izvadeno iz kaegija i vasilieva.doc

7/29/2019 izvadeno iz kaegija i vasilieva.doc

1/104

4. The Heraclian epoch (610-717)Heraclius and his immediate successors on the Byzantine throne form adynasty which was probably of Armenian descent. At least this may beinferred from the Armenianhistorian of the seventh century, Sebeos, the invaluable source on the

time ofHeraclius, who writes that the family of Heraclius was related to thefamous Armenianhouse of the Arsacids.[1] Somewhat contradictory to this assertion arereferences inseveral sources to the light golden hair of Heraclius.[2] He reigned from610 to 641. Byhis first wife Eudocia, he had a son Constantine, who reigned after thedeath of hisfather for a few months only and also died in the year 641. He is known inhistory asConstantine III (one of the sons of Constantine the Great being consideredasConstantine II). After the death of Constantine III the throne was occupiedfor severalmonths by Heraclonas (Heracleon), a son of Heraclius by his second wife,Martina. Hewas deposed in the autumn of 641, and the son of Constantine III,Constans II, wasproclaimed emperor and ruled from 641 to 668. The Greek form of hisname, Constas

(Latin, Constans), is probably a diminutive of Constantine, his officialname; onByzantine coins, in the western official documents of the period, and evenin someByzantine sources he is called Constantine. The people apparently calledhim Constans.He was succeeded by his energetic son Constantine IV (668-85).Constantine IV isusually surnamed Pogonatus, meaning the bearded, but modernscholarshipattributes this surname to the father rather than to the son.[3] With the

death ofConstantine IV in the year 685 ended the best period of the Heracliandynasty, althoughhis son, the last ruler of this dynasty, Justinian II, surnamed Rhinotmetus(with a cutoffnose), ruled twice, from 685 to 695 and from 705 to 711. The period ofJustinian II,distinguished by many atrocities, has not yet been sufficiently studied. Itseemsreasonable to suppose that the Emperors cruel treatment of therepresentatives of thenobility was due not only to mere arbitrariness, but also to the concealed


2/104

dissatisfaction of those members of the aristocracy who were not willing tobecomereconciled to his strong will and extreme autocratic policy and who stroveto dethronehim. Some sources reveal clearly a traditional hostile tendency toward

Justinian II. Hewas dethroned in 695. His nose and tongue were cut off[4] and he wasexiled to theCrimean city of Cherson; he fled to the Khagan (Khan) of the Khazars,whose sister helater married. Still later, with the aid of the Bulgarians, he succeeded inregaining theByzantine throne, and upon his return to the capital took cruel revenge onall thosewho had participated in his downfall. This tyranny called forth a revolutionin the year711, during which Justinian and his family were massacred. The year 711marks the endof the Heraclian dynasty. During the period between the two reigns ofJustinian II therewere two accidental emperors; the military leader from Isauria, Leontius(695-98), andApsimar, who assumed the name of Tiberius upon his accession to thethrone (TiberiusIII, 698-705). Some scholars are inclined to consider Apsimar-Tiberius ofGotho-Greek

origin.[5] After the cruel deposition of Justinian II in the year 711, for aperiod of sixyears (711-17) the Byzantine throne was occupied by three accidentalrulers: theArmenian Vardan or Philippicus (711-13); Artemius, renamed Anastasiusduring thecoronation ceremony (Anastasius II, 713-15); and Theodosius III (715-17).The state ofanarchy which prevailed in the Byzantine Empire from the year 695 endedin 717 withthe accession of the famous ruler Leo III, who initiated a new epoch in the

history of theByzantine Empire.External ProblemsThe Persian wars and the campaigns of Avars and Slavs.Heraclius, a very gifted and active emperor, seemed practically a modelrulerafter the tyrannical Phocas. He proclaimed that power must shine more inlove than interror, reported the poet George of Pisidia, a contemporary, whodescribed in goodverse the emperors Persian campaigns and the invasion of the Avars.[6]Heraclius was


