The New International Encyclopædia/Byzantine Empire
BYZANTINE EMPIRE, also styled the East Roman, Eastern, Greek, or Later Roman Empire; but a better name is ‘the Empire of New Rome.’ On the death of Theodosius (q.v.), in 395, the Roman Empire was divided between his two sons, Arcadius, who had the eastern half, with his capital at Constantinople, and Honorius, who had the western half. This event is generally taken for the beginning of the so-called Byzantine Empire, which took its name from Byzantium (q.v.), the ancient name for its capital. It came to an end in 1453, when Constantinople was captured by the Turks.
Arcadius (395–408) was weak and wholly under the domination of his successive ministers, Rufinus, Eutropius, and Gainas, of whom the first and the last were Germans; Gainas, who had murdered Rufinus, was succeeded in power by the Empress Eudoxia. Only after her death, in 404, was Arcadius at all independent. He was succeeded by his son Theodosius II., a boy of 7, who ruled from 408 to 450. During his whole reign the government was ably carried on by his sister Pulcheria, who was noted for her rigid virtue. During his reign the Huns under Attila exacted repeated contributions of money and gifts. Attila’s demands ceased as soon as they met with a firm refusal from Marcianus (450–457), whom Pulcheria married after the death of Theodosius. Leo the Thracian (457–474) was elevated to the throne by the German general Aspar, who was all-powerful until he was murdered by the Emperor in 471. Zeno (474–491), son-in-law of Leo, succeeded, although the latter’s son Leo II., a boy of 4, was at first proclaimed Emperor. After the death of Zeno his widow married Anastasius I. (491–518), who obtained the Empire through her favor. Justin (518–527) was an Illyrian peasant, of Slav descent: as a soldier of fortune he had risen rapidly. He put an end to the religious troubles which had existed under his predecessors. Leo, Zeno, Anastasius, and Justin were all men of experience, who pursued a cautious policy, recruited an army of natives, and made administrative and financial reforms, and left the treasury full, the army strong, and the Empire intact. But for their labors, the reign of Justinian the Great (527–565) would have been impossible. By his conquests and able administration he raised the Empire to a higher degree of prosperity and power than it was ever again to experience. His entire policy was directed toward unity, and this formed the keynote for the future history of the Byzantine Empire. He sought to bring all under one State, one Church, and one law. The Roman law was compiled and published under his auspices in the form of a monumental code. After his death the Empire declined rapidly. His great enterprises had exhausted the treasury and necessitated heavy taxation. His successor, Justin II. (565–578), without his ability, aspired to greater glory. The Persian War, which he provoked needlessly, drained the resources of the Empire, taxation became a crushing burden, the Avars and Slavs devastated the northern border, the Lombards overran most of Italy. Inefficient or unfortunate rulers succeeded, Tiberius Constantius (578–582), Maurice (582–602), and Phocas (602–610)—until, after the death of the last, Heraclius became Emperor (610–641). He humbled Persia, which had been the great opponent of Byzantium, and by 628 he had restored the Empire to its old supremacy in the East and was hailed as ‘the new Scipio.’ But the provinces of the Empire were exhausted by the long wars and had suffered from the hostile occupation. Consequently, when the Arabs began their great missionary conquests the emperors were too weak to oppose them successfully and were forced to see one after another of their provinces wrested from their grasp. The house of Heraclius furnished two other able emperors—Constans II. (641–668) and his son, Constantine (668–685) , who fought bravely against the Mussulmans and checked their advance. But the reign of Justinian II. (685–695 and 705–711) was disastrous, and after his death anarchy brought the Empire to the verge of ruin. The rebel, Leo the Isaurian (717–741), saved the State. He defended Constantinople during the long siege by the Saracens, and reorganized the Empire, which, in spite of the efforts and ability of Heraclius and his grandson and great-grandson, had been steadily decaying. Leo’s descendants are remembered chiefly for their efforts to restrict the worship of images. (See Iconoclasm. But this is not just, as the Empire gained in strength and prosperity under the Isaurian dynasty. Constantine Copronymus (741–775) was a great warrior and extended the boundaries of the Empire both in Asia and Europe. He reformed the administration, planted colonies along the frontiers, and encouraged commerce. His son, Leo IV. (775–780), was able, but he was succeeded by his son, Constantine (780–797), a boy of 9. The latter was under the guardianship of his mother, Irene, until he was 21. Then the two reigned conjointly until 797, when Irene had her son blinded and deposed. Her five years of rule (797–802) were very disastrous to the Empire. Nicephorus I. (802–811) was compelled to pay tribute to the Caliph Harun-al-Rashid in order to make peace with him, and was slain by the Bulgarians. After two years of disaster, Leo the Armenian (813–820) defeated the Bulgarians and began a prosperous reign, only to be murdered by conspirators. Under Michael the Amorian (820–829) the Saracens conquered Crete and began the subjugation of Sicily. His son, Theophilus (829–842), was engaged in almost constant warfare, bloody but indecisive, with the Caliphs. His reign, however, was prosperous at home, and he was renowned for his justice and the great buildings which he constructed. The Empire in his time was wealthy, and Constantinople was the centre of European trade. His son, Michael III. (842–867) , was only 4 years old when he became Emperor. He grew up a drunkard, and no one attempted to revenge his death when Basil the Macedonian (867–886), whom he had made co-Emperor, caused him to be murdered.
