with a much reduced tax base and as a result the military would have to be supplied locally by the population of the region on which they were stationed.

This had precedent with the Roman extraordinaria.7 According to Haldon, who was influenced

4 John Haldon. “Military Service, Lands, and the Status of Soldiers.” In State, Army and Society in Byzantium. (Bookfield, VT: Ashgate Publishing Complany, 1995), VII, 13.

5 Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. s.v. (Kommerkiarioi)

6 Angeliki Laiou and Cécil Morrison, The Byzantine Economy. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 80.

7 Haldon, Miltary Service, Lands, and the Status of Soldiers, 14.

by work by Michael Handy, the kommerkiaroi acted as a kind of military supplier, gathering supplies from locals for troops stationed locally. The primary evidence for this is the number date, and location of seals associated with the kommerkiarioi. He gives several examples that are involved with Artavastos and Constantine V, and concludes that in one of them, “the coincidence of date, place, and event is again striking.”8 The apotheke, formerly a customs depot, would have become a kind of arsenal. Haldon also argues specifically that the kommerkiarioi gave the soldiers their weapons and armor, and that they did not sell those things to the soldiers for coin they made from farming their land issued by the state.9 In essence, from what Haldon argues about them, the kommerkiarioi started as a part of the state revenue infrastructure, then as the nature of the military changed, they evolved into a useful cog in the machine of military logistics. Although this is true, they never ceased being involved with trade. As mentioned before they held a monopoly on silk production and they are mentioned in the Kleterologion of

Philotheos in association of the General Logothete, so they were involved with the finances of the empire in addition to collecting arms.10

This touches on a larger debate over the nature of the so-called “military lands,” which were in theory lands given by the crown to the soldiers settled on the themata themselves.

Ostrogorsky, building on the research conducted by Uspenskij, stated that “inalienable grants of land (in later sources called stratiotika ktaemata) were made to the soldiers on condition of hereditary military service.”11 This was later contested by Paul Lemerle, who using a Marxist

8 Haldon, Military Service, Lands, and the Status of Soldiers, 18.

9 Haldon, Military Service, Lands, and the Status of Soldiers, 13-18.

10 John Bury. The Imperial Administrative System in the Ninth Century with a Revised Text of The Kleterologion of Philotheos. (London: Oxford University Press, 1911), 88.

11 Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State, 97.

interpretation of the documents upon which this conclusion was based and citing a complete lack of evidence of military lands before the tenth century, argued that the issue of military lands might have been about protecting soldiers who had land rather than giving landless soldiers land.12 More specifically, the codes in question protected the “have nots” from the “haves.”

Lemerle contends that a military law that dates from around the same time as these “rural codes” actually forbade soldiers from becoming farmers and punishes anyone who disobeyed with expulsion from the army.13 The existence of the rural code does bring a few interesting issues into the equation. First, the mere existence of laws helping small landowners fend off predatory large-scale land owners shows that there was a problem with that actually happening.

Large-scale land reform would probably raise some eyebrows among the historians of the time, but it is absent from the record except when land was granted to transplanted ethnic groups, usually from Europe to Asia, for defense purposes.

As Walter Kaegi pointed out in the mid-1960s, there are two troubling pieces of evidence for people who believe that the soldiers were granted land before the tenth century.14 The first is the lack of even a cursory mention of military lands in Constantine VII’s De Thematibus, the second is an interesting passage from Leo VI’s Taktika no. 4. Kaegi’s interpretation of that passage can be contested. The offending passage reads in translation thus:

Select soldiers from the entire theme under your command, neither boys nor old men, but men who are brave, vigorous, courageous, and financially well off. While these men are occupied with their own military service on the campaign or, rather, the assembling of the army, they must have others in their households who do the farm work and who are able to provide the required items for the complete

12 Paul Lemerle. The Agrarian History of Byzantium from the Origins to the Twelfth Century, The Sources and Problems. (Galway, Ireland: Galway University Press, 1979), 58-64 .