3/104

the creator of Mediaeval Byzantium, Ostrogorsky said, whose stateconception isRoman, whose language and culture are Greek, whose faith isChristian.[7] Heracliusachievements are the more noteworthy because at the time of his

accession theposition of the Empire was extremely dangerous. The Persians weremenacing it fromthe east, the Avars and Slavs from the north, and internal affairs, after theunfortunatereign of Phocas, were in a state of complete anarchy. The new Emperorhad neithermoney nor sufficient military force, and profound disturbances shook theEmpireduring the early part of his reign.In the year 611 the Persians undertook to conquer Syria and they occupiedAntioch, the main city of the eastern Byzantine provinces. Soon after theyseizedDamascus. Upon completing the conquest of Syria, they moved on toPalestine, and inthe year 614 began the siege of Jerusalem, which lasted for twenty days.Then thePersian towers and battering-rams broke through the city wall, and, as onesource putit, the evil enemies entered the city with a rage which resembled that ofinfuriated

beasts and irritated dragons.[8] They pillaged the city and destroyed theChristiansanctuaries. The Church of the Holy Sepulcher, erected by Constantine theGreat andHelen, was robbed of its treasures and set on fire. The Christians wereexposed tomerciless violence and slaughter. The Jews of Jerusalem sided with thePersians andtook active part in the massacres, during which, according to somesources, 60,000Christians perished. Many treasures from the sacred city were transported

to Persia,and one of the dearest relics of Christendom, the Holy Cross, was taken toCtesiphon.Numerous prisoners were sent to Persia, including the Patriarch ofJerusalem,Zacharias.[9]This devastating Persian conquest of Palestine and the pillage of Jerusalemrepresent a turning point in the history of this province.This was a disaster unheard of since the occupation of Jerusalem in thereign of Titus,but this time the calamity could not be remedied. Never again did this cityhave an era


4/104

similar to the brilliant epoch under Constantine, and the magnificentbuildings withinits walls, such as the Mosque of Omar, never again created an epoch inhistory. Fromnow on the city and its buildings constantly declined, step by step, and

even theCrusades, so abounding in results and various spoils for Europe, causedonly trouble,confusion, and degeneration in the life of Jerusalem. The Persian invasionimmediatelyremoved the effects of the imported artificial Graeco-Roman civilization inPalestine. Itruined agriculture, depopulated the cities, destroyed temporarily orpermanently manymonasteries and lauras, and stopped all trade development. This invasionfreed themarauding Arabian tribes from the ties of association and the fear whichhad controlledthem, and they began to form the unity which made possible their generalattacks of alater period. From now on the cultural development of the country isended. Palestineenters upon that troubled period which might very naturally be called theperiod of theMiddle Ages, were it not for the fact that it has lasted to our own times.[10]

The ease with which the Persians conquered Syria and Palestine may beexplainedpartly by the religious conditions in these provinces. The majority of thepopulation,particularly in Syria, did not adhere to the official orthodox faith supportedby thecentral government. The Nestorians, and later the Monophysites, of theseprovinceswere greatly oppressed by the Byzantine government; hence they quitenaturallypreferred the domination of the Persian fire-worshipers, in whose land the

Nestoriansenjoyed comparative religious freedom.The Persian invasion was not limited to Syria and Palestine. Part of thePersianarmy, after crossing all of Asia Minor and conquering Chalcedon on theSea of Marmoranear the Bosphorus, encamped near Chrysopolis (present-day Scutari),oppositeConstantinople, while another Persian army set out to conquer Egypt.Alexandria fell,probably in the year 618 or 619. In Egypt, just as in Syria and Palestine,the


5/104

Monophysitic population heartily preferred Persian to Byzantinedomination. The lossof Egypt was a heavy blow to the Byzantine Empire, for Egypt was thegranary ofConstantinople. Stoppage of the supply of Egyptian grain had heavy

repercussions oneconomic conditions in the capital.With the heavy losses in the south and east caused by the Persian wars,thereappeared another great menace to the Byzantine Empire from the north.The Avaro-Slavonic hordes of the Balkan peninsula, headed by the Khagan of theAvars, movedsouthward, pillaging and destroying the northern provinces and reachingas far asConstantinople, where they broke through the city walls. This expeditionwas not acampaign, but rather a series of raids, which furnished the Khagan withnumerouscaptives and rich spoils which he carried off to the north.[11] Theseinvaders arementioned in the writings of Heraclius western contemporary, Isidore,bishop ofSeville, who remarked in his chronicle that Heraclius entered upon thesixteenth(fifth) year of his reign, at the beginning of which the Slavs took Greece

from theRomans, and the Persians took Syria, Egypt, and many provinces.[12] Atabout thistime (624) Byzantium was losing its last possessions in Spain, where theVisigothsconquest was completed by King Suinthila (Swinthila). The Balearic Islandsremained inthe hands of Heraclius.[13]After some hesitation the Emperor decided to begin war with Persia. Inview ofthe exhaustion of the treasury, Heraclius had recourse to the valuables of

the churchesin the capital and the provinces, and ordered a large amount of gold andsilver coins tobe made from them. As he had anticipated, he was able to remove themenace of theKhagan of the Avars in the north by sending him distinguished hostagesand a largesum of money. In the spring of 622 Heraclius crossed to Asia Minor, wherehe recruiteda large number of soldiers and trained them for several months. ThePersian campaign,which incidentally aimed at recovering the Holy Cross and the sacred cityof Jerusalem,