Under the emperors of the Macedonian line the government was strengthened by the regular transmission of the imperial power. In fact, the whole period from 717 to 1057 was a time when the Empire was on the whole prosperous, well administered, and triumphant. Basil was successful in all his wars, except in Sicily, where Syracuse was captured by the Saracens in 878. He had great ability; his code of laws remained in use for centuries. His son, Leo the Wise (886–912), and his grandson, Constantine Porphyrogenitus (912–959), were literary men of no mean ability. Fortunately, the Empire was prosperous and its enemies were weak. Romanus II. (959–963), son of Constantine, reconquered Crete through his able general, Nicephorus Phocas. The latter became Emperor (963–969) by marrying Romanus's sister, but he ruled the Empire in the name of his two step-sons, Basil II. (963–1025) and Constantine VIII. (963–1028), and the same was done by John Zimisces (969–978), who murdered Nicephorus and married his widow. Like Nicephorus, John Zimisces was an able soldier. He defeated the Russians and reconquered Antioch and Edessa from the Saracens. Basil II. succeeded to the Empire, crushed the Bulgarians, and extended his dominions farther than any Emperor since Justinian. Constantine VIII. was sole Emperor from 1025 to 1028. He had taken little part in the government before and was very weak. On his death without a son the husbands and creatures of his daughter Zoë ruled the Empire for twenty-six years. It was on the whole a very disastrous period. But Theodora, Zoë's sister, who ruled from 1054 to 1057, was able and virtuous. With her the Macedonian line ended.
For twenty-six years there was a succession of emperors of little importance, none of them able to cope with the Seljukian Turks, who rapidly conquered all of the Asiatic possessions of the Empire. Alexis Comnenus (1081–1118) was compelled to face new dangers from the attacks of the Normans and the armies of the Crusaders. He struggled bravely and was successful in many respects. But, unfortunately, the finances of the Empire were seriously impaired by the diversion of commerce from Constantinople occasioned by the growth of the Italian cities and the foundation of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. In addition, the policy of Alexis caused the Greeks to be bitterly hated by the Crusaders. Alexis was succeeded by John the Good (1118–43), who was vigorous and warlike. He was constantly engaged in fighting the Seljuks, Hungarians, Servians, and Armenians. Manuel Comnenus (1143–80) engaged in many wars for his own personal glory, but neglected the finances and government, so that he left the Empire in a bad condition. In the next twenty-four years incompetent rulers brought the Empire to the verge of ruin. Cyprus was lost, Bulgaria became independent, and the Seljuks threatened to conquer Constantinople. The Venetians were hostile, and allied themselves for an expedition with the Crusaders, who coveted the riches of Constantinople, which seemed to them fabulous. In 1204 Constantinople was taken and sacked and the Latin Empire established. This was very weak and lasted only until 1261, when Michael Palæologus, the ruler of Nicæa, the strongest of the Greek States which had arisen when the capital was captured by the Franks, expelled the Latins and reestablished a Byzantine Empire. But this empire was much smaller than it had been in 1204, and the ruling family, the Paleologi, were unable to make it powerful. Michael VIII. (1261–82) attempted to gain allies by offering to bring the Greek Church under the authority the the Pope. His son, Andronicus II. (1282–1328), was utterly incompetent, and the last years of his reign were filled with civil wars. A period of disaster followed. The command of the sea was lost, the finances were in hopeless disorder, and the rulers were weak. The Ottoman Turks were now establishing their power on the ruins of the Seljukian realm in Asia Minor, and one by one they conquered the provinces of the Empire. Under John V. (1341–91) the Turks made their first permanent conquest in Europe by seizing Gallipoli in 1354. Manuel II. (1391–1425) and John VIII. (1425–48) were feeble rulers and practically vassals of the Sultan. Constantine XIII. (1448–53) struggled bravely but unsuccessfully to retain his capital, the only portion of the Empire which was left, and finally, in 1453, Constantinople was taken by the Turks. The capture of the capital marks the end of the Byzantine Empire.