13 Lemerle, Agrarian History, 60.

14 Walter Kaegi. “Some Reconsiderations on the Themes (Seventh to Ninth Centuries).” Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinishchen Geselleschaft. (Vol 16: 1967), 40-41.

equipping and arming of a soldier. That means that the heads of these households should be free from all other services owed to the state.15

Kaegi argues that this passage set farmers and soldiers into separate groups with differing duties, but it seems to put soldier into farming families, specifically stating that someone in the family should do the farming once the soldier is gone, putting them in separate groups but literally the same family.

There are other issues that remain somewhat unresolved concerning military lands. First, who worked the land? If these lands were given to impoverished, landless people in exchange for military service, the soldiers would be fighting during the campaign season, which roughly overlaps the growing season. Lemerle contends that the late Roman coloni system remained in effect, but would an impoverished soldier with government issued military land be granted coloni of their own? They probably would not have been able to afford a slave workforce unless they were granted slaves with their land.

15 The Taktika of Leo VI. Translated by George Dennis. (Washington DC: Dumbarton Oaks Texts, 2010), 47.

CHAPTER 4 ICONOCLASM, THE REVOLT OF ARTAVASDOS, CONSTANTINE V, AND THE DIVISION OF THE OPSIKION THEME

The empire’s rapid defeat, contraction, and humiliation took its toll on the people still living within its (now even fuzzier) borders. Nicephoros’s Short History attributes the disaster to

“devilish” actions on the part of the defenders.1 The Iconoclastic controversy was one of the defining problems the empire faced in the eighth and ninth centuries. Iconoclasm itself was, whether intentionally or not, an attempt to fundamentally alter Byzantine culture. Icons were one of the most popular methods of portraying religious figures in the Orthodox world and banning them would have been a shock to the average person. Leo III implemented these policies in 728-29 according to Theophanes. His son, Constantine V would later become an even more ardent supporter of image suppression than his father, leading to his unfortunate nickname “Kopronymos.” Theophanes writes with obvious hatred that when Constantine V was being baptized, he was so impious even in infancy that he “defecated in the holy font.”2

Historians have long speculated on why these unpopular and provocative policies were adopted.

Whittow attributes it to Anatolian soldiers and clergy feeling that having icons was tantamount to idolatry and attributed Arab victories to their lack of icons.3 While there is definitely merit to that argument, there is an argument that is more linked to a trend that the themata themselves fit into, namely decentralization.

1 Nikephoros Patriarch of Constantinople Short History. Translated by Cyril Mango. (Washington DC: Dumbarton Oaks Collection, 1990), 121. In a particularly graphic description, the defenders of Pergamon disembowel a pregnant woman and use her fetus as a sacrifice for the city’s defenders to wash their hands in before battle. It did not work.

2 History of Thephanes, 552.

3 History of Teophylact, 140.

Haldon argues that Iconoclasm itself was adopted as an effort to impose centralization on an increasingly decentralized Byzantium after the establishment of the themata.4 This would certainly make sense for the reign of Leo III, who clearly saw the dangers of such a decentralized government, having exploited those dangers himself. He, as a theme strategos, seized power from a sitting emperor and would certainly have wanted to strengthen his own position so that the same would not have happened to him. Iconoclast policies would have exerted monarchic legal authority over the themata and their unpopularity in certain areas of the empire, along with their compliance of the law, would have been a clear indication of the power of the monarch to implement these policies. Any places that refused compliance with these laws would clearly show themselves as insubordinate if not rebellious. Of course this was not popular everywhere, and there was resistance. Eventually this backfired after Leo died and Artavasdos used iconodules’ anger to attempt to overthrow an even more zealous Constantine V.