6/104

assumed the form of a crusade.Modern historians think it probable that Heraclius conducted three Persiancampaigns between the years 622 and 628. All three were brilliantlysuccessful. Acontemporary poet, George of Pisidia, composed an Epinikion (Song of

Victory) for theoccasion, entitled the Heraclias; and in another poem, the Hexaemeron(The SixDays), on the creation of the world, he alluded to the six-year war inwhich Heracliusvanquished the Persians. A twentieth-century historian, Th. I. Uspensky,comparedHeraclius war with the glorious campaigns of Alexander the Great.[14]Heracliussecured the aid of the Caucasian tribes and formed an alliance with theKhazars. Thenorthern Persian provinces bordering the Caucasus formed one of themain arenas ofmilitary action for this reign.While the Emperor was absent leading the army in distant campaigns, thecapitalbecame exposed to very serious danger. The Khagan of the Avars brokethe agreementwith the Emperor and in the year 626 advanced toward Constantinoplewith hugehordes of Avars and Slavs. He also formed an agreement with the

Persians, whoimmediately sent part of their army to Chalcedon. The Avaro-Slavonichordes besiegedConstantinople to the extreme apprehension of the population, but thegarrison ofConstantinople was successful in repelling the attack and putting theenemy to flight.As soon as the Persians heard of this repulse, they withdrew their armyfrom Chalcedonand directed it to Syria. The Byzantine victory over the Avars beforeConstantinople in

626 was one of the main causes of the weakening of the wild Avarkingdom.[15]Meanwhile, at the end of 627 Heraclius completely routed the Persians in abattlewhich took place near the ruins of ancient Nineveh (in the neighborhood ofmodernMosul on the Tigris), and advanced into the central Persian provinces,collecting richspoils. He sent to Constantinople a long and triumphant manifesto,describing hissuccesses against the Persians and announcing the end of the war and hisbrilliant


7/104

victory.[16] In 629 Heraclius glory was complete; the sun of his geniushad dissipatedthe darkness which hung over the Empire, and now to the eyes of all aglorious era ofpeace and grandeur seemed opening. The eternal and dreaded Persian

enemy wasprostrated forever; on the Danube the might of the Avars was rapidlydeclining. Whocould then resist the Byzantine armies? Who could menace theEmpire?[17] At thistime the Persian king Chosroes was dethroned and killed, and hissuccessor, KawadSheroe, opened peace negotiations with Heraclius. According to theiragreement thePersians returned to the Byzantine Empire the conquered provinces ofSyria, Palestine,and Egypt, and the relic of the Holy Cross. Heraclius returned to the capitalin greattriumph, and in 630, with his wife Martina, he left for Jerusalem, where theHoly Crosswas restored to its former place to the great joy of the entire Christianworld. Thecontemporary Armenian historian Sebeos gave an account of thisoccasion:There was much joy at their entrance to Jerusalem: sounds of weeping andsighs,

abundant tears, burning flames in hearts, extreme exaltation of theemperor, of theprinces, of all [he soldiers and inhabitants of the city; and nobody couldsing the hymnsof our Lord on account of the great and poignant emotion of the emperorand of thewhole multitude. The emperor restored [the Cross] to its place andreturned all thechurch objects, each to its place; he distributed gifts to all the churchesand to theinhabitants of the city and money for incense.[18]

It is interesting to note that Heraclius victory over the Persians ismentioned in theKoran. The Greeks have been overcome by the Persians in the nearestpart of the land;but after their defeat, they shall overcome the others in their turn, within afewyears.[19]The significance of the Persian campaigns of Heraclius. This Persian warmarks avery significant epoch in the history of the Byzantine Empire. Of the twomain worldpowers of the early Middle Ages, the Byzantine Empire, and Persia, thesecond