Until recently it has been the fashion to treat the Byzantine Empire with contempt. Gibbon described its history as “a tedious and uniform tale of weakness and misery.” Voltaire spoke of it as “a worthless repertory of declamation and miracles, disgraceful to the human mind.” Montesquieu wrote: “The history of the Greek Empire, from Phocas on, is merely a succession of revolts, schisms, and treacheries.” Taine condemned it as “a gigantic moldiness lasting a thousand years.” In 1854 a writer in an English review “rejoiced over the supposed moment when the last Byzantine historian was blown into the air by our brave allies the Turks.” But in the last half-century all this has been changed. Scholars now recognize the inestimable debt which we owe to the Byzantine Empire. They realize that for eight centuries the Roman Empire, transplanted to New Rome, i.e. Constantinople, persisted in its task; that law, literature, industry, and commerce did not cease to flourish; that Constantinople stemmed the tide of invasion from the East, which otherwise might have engulfed all Europe. They have learned that the most striking feature of Byzantine history is “its constant vitality and power of revival,” its “marvelous recuperative energy,” shown at every crisis in its history.
It is impossible to characterize this history as a whole, because it covers a period of time greater in length than the history of England from the Norman Conquest to the present day. For more than a thousand years dynasties changed, wars and revolutions took place, the fortunes of the Empire sank and rose again. Of the 107 persons who ruled from 395 to 1453 as emperors or associates of emperors, 20 were assassinated, 18 were blinded or otherwise mutilated, 12 died in a monastery or a prison, 12 abdicated under compulsion or of their own free will, 3 died of starvation, 8 died in battle or as a result of accident—a total of 73. Vice, corruption, and cruelty were the dominant features at some periods; the government was despotic; the people were superstitious, effeminate, and servile. Yet the Empire lived on; the administration and organization remained effective; the traditions and civilization of Old Rome were maintained. Great wealth, which was a source of wonder to all visitors, was accumulated, and great armies, which were the most effective in the world, were maintained. If any scholar, in spite of the complexity of Byzantine history, should attempt a generalization, probably he would say, as Frederic Harrison has said—“first, that the Byzantine Empire preserved more of the tradition, civil and military organization, wealth, art, and literature of the older Rome than existed elsewhere; and, secondly, that in many essentials of civilization it was more modern than the nascent nations of the West.” These are the two facts which are most striking, its antiquity and modernity, and just here is one of the reasons why Byzantine history is not attractive to us: its antiquity seems only an aping of the past; its modernity fails to interest us because we have reached a higher development than the Byzantine Empire ever did.
New Rome, like old Rome, had a wonderful capacity for absorbing and assimilating less civilized peoples. The Empire included representatives of all the races of eastern Europe. It opened to all full participation in its life. Its emperors might be of any nationality. Any barbarian of ability, if baptized, was welcome to its army, administration, and Court. This was one of the causes of its strength. A second was the position of Constantinople. The city could not be reduced by starvation. Its walls, until 1204, proved strong enough to defy all invaders. Then, too, while the Western Empire was being overrun by the barbarians, the Asiatic provinces of New Rome enjoyed an almost continuous peace. From their wealth the Empire secured the resources necessary to hold its European possessions, and to carry on the wars of Justinian. Finally, it was fortunate in having a large number of able emperors. Most of them were not brilliant personalities who command admiration, but rather cautious administrators, indefatigable workers, who labored slowly and steadily to strengthen the Empire, to fill the treasury, and to improve the administrative service.
