The Early Muslim Raids Into Anatolia and Byzantine Reactions Under Emperor Constans Ii1
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
muslim raids into anatolia and byzantine reactions 73 THE EARLY MUSLIM RAIDS INTO ANATOLIA AND BYZANTINE REACTIONS UNDER EMPEROR CONSTANS II1 Walter E. Kaegi The most crucial imperial reign for Byzantine-Muslim encounters in the seventh century, other than that of Heraclius himself, is that of his grandson, the enigmatic Constans II (641-668). Yet his military and diplomatic activities in Anatolia between 641 and 663 and in the central and western Mediterranean between 663 and his assas- sination in 668 in Syracuse, Sicily have presented something of a riddle and have puzzled many historians. I may not be able to solve all aspects of the riddle but I shall try to reexamine problems that relate to his efforts to check or reverse the Early Islamic Conquests in the east, with special attention to Anatolia. First I shall try to look at the larger historical context for these momentous Muslim- Christian encounters. Historians face a lot of challenges. Many today object to paying attention to leaders at the top, that is, they criticize the notion or value of studying ‘great men,’ or even lesser leaders such as Constans II, whom no one regards as a great man. So for some even inves- tigating such an emperor is faulty and unworthy of labor. There is another problem. The paucity of primary sources in Latin, Greek, and Arabic presents a major challenge to all historians and has dis- couraged research on the seventh century in Italy and elsewhere. To understand Constans II we must understand the empire’s challenges 1 I wish to thank Dr. Grypeou and Professor Malik for honoring me with an invitation to participate in this valuable conference, which has become the occa- sion for me to think about a range of problems. I received invaluable comments from others who participated in the conference. This essay has also profited from comments that I received on related papers: ‘The Riddle of Constans II in Italy’, University of Bologna, Sede Ravenna, 12 March 2003, and University of Bologna, Bologna campus 27 March 2003; ‘Reinterpreting Constans II (641-668)’, at the 29th Annual Byzantine Studies Conference (Bates College, Lewiston, Maine), 17 October 2003. 74 walter e. kaegi in Anatolia, Africa and even further away, in Italy. This is a reading of the evidence in a wider context. We must start by looking at Constans II,2 who inherited power in late 641 at the age of eleven, after the premature death of his father Heraclius Constantine or Constantine III, who had reigned only a few months after the decease of dynasty’s founder, Heraclius. Constans needs reevaluation in the light of the most recent research on his grandfather Heraclius. Recently completed research on Heraclius underscores some characteristics of Heraclius with which to compare Constans II.3 While avoiding any exaggeration in comparisons let us start now to look at the two. Constans was aware of strife at the death of Heraclius and his own vulnerability in the face of factions within the capital of Constantinople and in the provinces of the empire, and more particularly within the army. It is inappropriate here to review some of the conclusions about internal strife reached more than two decades ago, back in 1981.4 We need to examine Anato- lia in the context of Constans II’s reign. Indeed even the cause for Constans II’s stay in Italy emerges from a longer historical context that preceded his arrival in spring 663 in southern Italy. Constans II was very insecure at the beginning of his reign. All eyes were on him. The legitimacy of the Heraclian dynasty was none too secure anyway. Being young and vulnerable he had to prove himself. Yet the heritage of Heraclius was an ambiguous one: magnificent victories but also many terrible military disasters, conspiracies, and scandals. Constans II and his advisors faced the problem of finding a justification for his rule and a standard or benchmark and justi- fication for his policies and rule. But there was another problem. It seems that the members of the Heraclian dynasty, including that of Constans II (to judge from trial of Pope Martin I and Maximos the Confessor), sought to deflect blame for defeats at the hands of Saracens or Muslims to others than themselves, namely, to others’ disobedience of imperial orders or to deliberate sabotage of impe- rial initiatives.5 Therefore they could continue to try to emulate 2 ‘Konstans II.’, # 3691 Prosographie der Mittelbyzantinischen Zeit, Abt. 1, Bd. 2, Berlin, 2000, pp. 480-4. 3 W.E. Kaegi, Heraclius, Emperor of Byzantium, Cambridge, 2003, and W.E. Kaegi, Byzantium and the Early Islamic Conquests, rev. ed., Cambridge, 1995. 4 W.E. Kaegi, Byzantine Military Unrest 471-843: An Interpretation, Amsterdam and Las Palmas, 1981, pp. 154-80. 5 Accusation against Pope Martin I for alleged correspondence and financial .