8/104

definitely lost its former significance and became a weak state soon tocease its politicalexistence because of the attacks of the Arabs. The victorious ByzantineEmpire dealtthe death blow to its constant enemy, reclaimed all the lost eastern

provinces of theEmpire, restored the Holy Cross to the Christian world, and at the sametime freed itscapital of the formidable menace of the Avaro-Slavonic hordes. TheByzantine Empireseemed to be at the height of its glory and power. The sovereign of Indiasent hiscongratulations to Heraclius on his victory over the Persians, together witha greatquantity of precious stones.[20] The king of the Franks, Dagobert, sentspecialambassadors to make a perpetual peace with the Empire.[21] Finally in630 the queen ofthe Persians, Borane, apparently also sent a special envoy to Heracliusand made formalpeace.[22]Heraclius officially assumed the name basileus for the first time after thesuccessful outcome of the Persian war, in the year 629. This name hadbeen in use forcenturies in the East, particularly in Egypt, and with the fourth century itbecame

current in the Greek-speaking parts of the empire, but it had notpreviously beenaccepted as an official title. Up to the seventh century the Greekequivalent of the Latinemperor (imperator) was the term autocrator ( ), that is, an autocrat,which does not correspond etymologically to imperator. The only foreignruler towhom the Byzantine emperor consented to give the title of basileus (withthe exceptionof the distant king of Abyssinia) was the king of Persia. Bury wrote: So

long as therewas a great independent Basileus outside the Roman Empire, theemperors refrainedfrom adopting a title which would be shared by another monarch. But assoon as thatmonarch was reduced to the condition of a dependent vassal and therewas no longer aconcurrence, the Emperor signified the events by assuming officially thetitle whichhad for several centuries been applied to him unofficially.[23]The Arabs.The reclaimed provinces of Syria, Palestine, and Egypt with theirpredominating


9/104

Monophysttic population again brought to the fore the painful and highlysignificantquestion of the governments attitude toward the Monophysites. Thelasting andpersistent struggle of Heraclius with the Persians, in spite of the brilliant

final outcome,was bound to weaken temporarily the military power of the ByzantineEmpire becauseof the heavy losses in man power and the exceedingly heavy financialstrain. But theEmpire did not get the much-needed period of rest because, soon after theend of thePersian war, there appeared a formidable menace, entirely unexpectedand at first notfully appreciated: the Arabs. They opened up a new era in the worldshistory by theirattacks upon the Byzantine Empire and Persia.Gibbon spoke of their advance as follows; While the Emperor triumphedatConstantinople or Jerusalem, an obscure town on the confines of Syria waspillaged bythe Saracens, and they cut in pieces some troops who advanced to itsrelief; an ordinaryand trifling occurrence, had it not been the prelude of a mighty revolution.Theserobbers were the apostles of Mahomet; their fanatic valor had emerged

from the desert;and m the last eight years of his reign Heraclius lost to the Arabs the sameprovinceswhich he had rescued from the Persians.[24]Muhammed and Islam.Long before the Christian era the Arabs, a people of Semitic origin,occupied theArabian peninsula and the Syrian desert which lies to the north of it andstretches asfar as the Euphrates River. The peninsula of Arabia, embracing an areaequal to

approximately one-fourth of Europe, is surrounded by the Persian Gulf onthe east, theIndian Ocean on the south, and the Red Sea on the west; in the north itruns graduallyinto the Syrian desert. Historically, the best-known provinces of thepeninsula were (1)Nedjd, on the central plateau; (2) Yemen, or Fortunate Arabia, in thesouthwest of thepeninsula; and (3) Hidjaz, the narrow strip along the coast of the Red Sea,extendingfrom the north of the peninsula to Yemen. The arid land was noteverywhere habitable,


10/104

and the Arabs, who were a nomadic people, occupied chiefly central andnorthernArabia. The Bedouins, who were nomads, considered themselves the pureand genuinerepresentatives of the Arabian race and the true bearers of personal

dignity and valor.They treated with arrogance and even with contempt the settledinhabitants of the fewcities and hamlets.The Roman Empire was inevitably bound to come into collision with theArabiantribes on its eastern Syrian border, which it was forced to protect. For thispurpose theRoman emperors erected a line of border fortifications, so-called Syrianlimes whichresembled, on a small scale, of course, the famous limes romanus on theDanubianborder, erected for defense against Germanic attacks. Some ruins of theprincipalRoman fortifications along the Syrian border survive at present.[25]As early as the second century B.C. independent states began to formamong theArabs of Syria. They were strongly influenced by the Aramean and Greekcivilizations;hence they are sometimes referred to as the Arabo-Aramean Hellenistickingdoms.