An interesting case study in the evolution of the themata is the events of the mid eighth century in the Opsikion themata. The Opsikion was named for an elite unit of the Byzantine military and was commanded by a count (comes) instead of a strategos, presumably for tradition’s sake since the military unit itself was commanded by a count prior to the establishment of the themata and it was the “most senior theme.”5 The theme was enormous, and in addition to that, it was across the Bosphorous from the empire’s capital. With this in mind, and the Late Roman and Byzantine generals’ penchant for coups, its foundation seems suicidal for the emperor that oversaw its implementation.

4 Haldon. “Some Remarks on the Background of the Iconoclasm Controversy,” Byzantinoslavica (38, Prague, 1977), 162.

5 Treadgold, 23.

During the eighth century the theme revolted more than once and it was the center of the revolt against Constantine V after his ascension to the throne. After the revolt was quelled, that theme was divided first into two, then three separate themata, the Opsikion, the Optimatoi, and

Bucellarioron. The fact that this division coincides with such an enormous revolt implies that there may be a cause and effect relationship there. The division of the Opsikion was perhaps a direct result of its former power and rebellious nature. This illustrates how fluid the implementation of the themata must have been; they were experimental in nature.

The experiment must have been twofold, first questioning whether the themata would be effective at repelling enemy invaders, second questioning whether they would be easy to control.

They represented a very dangerous compromise for the empire, they offered the protection of a fast-mustering militia, but the dangers of a decentralized military.

In 717, Leo the Isaurian, the strategos of Anatolikon and Artavasdos, the strategos of

Armeniakon, conspired to overthrow the new emperor, Theodosius III, after he had recently overthrown Anastasius II. The loyalty of the thematic commanders to Anastasius, if only nominal, is important because it led directly to the overthrow of Theodosius, something that the new emperor, Leo III, would perhaps consider. As a sign of political and personal loyalty,

Artavasdos married Leo’s daughter, Anna, and he was made strategos of the Opsikion theme.6

Over the course of Leo’s 24 year reign, Artavasdos remained one of the most powerful people in the empire.

Upon Leo’s death in 741, his son Constantine succeeded him as Constantine V and almost immediately, Artavasdos and the weight of the Opsikion theme attacked him under the pretense of restoring Orthodoxy to the empire. He managed to survive the attack and ultimately

6 Treadgold, History of the Byzantine State and Society, 345.

defeated Artavasdos after a two and a half year long civil war, and had the vanquished and his sons blinded and sent to a monastery. It was during his reign, after experiencing what having such a powerful theme so close to the capital could mean, that Opsikion was divided into three constituent parts. The Optimatoi theme was formed around the city of Nicaea, Opsikion was formed as the westernmost piece of the theme, and Bucellarion was the eastern section of the theme. This was the first time the theme system experienced such a shocking reversal of events.

This event shows that even in the eighth century, the system itself was still in a process of evolution. It also illustrates how internal forces also shaped the theme system over time.

CHAPTER 5 CHANGE OVER TIME REPRESENTED BY NUMBERS

By the end of the eleventh century, the empire reached its greatest height since the Arab invasion. The military benefited from competent leadership and emperors. The themata at that time were drastically different from the way they were in the seventh century. One of the easiest ways to illustrate this is to look at the different Taktika from the seventh to tenth centuries that give us the names (and numbers) of the different themata. The Taktika were lists of titles in descending order of precedence before the emperor. Several that were written have survived and give us a good cross section of the empire at the time when it was written. They were published and commented upon by Nicolas Oikonomides, and they are named for their discoverer or their location.

These changes represent the changing borders of the empire as well as more divisions within the themata themselves. The following chart will give an idea of just how these numbers fluctuated.