The Empire, although conservative, was not wholly unprogressive. This is exemplified in its military organization, its law, its art, and its manufactures. Thus, after the battle of Adrianople (q.v.), the Byzantines realized the fact that the old infantry army was no longer efficient, and formed a new army mainly of cavalry. The infantry they supplied with bows and lances in place of swords and javelins. They developed armor for protection. They used a smaller and more effective tactical unit than the old legion, and they recruited an army of subjects, not mercenaries. They developed the art of fortification and the use of Greek fire. They built a great navy. Oman says: “The art of war as it was understood at Constantinople in the Tenth Century was the only system of real merit existing in the world; no Western nation could have afforded such a training to its officers till the Sixteenth, or we may even say the Seventeenth Century.” The Corpus of Justinian continued for centuries to be the law of the Byzantine Empire. But it was constantly modified and expanded to suit new conditions. In the Ninth Century a new code was drawn up (see Basilica) in which the influences of Christianity and advancing civilization are marked. In the Eighth Century a maritime code, a military code, and a rural code were developed to meet the changed conditions. The first, especially, is of great importance in the history of legal ideas. Byzantine art (q.v.) is treated at length elsewhere. Here it deserves mention as an indication of the great influence which the Byzantine Empire exercised on Russia, on the Mohammedan caliphates in the East and West, on the south of Italy, on Venice, and on some parts of France and Germany. To-day examples of Byzantine architecture are to be found in every Christian and Mohammedan country. In the manufacture of mosaics, silks, and embroidered satins, the Byzantine Empire was preëminent for centuries. The samite and sendal of the mediæval romances came from Constantinople.
The direct services of the Byzantine Empire to Europe were many and varied. Four, in particular, deserve emphasis. (1) It was the bulwark of Europe from which host after host of invaders were beaten back. For seven centuries, almost unaided, it bore the brunt of every attack, and thus enabled the Western nations to develop and gain strength. (2) It preserved the Greek and Roman culture and transmitted it to western Europe as the people of the younger nations became sufficiently advanced to share in the priceless heritage. Some of this culture was constantly filtering through, but during the period of the Crusades and later the transmission was most marked. (3) It maintained the world's commerce, which for centuries was centred at Constantinople. The pupils whom Constantinople had formed, Venice and Amalfi, wrested the sceptre of the seas from her only in the Eleventh Century. (4) It was the civilizer of all eastern Europe, where the influence of the Greek Church, Greek art and architecture, and Greek administration is everywhere evident at the present day.
Bibliography. The original authorities for the history of the Byzantine Empire are the authors whose works are included in the collection of the Byzantine Historians. The first edition was published in Paris, in thirty-six volumes, between 1648 and 1711. This collection was reprinted with additions in Venice, (1727–33) in the Nineteenth Century, Niebuhr, assisted by Bekker, the Dindorfs, and others, edited the so-called ‘Bonn Edition’ under the name of the Corpus Scriptorum Historiœ Byzantinœ. But this last edition is extremely unscholarly. There are separate editions of the most prominent chroniclers, which will be found under their respective names. Of the secondary works, the following may be mentioned: Finlay, History of Greece from B.C. 146 to A.D. 1864, edited by Tozer (7 vols., Oxford, 1877); Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, edited by Bury (7 vols., London, 1896–1901); Krumbacher, Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur (Munich, 1897); Bury, The Later Roman Empire (New York, 1889); Heyd, Histoire du commerce du Levant au Moyen Age (Leipzig and Dessau, 1885); Krause, Die Byzantiner des Mittelalters in ihrem Staats-, Hof- und Privatleben (Halle, 1869); Rambaud, L’empire grec au Xme siècle (Paris, 1870); Pears, Fall of Constantinople (New York, 1885); Oman, Byzantine Empire (London, 1892); Harrison, Byzantine History in the Early Middle ages (London, 1900). The last gives an excellent select bibliography of the monographs on special phases of Byzantine history. Very useful bibliographical clues can also be found in the appendices and notes to Bury’s edition of Gibbon.
| Arcadius, 395–408. | Justin I., 618–527. | ||
| Theodosius II., 408–450 | Justinian I., 527–565. | ||
| Marcian, 450–457. | Justin II., 565–578. | ||
| Leo the Thracian, 457–474. | Tiberius Constantinus, 578–582. | ||
| Zeno the Isaurian, 474–491. | Maurice, 582–602. | ||
| Anastasius I., 491–518. | Phocas, 602–610.
