Dionyssia Missiou

The importanceof Macedoniaduring the Byzantineera

Throughout its long history, has always been the bastion of Hellenism.' This fact was already acknowledged by the historian Polybius at the beginning of the Roman era: "We should pay great honour to the Macedonians, who spend the greater part of their lives in constant fighting against the barbarians for the safety of Greece. Who does not know that Greece would always have been in the greatest danger if we had not had the Macedonians as a bulwark." 2 This too was its role during the Byzantine era, and especially in its final stage, when the Empire was faced with a host of enemies, particularly the Turks. After the interval of Frankish rule VIII, the first of the Palaiologan dynasty, restored the in 1261.3 It is said that, shortly before his triumphal entry into , some of Michael's soldiers discovered the body of Basil II the Bulgar-slayer in a monastery where he had been buried in 1025. The monastery was then in ruins and being used to house animals. The body, naked from head to toe, was still complete and intact but the locals had mocked it by putting the reed of a shepherd's pipe in its mouth. The historian goes on to describe the considerable pomp and ceremony of the reburial which Michael now arranged as a way of showing his great respect for the relic. 4 To me the episode symbolises not only the restoration of the empire but also the importance Macedonia had for the Palaiologan Empire: Michael VIII recovered all the territories in western and north-western Macedonia, while Basil II was the most important emperor of the Macedonian dynasty, which some claim was descended from Alexander of Macedonia, Alexander the Great. Many scholars have studied the question of the origin of , the founder of the so-called Macedonian dynasty, and it is now generally held that he was of Armenian descent. 5 Everything we know about Basil I, and consequently about his origins, dates from after his ascent to the throne and so must be considered as forming part of this dynastic propaganda. The historians from the Macedonian era took the view that the founder of the Macedonian dynasty was a descendant of , that he was a scion of the (Armenian) Arsacid family and

I. A. VacaJopoulos, Hist01y of MacedoniaI 354-1833( 1973) 5. 2 PolybiusIX 35. 3. On the Roman idea in the time of the Palaiologoi see D.A. Zakythinos,"Rome dans la pensee politique de Byzance du XIIIe au XVe siecle. La theorie 'romaine' a l'epreuve des faits" Bv,avrwv. Arp1epwµaarov A. N. Erparo (Athens 1986) I 209-221. 4. GeorgePachymeres, On Michaeland AndronikosPa/aiologos II 21, ed A. Failler,Relations historiques(Paris 1984) 175-7, with bibliography. 5. N. Adontz, "L'iige et l'origine de l'empereur Basile Ier (867-886)" Byzantion9 (1934) 223--60;A.N. Bees, "Eine unbeachteteQuelle Uber die Abstammungdes KaisersBa~ilios I des Mazedoniers"BNJbb 4 ( 1923) 76; P.G. der Sahaghian,"Un documentarmenien de la genealogiede Ba~il!er" BZ 20 (1911) 165-76.

ByzantineMacedonia. Identity Image and History. Edited by John Burke & Roger Scott (Byzantina Australiensia 13, Melbourne 2000). The importance of Macedonia during the Byzantine era 103 that he was descended from the Macedonian kings Philip and Alexander. 1 The most important question for the historian, then, is not whether there is any basis for these claims, or which of these versions, if any, corresponds to the truth but rather, given that the whole thing was an exercise in propaganda, to determine its purpose. It is my belief that these legends had a dual purpose: to provide the founder of the dynasty with a noble origin, and to make its members acceptable to the imperial army, whose two most important corps were those of the and the Macedonians. The other question which I find extremely significant is why Basil was described only as a Macedonian, 2 especially since in all probability he was in fact Armenian, and why during the final years of the Empire the historical sources refer only to Basil I's Macedonian heritage. 3 The answer to these questions is, I think, also related to the particular importance of Macedonia, especially during the Empire's final years, when it formed the major portion of its territory. The particular importance that Macedonia acquired during the Empire's struggle against a host of enemies, with the Turks first and foremost, was largely ideological in nature, having to do with the dissemination of the romance of Alexander the Great. This story was the written form of the myth created by Alexander himself 4 and filled out by popular imagination, distorting the actual historical events in such a way that the Alexander of the legend is quite a different figure from the historical Alexander. This legend acquired an ideological baggage appropriate to the climate of the times, including, for example, the incorporation of the legend of Gog and Magog, the evil people who, according to the prophecy of Ezekiel and confirmed in the Apocalypse, 5 will burst forth in the last days and accompany Satan to ravage the earth before their final destruction. The story as it developed in the romance took the form that Alexander had built a gate in the north, behind which the people of Gog and Magog were confined until their destined outbreak at the end of the world; these people were identified with the nations which were threatening Europe.6 This story was taken as predicting the final victory

I. Genes. 107; TheophCont215-6;Cedr. 184. 2. Ba~il I owed his epithet 'Macedonian' to the fact, that his family had been established in Macedonia since the reign of (457- 74 ); he himself was born in Adrianopolis, a town in which administratively belonged to the theme of Macedonia. 3. G. Moravcsik, "Avc.ovuµov aqnepcoµattKov noiTJµa 1tEpi 'tO\l au'toKp