Table 5-1. List of themes. Uspenski’s Text (842-843) Philotheos’s Text (899) Escorial’s Text (971-975) The patrician and strategos of The patrician and anthypatos The Strategos of Armeniakon Armeniakon of Armeniakon The satrician and strategos of The patrician and anthypatos The Strategos of Thraikia Thrakesion of Thraikesion The patrician count of The patrician anthypathos The Strategos of Opsikion Opsikion and count of Opsikion The patrician and strategos of The patrician anthypatos and The strategos of Boukellarion Boukellarion strategos of Boukellarion The patrician and strategos of The patrician anthypatos and The strategos of Kappadokia Kappadokia strategos of Kappadokia The patrician and strategos of The patrician anthypatos and The strategos of Charsianon Pamphlagonia strategos of Charsianon The patrician and strategos of The patrician anthypatos and The strategos of Koloneia Thraka strategos of Koloneia The patrician and strategos of The patrician anthypatos and The strategos of Paphlagonia Makedonia strategos Paphlagonia

Table 5-1. Continued Uspenski’s Text (842-843) Philotheos’s Text (899) Escorial’s Text (971-975) The patrician and strategos of The patrician anthypatos and The strategos of Thraika and Chaldia strategos of Thraka Iannoupolis The patrician and strategos of The patrician anthypatos and The strategos of Chaldia Peloponnese strategos of Makedonia The patrician and strategos of The patrician anthypatos and The strategos of Kiberraioton strategos Chaldia Mesopotamia The patrician and strategos of The patrician anthypatos and The strategos of Sebasteia Hellas strategos of Peloponnese The patrician and strategos of The patrician anthypatos and The strategos of Likandos Sikelia strategos of Nikopoleus The patrician and strategos of The patrician anthypatos and The strategos of Tarsos Kephalonia strategos of Kibyrraiton The patrician and strategos of The patrician anthypatos and The strategos of Thessalonika strategos of Hellas Theodosiopolis` The patrician and strategos of The patrician anthypatos and The strategos of Taron Dyrrachion strategos of Sikelia The patrician and strategos of The patrician anthypatos and The strategos of Melitene Krete strategos of Strymon The patrician and strategos of The patrician anthypatos and The strategos of Anabarze Klimaton strategos of Kephalenia The patrician anthypatos and The strategos of strategos of Thessalonika Peloponnesus The patrician anthypatos and The strategos of Nikopolis strategos of Samos The patrician anthypatos and The strategos of Kibyrraeotos strategos of Dyrrachion The patrician anthypatos and The strategos of Kypros strategos of Samos The patrician anthypatos and The Strategos of Krete strategos of the Aegean Sea The patrician anthypatos and The strategos of Hellas strategos of Cherson The strategos of Sikelia The strategos of Longibardia The strategos of Kalabria The strategos of Beroia The strategos of Strymon, that is to say Chrysaba The strategos of Kephallonia The strategos of Thessalonika The strategos of Dyrrachion The strategos of Samos The strategos of the Aegean Sea

Table 5-1. Continued Uspenski’s Text (842-843) Philotheos’s Text (899) Escorial’s Text (971-975) The strategos of Selukia The strategos of Par….. The strategos of Drougoubiteia The strategos of Jericho The strategos of Dalmatia The strategos of Chersonos The strategos of the Pontus Euxinos The strategos of Larissa The strategos of Derzene ` The strategos of Tephrika, that is to say Leontokoma The strategos of Charpezikion The strategos of Romanoupolis The strategos of Chozanon The strategos of Chortzina The strategos of Adat The strategos of Koptos The strategos of Taranta The strategos of Mopsuesta The strategos of Kaloudia The strategos of Abara The strategos of Samosata The strategos of Hexakomia The strategos of Podandos The strategos of Kama The strategos of Germanikeia The strategos of Edessa The strategos of Chouzizion The strategos of the Kyklades Islands The strategos of Kymbaleos The strategos of Limnia The strategos of Beroa The strategos of Zermion The strategos of Mouzarion The strategos of Soteroupolis , that is to say Bourzo The strategos of New Strymon The strategos of Palatza The strategos of Chouat

Table 5-1. Continued Uspenski’s Text (842-843) Philotheos’s Text (899) Escorial’s Text (971-975) The strategos of Chasanara The strategos of Eirenoupolis The strategos of Dristra The strategos of Meltae The strategos of Artach The strategos of …….. The strategos of Artze The strategos of Erkne The strategos of Chantiarte The strategos of Mesopotamia of the West The strategos of Bosporos1