Among the cities, Petra became particularly wealthy and importantbecause of itsadvantageous position at the crossing of great commercial routes. Themagnificentruins of this city attract the attention of historians and archeologists eventoday.From a cultural and political point of view the most important of all Syrian-Arabic kingdoms in the epoch of the Roman Empire was Palmyra, whosevaliant queen,the Hellenistically educated Zenobia, as the Roman and Greek writers callher, formed a

large state in the second half of the third century A.D. by conqueringEgypt and themajor part of Asia Minor. According to B. A. Turaev,[26] this was the firstmanifestationof the reaction of the East and the first breaking up of the Empire into twoparts,eastern and western. The Emperor Aurelian restored the unity of theEmpire, and in theyear 273 the conquered queen had to follow the triumphal chariot of theconquerorwhen he entered Rome. Rebellious Palmyra was destroyed. Its imposingruins, however,


11/104

like those of Petra, still attract scholars and tourists. The famousepigraphic monumentof Palmyra, the tariff of Palmyra, engraved on a stone of enormous sizeand containingvery valuable information about the trade and finance of the city, has

been transferredto Russia and is now at the Hermitage in Leningrad.Two Arabian dynasties stand out very distinctly during the Byzantineperiod.One, the dynasty of the Ghassanids in Syria, Monophysitic in its religioustendenciesand dependent upon the Byzantine emperors, became particularlypowerful in thesixth century under Justinian, when it aided the Byzantine Empire in itsmilitaryundertakings in the East. This dynasty probably ceased to exist in theearly seventhcentury, when the Persians conquered Syria and Palestine. The secondArabiandynasty, the Lakhmids, centered in the city of Hira on the Euphrates.Because of itsvassal relations with the Persian Sassanids it was hostile to theGhassanids. It alsoceased at the beginning of the seventh century. In the city of HiraChristianity, in itsNestorian form, had a body of adherents, and even some members of the

Lakhmiddynasty accepted it. Both dynasties had to defend the borders of theirkingdom, theGhassanids on the Byzantine side and the Lakhmids on the Persian.Apparently bothvassal states disappeared at the beginning of the seventh century, so thatat the time ofMuhammeds advance there was not a single political organization withinthe confinesof the Arabian peninsula and the Syrian desert which could be called astate. There had

existed in Yemen since the end of the second century B.C. the kingdom oftheSabaeans-Himyarites (Homerites). But in about the year 570 Yemen wasconquered bythe Persians.[27]Before the time of Muhammed the ancient Arabs lived in tribalorganizations.Blood relationship was the only basis for common interests, which wereconfinedalmost exclusively to loyalty, protection, aid, and revenge upon enemiesfor insultssuffered by the tribe. The least occasion sufficed for starting lasting andbloody struggle


12/104

between tribes. References to these ancient times and customs have beenpreserved inold Arabic poetry, as well as in prose tradition. Animosity and arrogancewere the twopredominant elements in the mutual relations of different tribes of ancient

Arabia.The religious conceptions of the ancient Arabs were primitive. The tribeshadtheir own gods and sacred objects, such as stones, trees, and springs,through whichthey aspired to divine the future. In some parts of Arabia the worship ofstars prevailed.According to one expert in Arabic antiquity, the ancient Arabs in theirreligiousexperiences hardly rose above the feelings of a fetishist before theworshipedobject.[28] They believed in the existence of friendly, and, morefrequently, unfriendly,forces which they called djinn (demons). Among the Arabs the conceptionof the higherinvisible power of Allah was vague. Prayer as a form of worship wasapparentlyunknown to them, and when they turned to the deity, their invocation wasusually anappeal for aid in revenging some injury or injustice suffered from anenemy. Goldziher

asserted also that the surviving pre-Islamic poems do not contain anyallusions to astriving toward the divine even on the part of the more sublime souls, andgive onlyslight indications about their attitude to the religious traditions of theirpeople.[29]The nomadic life of the Bedouins was naturally unfavorable to thedevelopmentof distinct permanent places for the performance of religious worship,even of a veryprimitive form. But there were, besides the Bedouins, the settled

inhabitants of citiesand hamlets which sprang up and developed along the trade routes,mainly on thecaravan road leading from the south to the north, from Yemen toPalestine, Syria, andthe Sinaitic peninsula. The richest among the cities along this route wasMecca(Macoraba, in ancient writings), famous long before Muhammedsappearance. Secondin importance was the city of Yathrib, the future Medina, situated farthernorth. Thesecities were convenient stopping points for the trade caravans travelingfrom the north


