CHAPTER FOUR

CONFLICT AND CONTACT, 775–802

4.1 The under Leo IV (775–780)

The death of V marked the end of one of the more martial phases in Byzantine-Bulgar relations.1 His campaigns had thrown the khan- ate into internecine strife and a prolonged period of instability, which con- tinued during the brief reign of his successor Leo IV. However, the latter, faced with a new wave of Arab attacks in the east, had little choice but to turn his back on the , and as a result, the Bulgars were gradually able to recover from this crisis. Before we can observe these events, let alone interpret them, it is necessary to introduce the reader to the broad outlines of the political history of the empire under Leo IV. Leo IV came to power in September 775.2 Although Theophanes’ attitude towards the new emperor is relatively hostile, the latter deserves credit for trying to moderate the divisions left behind by his father.3 An iconoclast by conviction, Leo kept the decrees of the Council of Hiereia in force, but aban- doned the measures taken by against both monasticism and the invocation of the Virgin and the , in an attempt, no doubt, to build up a broader range of support.4 According to Agapios of Menbidj, in the beginning of his reign Leo allowed all those exiled or arrested by his father to return home.5 He is also said to have appointed abbots to major bishoprics, and some of his appointees may well have been secret iconophiles.6 This is probably true of Paul of , the successor of the patriarch Niketas the Slav, who died early in 780.7 Some hagiographical sources have attempted to

1 For a summary of these events, see above 2.3. 2 Rochow 1996, 5. 3 Ostrogorsky 1968, 175. 4 . . . οὓτος τῆς μὲν τοῦ πατρὸς αἱρέσεως ἢν μέτοχος, τῆς δὲ πράξεως ἀμέτοχος; Constantine of Tios, Encomium, c. 10; Vita Nicetae Med., c. 30; Speck 1978, 70–73, 99–101. 5 Agapios, 547. 6 Theoph., 449.14–16; Theod. Stud.,Laudatio Plat., 821B–C. 7 Some sources claim that Paul was initially a supporter of . Still, the author of the Chronographia calls him “venerable” and “most holy patriarch”; Theoph., 453.7, 457.14–15; Rochow 1996, 15. 144 chapter four portray the emperor as an active iconoclast, but the reports of violent perse- cutions of monks they provide have been rejected as fictitious.8 Early in his reign, Leo’s position on the throne was insecure. His half- brothers, Christophoros and (Constantine V’s eldest sons by his third wife Eudokia), presented a serious threat.9 Indeed, Constantine V had crowned Christophoros and Nikephoros Caesars, and given Niketas and Anthimos, Eudokia’s third and fourth sons respectively, the next-highest rank of .10 This had apparently given the impression that Leo’s younger brothers would have some claim to rule alongside him. In response, the emperor took certain steps to consolidate his hold on power. In the Holy Week of 776, he encouraged troops from the tagmata and the themes to demand the of his five-year old son Constantine as his heir, and eventually extracted a written oath by which the Senate, senior military offi- cers, the city Guilds and the citizens, all swore that they would accept no emperor other than Constantine VI and his descendants.11 One month later, in May 776, Leo stripped the Nikephoros of his title for allegedly plot- ting against him with the support of certain imperial dignitaries and officers.12 The text is unclear, but it appears that he then exiled all his half-brothers, along with the other conspirators, to the .13 Although some of Constantine V’s generals, including Michael Lacha- nodrakon and Anthony the patrikios, remained in imperial service, most senior military commands seem to have gone to men who had not previ- ously held high office.14 The of the Anatolics Artavadz Mamikonian, the new commander of the Boukellarion Tačat Anjevacʿi (Tatzates), as well as the strategos of the Armeniakon Varaztirocʿ (Baristerotzes) all owed their positions to Leo, hence their loyalty to him was guaranteed.15 The emperor also sought to establish tighter control over the two tagmata in Constanti- nople, the Scholai and the Exkoubitores, which, since the reign of his father, had functioned both as the personal guards of the emperor and the nucleus of a mobile and efficient field force.16 These units were formed of especially

8 Rochow 1996, 14f, 29; Speck 1978, 101ff. 9 Constantine’s third marriage took place ca. 752. For Christophoros and Nikephoros, see PmbZ #1101 and 5267 respectively. 10 Theoph., 443.28–444.4; Nikeph., c. 87.1–5. 11 Theoph., 450.13–23; Treadgold 1988, 9–11. 12 Theoph., 450.23–26; 454.15. 13 Theoph., 450.26–451.2; Mango and Scott 1997, 622 n. 9; Rochow 1996, 11 n. 72. 14 Theoph., 440.27, 442.24–26, 451.13–16. For Lachanodrakon, seePmbZ #5027; for Anthony, patrikios and commander of the Scholai, see PmbZ, #531. 15 Theoph., 451.14–16; Łewond, 129–130, 140, 142. 16 Haldon 1984, 231–234.