These lists show how the empire expanded, the method by which the leaders integrated new land into the old system, and how they divided up older, larger themata. Cappadocia reappeared with territory taken from Anatolikon, Samos, the former seat of the strategos of Kibyrrhaiotai, became its own theme, with most of its territory on the Ionian coast, Aegean islands became their own themata, and amid this seemingly chaotic expansion of the military divisions, the empire thrived as it ultimately led to the reign of Basil II. What is certain is that the theme system of the tenth century did not resemble the themata of the seventh century, and it worked.

Also of note are the titles that the strategoi held. They were given specifically civilian titles in addition to their military titles by the ninth century, indicating that by that point there had certainly been the fusion of military and civil power about which Lilie writes.

1 Oikonomides, Les Listes. (my own translation), 47-49, 103-105, 263-269.

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION

The Arab invasions forced the Byzantine Empire into a transition in the seventh century, and that transition took a few centuries to complete. The theme system was not the creation of a single person at a single time, it was the result of around 300 years of experimentation and fluctuation that was the result of an empire in shock after having lost Syria and Palestine, and eventually Egypt and Northern Africa. It represented an effort to defend the empire from its most devastating enemy, the Caliphate. Despite a sound basis in logic, namely that locally stationed soldiers would more competently repel harassing or invading enemies, it did not start out as the most effective method of defense. Over time, it was tweaked and turned into a very good fighting force. The empire even used an existing infrastructure to arm its soldiers by the kommerkiarioi. By the eleventh century, the end result was that every new tiny piece of land taken from the Caliphate in the south or the Bulgars in the north was turned into a new theme, resulting in an explosion of the number of strategoi and themata.

All of this illustrates the experimental nature of the themata. They changed and adapted as new challenges arose, hence the number jumping from 6 to 82 during those 300 years. The most drastic single example of this occurred when Constantine V corrected the mistake of creating a super-powerful theme next to the capital after the revolt of Artavasdos. That revolt took two and a half years to quell and nearly cost Constantine his life. That being said, he owed his crown to the successful revolt of his father, Leo III.

Leo III implemented iconoclast policies that were meant to correct a deviation from godliness, boost the morale of the soldiers, and it can be argued to attempt to impose a more centralized policy after the recent trends in decentralization, starting with Maurice and the

Exarchates and culminating in the creation of the theme system he exploited to gain power. To

that end, it certainly would have forced the hands of any disloyal elements of the empire, though it succeeded more in angering a large portion of the population who venerated their icons.

Recent research into the subject has been hampered by arguments over the creation of the

“theme system” and whether or not the classic model of that “system” was accurate. It is not easy to argue that the actual “theme” was changed over time, but the word “theme” did not, leading to a lot of anachronistic uses of the word, or seemingly anachronistic uses of the word.

Originally as stated in the beginning, it is believed that the word “theme” represented an army, but then it represented an army planted in a certain geographic location, then that geographic location, in the case of the Kibyrrhaiotai theme, it was a naval theme, completely bereft of its army connotation. Ostrogorsky’s definition of the “theme system,” which had standing armies given land by the government in return for hereditary military service may never have existed, and does not seem to have existed in the seventh century, when the themata arguably were created.

It appears that the themata were created some time after the death of Heraclius, according to Constantine VII, but it may have been influenced by his policies and the policies of his predecessors, like Maurice. He began the process of decentralizing the government for defensive purposes with the creation of the exarchates, and they worked rather well. Kaegi’s argument that the themata were created when Heraclius replaced governors with generals is not entirely convincing, but those actions may have influenced his children’s actions. Ostrogorsky’s argument that they were created when Heraclius settled soldiers on the land also does not hold water when Lemerle has shown clearly that there was a delineation between “soldier” and

“farmer” and the agrarian laws that “prove” that soldiers were also farmers more than likely

“prove” that there were predatory landowners who would take advantage of smaller landowners.