13/104

and south. There were many Jews among the merchants of Mecca andYathrib, as wellas among the population of other portions of the peninsula, such asnorthern Hidjazand Yemen. From the Romano-Byzantine provinces of Palestine and Syria

in the north,and from Abyssinia through Yemen in the south, many Christianspenetrated into thepeninsula. Mecca became the central gathering point for the mixedpopulation of thepeninsula. From remote times there existed in Mecca the sanctuary Kaaba(the Cube)which was originally distinctly non-Arabic. It was a cube-shaped stonebuilding, aboutthirty-five feet high, concealing the main object of worship, the blackstone. Traditionclaimed that this stone had been sent down from heaven, and associatedthe erection ofthe sanctuary with the name of Abraham. Because of its advantageouscommercialposition, Mecca was visited by merchants from all Arabian tribes. Somelegends affirmthat, in order to attract more visitors to the city, idols of various tribeswere placedwithin the Kaaba, so that representatives of each tribe could worship theirfavorite

deity during their stay in Mecca. The number of pilgrims increasedconstantly, beingparticularly great during the sacred period of the Peace of God, anobservance whichmore or less guaranteed the territorial inviolability of the tribes who sentrepresentatives to Mecca. The time of religious festivals coincided with thegreat fair atMecca, where the Arabs and foreign merchants carried out tradetransactions whichgave Mecca enormous profits. The city was rapidly growing very wealthy.About the

fifth century A.D. a distinguished tribe of Kuraish began to dominate in thecity. Thematerial interests of the money-loving Meccans were not neglected, andthe sacredgatherings were often utilized by the citizens for the promotion of theirown selfishinterests. According to one scholar, with the dominance of the nobility,charged withperforming the traditional ceremonies, the city assumed a materialistic,arrogantlyplutocratic character, and deep religious satisfaction could not be foundthere.[30]


14/104

Under the influence of Judaism and Christianity, with which the Arabs hadampleopportunity to become acquainted in Mecca, there appeared even beforeMuhammedisolated individuals truly inspired by religious ideals distinctly different

from the dryritual of the old religious customs. An aspiration toward monotheism andtheacceptance of the ascetic form of living were the distinguishing ideals ofthese modestapostles. They found gratification in their personal experiences but did notinfluence orconvert the people about them. The man who unified the Arabs andfounded a worldreligion was Muhammed, who, from a modest preacher of penitence,became at first aprophet, and later the chief of a political community.Muhammed was born about 570. He was a member of the Hashimite clan,one ofthe poorest clans of the Kuraish tribe. His parents died while he was stillvery young,and he had to earn his own living by acting as a driver of camels in thetrade caravansof the rich widow Khadidja. His material condition improved greatly whenhe marriedher. He was of a sensitive, sickly disposition from early childhood, and

under theinfluence of his contact with the Jews and Christians began to meditatemore and moreupon the religious organization of Mecca. The doubts which frequentlyarose in hismind caused him many moments of despair and endless suffering, and hebecamesubject to nervous attacks. During his solitary wanderings on the outskirtsof Mecca hewas troubled by visions, and within him strengthened the conviction thatGod had sent

him to save His people who had followed the wrong path.Muhammed was forty years old when he determined to express his viewsopenly,at first as a modest preacher of morality in his own family. Later he beganto preach toa small group of people from the lower classes, and shortly after to somedistinguishedcitizens. The chiefs of Kuraish, however, were openly against Muhammedand made itimpossible for him to remain in Mecca. He secretly departed with hisfollowers from hisnative city in the year 622, and went northward to the city of Yathrib,whose