| ||
| Heraclian Dynasty, 610–617 | |||
| Heraclius I., 610–641. | Leontius, 695–697. | ||
| Heraclius Constantinus, 641. | Tiberius Apsimarus, 697–705. | ||
| Heracleonas, 641. | Justinian II. (restored), 705–711. | ||
| Constantinus (Constans II.), 641–668. | Philippicus Bardanes, 711–713. | ||
| Constantine IV. of V., Pogonatus, 668–685. | Artemius Anastasius, 713–716. | ||
| Justinian II., 685–695. | Theodosius III., 716–717. | ||
| Syrian (Isaurian) Dynasty, 717–820 | |||
| Leo III., the Isaurian, 717–741. | Irene, 797–802. | ||
| Constantine V., or VI., Copronymus, 741–775. | Nicephorus I., 802–811. | ||
| Leo IV., the Chaza, 775–780. | Stauracius, 811. | ||
| Constantine VI. or VII., 780–797. | Michael I., Rhangabe, 811–813. | ||
| Leo V., the Armenian, 813–820. | |||
| Amorian Dynasty, 820–867 | |||
| Michael II., the Stammerer, 820–829. | Theophilus 829–842. | ||
| Michael III., the Drunkard, 842–867. | |||
| Basilian or Armenian (Macedonian) Dynasty, 867–1057 | |||
| Basil I., the Macedonian, 867–886 | Michael IV., the Paphlagonian, 1034–1041. | ||
| Leo VI., the Wise, 886–912. | Michael V., 1041–1042. | ||
| Constantine VII., or VIII., Porphyrogenitus, 912–959. | Constantine IX or X., Monamachus, 1042–1055. (Reigns with his wife Zoë.) | ||
| Alexander, associate Emperor, 913–913. | |||
| Romanus Lecapenus, 919–944. (Associate Emperor together with his three sons, Christopher, Stephen and Constantine.) |
Theodora, 1055–1056. | ||
| Michael VI., Stratiotucus, 1056–1057. | |||
| Isaac I., Comnenus, 1057–1059. | |||
| Romanus II., 959–963. | Constantine X. or XI. Ducas, 1059–1067. | ||
| Basil II., Bulgaroctonus, 963–1025. | Eudocia (in the name of her sons, Michael VII., Andronicus and Constantine, and with her second husband, Romanus IV.), 1067–1071. | ||
| Nicephorus II. Phocas, 963–969, associated with Basil II. | |||
| John I. Zimisces, 969–976, associated with Basil II. | |||
| Constantine VIII. or IX., 1025–1028. | Michael VII. (see above), 1071–1078. | ||
| Romanus III., Argyrus, 1028–1034. | Nicephorus III., Botaniates, 1078–1081. | ||
| Comnenian Dynasty, 1081–1185 | |||
| Alexius I., Comnenus, 1081–1118. | Alexius II., Comnenus, 1180–1183. | ||
| John II., or Calojohannes, Comnenus, 1118–1143. | Andronicus I., Comnenus, 1183–1185. | ||
| Manuel I., Comnenus, 1143–1180 | |||
| The Angelian Dynasty, 1185–1204 | |||
| Isaac II., Angelus., 1185–1195. | Isaac II. (restored) | 1203. | |
| Alexius III., Angelus, 1195–1203. | Alexius II., Angelus | 1204. | |
| Alexius V., Ducas, 1204. | |||
| Latin Emperors of the East, 1204–1261 | |||
| Baldwin I., 1204–1206. | Robert, 1221–1228. | ||
| Henry of Flanders, 1206–1216. | John of Brienne, 1229–1237. | ||
| Peter of Courtenay, 1216–1219. | Baldwin II., 1237–1261. | ||
| Yolande, 1219–1221. | |||
| Nicæan Emperors, 1206–1260 | |||
| Theodore I., Lascaris, 1206–22. | Theodore II., Ducas. 1254–58. | ||
| John III., Ducas, 1222–54. | John IV., Ducas, 1258–60. | ||
| The Empire Restored: The Paleologi, 1261–1453 | |||
| Michael VIII., Paleologus, 1261–82. | (John VI., Cantaeuzenus, Co-emperor, 1341–54). | ||
| Andronicus II., Paleologus, 1282–1328. | Manuel II., 1391–1425 (John VII., Co-emperor, 1398–1402). | ||
| Andronicus III., Paleologus, 1328–41. | |||
| John V., Paleologus, 1341–91. | John VIII., 1425–48. | ||
| Constantine XI., 1448–53. | |||