It is likely that the theme system was implemented piecemeal and evolved over time, perhaps resembling something resembling Ostrogorsky’s “system” in at the very least the tenth century.

The theme system did start with snags, a few lost battles, some rebellions, and eventually a need to gut and restructure the largest and most problematically powerful theme, the Opsikion.

This occurred during the iconoclasm controversy, which was an attempt to curb the Arab conquests through religious means, but also may have represented an attempt at imposing imperial power over the now decentralized themata.

LIST OF REFERENCES

Brooks, E. W. 1901. “Arabic List of the Byzantine Themes.” The Journal of Hellenic Studies. 21: 67-77.

Bury, John. 1911. The Imperial Administrative System in the Ninth Century with a Revised Text of The Kleterologion of Philotheos. London.

Curta, Florin. 2005. “Byzantium in Dark Age Greece (the numismatic evidence in its Baltic context).” Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies. 29: 113-146.

Dennis, George. tr. 2010. The Taktika of Leo VI. Washington DC.

Diehl, Charles. 1905. “L’Origin du régime des thèmes dans L’empire Byzantin.“ In Études Byzantines. Paris: 276-292.

Gibb, Hamilton A.R. 1958. “Arab-Byzantine Relations under the Umayyad Caliphate.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers. 12: 219-233.

Haldon, John. 2004. “The Ajnad and the Thematic Myth.” In Arab Byzantine Relations in Early Islamic Times. Ed. Michael Bonner. Burlington VT: 379-423.

----- 1990. Byzantium in the Seventh Century. Cambridge.

----- 1995. “Military Service, Lands, and the Status of Soldiers.” In State, Army and Society in Byzantium. Bookfield, VT: 1-67.

----- 1977. “Some Remarks on the Background of the Iconoclasm Controversy,” Byzantinoslavica 38: 161-184.

Kaegi, Walter. 1992. Byzantium and the Early Islamic Conquests. Oxford.

----- 1967. “Some Reconsiderations on the Themes (Seventh to Ninth Centuries).” Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinishchen Geselleschaft. 16: 39-53.

Karayannopulos, Ionnas. 1956. “Contribution au problème des Thémes byzantines.” Hellénisme Contemporain 10: 455-502.

Laiou, Angeliki and Cécil Morrison. 2007. The Byzantine Economy. Cambridge.

Lemerle, Paul. 1979. The Agrarian History of Byzantium from the Origins to the Twelfth Century, The Sources and Problems. Galway.

Lilie, R.J. 1984. “Die Zweihundertjährige Reform. Zu den Anfängen der Themenorganisation im 7. und 8. Jahrhundert.” Byzantinoslavica, 45: 425-460.

Mango, Cyril and Roger Scott. 1997. The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor: Byzantine and Near Eastern History, AD 284-813. 1997. Oxford.

Mango, Cyril. tr. 1990. Nikephoros Patriarch of Constantinople Short History. Washington DC.

Oikonomidès, Nicolas. 1972. Les Lists de Préséance Byzantines Des IX et X Siècles: Introduction, Texte, Teaduction et Commentaire. Paris.

Ostrogorsky, George. 1969. History of the Byzantine State. New Brunswick.

Paschal Chronicle. TLG 715.20. (my translation)

Pertusi, A. tr. 1952. De Thematibus. 1952. Vatican City.

Treadgold, Warren. 1995. Byzantium and its Army, 284-1081. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

----- 1997. A History of the Byzantine State and Society. Stanford.

Whitby, Michael and Mary. tr. 1986. The History of Theophylact Simocatta. Oxford.

Whittow, Mark. 1996. The Making of Byzantium 600-1025. Berkley and Los Angeles.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Sean Platzer received a BA in history and classical studies from the University of Florida in 2009 and an MA from the University of Florida in 2013. His academic interests include the medieval Balkans and the Middle East.