15/104

population, including the Jews, had frequently urged him to come to theircity,promising him more favorable living conditions. They received him and hisfollowersvery warmly and later changed the name of their city to Medina, meaning

the city ofthe prophet.The year of the migration or, as it is more frequently but incorrectly called,theyear of the flight (hidjra in Arabic, distorted by Europeans into hegira) ofMuhammedfrom Mecca to Medina marks the Muhammedan era.[31] Beginning withthe year 622,the Arabs and all other Muslim peoples count their chronology by using asa unit thelunar year, which is somewhat shorter than the solar year. TheMuhammedans usuallyconsider Friday, July 16, of the year 622 the beginning of the first year ofthe hegira.This chronology, however, was introduced only during the sixteenth yearcountingfrom 622.The original sources bearing on Muhammedanism are unsatisfactory; thereisalmost no authentic information about the early Meccan period ofMuhammeds life. At

that time his teaching was of such a vague, almost chaotic, nature that itwas not yetpossible to call it a new religion.In Medina Muhammed became the head of a large community and beganto laythe foundations for a political state on a religious basis. Having developedthe mainprinciples of his religion, introduced certain religious ceremonies, andstrengthenedhis political position, he set out to conquer Mecca in the year 630. Uponentering the

city he immediately destroyed its idols and all survivals of polytheism. Thecult of anonly God Allah was the basis of the new religion. Muhammed granteda sort ofamnesty to all his enemies, and allowed no murder or robbery. From thattimeMuhammed and his followers freely made their pilgrimages to Mecca andpracticedtheir new rites. Muhammed died in the year 632.He was not a logical thinker; hence his religious teaching can hardly bepresented in a systematic way. This teaching was not an original creation;it had


16/104

developed under the influence of other religions Christianity, Judaism,and to someextent Parsism (Zoroastrianism), the religion of the Persian kingdom of theSassanids ofthat time. Modern historians have reached the conclusion that the

originalMuhammedan community, contrary to earlier opinion, was more closelyrelated toChristianity than to Judaism.[32] Muhammed had become acquaintedwith otherreligions in his youth during his travels with the caravans, and later inMecca andYathrib (Medina). The distinctive feature of his teaching is a realization ofthe completedependence of man upon God and a blind resignation to His will. The faithis strictlymonotheistic, and God is considered unlimited in his power over Hiscreatures. TheMuhammedan religion assumed the name of Islam, which meansresignation orsubmission to God, and the followers of Islam are called Muslims, orMuhammedans.At the basis of this religion lies the distinct idea of a single God, Allah. ThestatementThere is only one God and Muhammed is his apostle is one of thefundamental

principles of Islam. Both Moses and Jesus Christ were recognized asprophets, Christbeing the penultimate prophet; but the new teaching claimed that neitherwas as greatas Muhammed. During his sojourn in Medina Muhammed declared that hisreligiousteaching represented a pure restoration of the religion of Abraham,corrupted by theChristians and Jews. One of Muhammeds first problems was to lead theArabs out oftheir state of barbarism (Djahiliyya in Arabic), and inculcate in them higher

moralprinciples. Instead of the widely spread cruel custom of revenge, hepreached to hispeople peace, love, and self-control. He was responsible for putting an endto thecustom which prevailed among certain Arabian tribes of burying alivenewly born girls.He also attempted to regulate marital relations and limit polygamy byreducing thelegally permissible number of wives to four, allowing more freedom in thisrespect tohimself alone. In place of the old tribal conceptions, he advanced the ideaof personal


17/104

rights, including the right of inheritance. Muhammed introduced somedirectionsregarding prayer and fasting; it was necessary to face in the direction ofthe Kaabaduring prayer, and the great fasting period was set in the ninth month,

called Ramadan.The weekly holiday was set on Friday. The new teaching prohibited the useof blood,wine, pork, and the flesh of animals which died a natural death or whichhad served assacrifices for pagan idols. Gambling was also prohibited. Belief in angelsand the devilwas compulsory for all Muslims, and the conceptions of heaven and hell, oftheResurrection, and the Last Judgment were distinctly materialistic. Thebasic elementsof these conceptions can be found in the Jewish-Christian apocryphalliterature.Muhammed included in his teaching the mercy of God, the repentance ofsinners, andthe advocacy of good deeds. Modern religious rules and regulationsdevelopedgradually, some after the death of Muhammed. Thus, for example, prayerat a set timehad not yet been strictly established, even in the time of the Umayyads(Omayyads,

Ommiads).[33] The prescribed requirements can be reduced to five: (1)the professionof faith in an only God, Allah, and his prophet, Muhammed; (2) theperformance of adefinite prayer at a set time with the strict observance of prescribedrituals; (3) thecontribution of a certain sum of money toward meeting the military andcharitableexpenses of the Muhammedan community; (4) fasting during the month ofRamadan;and (5) the pilgrimage to the Kaaba in Mecca (in Arabic such a pilgrimage

is calledhadj). All the basic principles and regulations of the Muhammedan faithare laid downin a sacred book of revelations of Muhammed, the Koran, which issubdivided into 114chapters (Sura in Arabic). The tales of Mu-hammeds teachings and deeds,collectedlater in various books, bear the name of Sunna.The history of early Islam in the time of Muhammed is obscure anddebatablebecause of the present condition of sources bearing upon this period. Andyet for the


18/104

history of the Byzantine Empire during the seventh century this problem isof extremesignificance, since its adequate solution may affect greatly the explanationof theunusual and rapid military success of the Arabs, who took from the

Byzantine Empireits eastern and southern provinces: Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and NorthAfrica.The observations of three profound students illustrate the prevalence ofcontradictory opinions among scholars with regard to Islam. Goldziherwrote, There isno doubt that Muhammed thought of spreading his religion beyond theborders ofArabia and of transforming his teaching, originally communicated only tohis nearestrelatives, into a force which would dominate the entire world.[34] Grimmestated thaton the basis of the Koran one is led to believe that the final aim of Islamwas thecomplete possession of Arabia.[35] Caetani wrote that the prophet neverdreamed ofconverting the entire land of Arabia and all the Arabs.[36]In Muhammeds litetime not all of Arabia came under his sway. It may besaidgenerally that Arabia, during all of its existence, never recognized a soleruler for the

entire land. In reality Muhammed dominated a territory which occupiedperhaps lessthan a third of the peninsula. This area became strongly influenced by thenew ideas ofIslam, but the remaining part of Arabia persisted under a political andreligiousorganization differing very little from that which had existed before theappearance ofMuhammed. Christianity prevailed in the southwest of the peninsula, inYemen. Thetribes of northeastern Arabia also adopted the Christian faith, which soon

became thepredominating religion in Mesopotamia and in the Arabian provinces alongtheEuphrates River, Meanwhile, the official Persian religion was constantlyand rapidlydeclining. Thus, at the time of his death Muhammed was neither thepolitical ruler ofall Arabia nor its religious leader.It is interesting to note that at first the Byzantine Empire viewed Islam as akindof Arianism and placed it on a level with other Christian sects. Byzantineapologetic and


19/104

polemic literature argues against Islam in the same manner as it didagainst theMonophysites, the Monotheletes, and the adherents of other hereticalteachings. ThusJohn Damascene, a member of a Saracen family, who lived at the

Muhammedan court inthe eighth century, did not regard Islam as a new religion, but consideredit only aninstance of secession from the true Christian faith similar in nature toother earlierheresies. The Byzantine historians also showed very little interest in therise ofMuhammed and the political movement which he initiated.[37] The firstchroniclerwho records some facts about the life of Muhammed, the ruler of theSaracens and thepseudo-prophet, was Theophanes, who wrote in the early part of theninthcentury.[38] In the conception of medieval western Europe Islam was not adistinctreligion, but a Christian sect, akin in its dogmas to Arianism; and even inthe later partof the Middle Ages Dante, in his Divine Comedy, considered Muhammed aheretic andcalls him a sower of scandal and schism (Seminator di scandalo e discisma [Inferno,

XXVIII, 31-36]).Causes of the Arabian conquest in the seventh century. It is customaryto point outthe religious enthusiasm of the Muslims, which frequently rose to a stateof religiousfanaticism and absolute intolerance, as one of the main causes for thestriking militarysuccess of the Arabs in their combat with Persia and the Byzantine Empirein theseventh century. The Arabs are supposed to have rushed upon the Asiaticand African

provinces with a determination to carry out the will of their prophet, whohadprescribed the conversion of the entire world to the new faith. Thevictories of theArabs are ordinarily explained by the religious enthusiasm which preparedthefanatical Muslims to regard death with disdain and made them invincible.This view should be recognized as unfounded. At the time of Muhammedsdeaththere were few convinced Muslims, and even this small number remainedin Medinauntil the end of the first great conquests. Very few of the followers ofMuhammed


20/104

fought in Syria and Persia. The great majority of the fighting Arabsconsisted ofBedouins who knew of Islam only by hearsay. They were concerned withnothing butmaterial, earthly benefits, and craved spoils and unrestrained license.

Religiousenthusiasm did not exist among them. Besides, early Islam was tolerant innature. TheKoran states directly that God will not force anyone beyond his capacity(II, 257). Theindulgent attitude of early Islam toward Christianity and Judaism is wellknown. TheKoran speaks of Gods tolerance of other faiths; If thy Lord wished, hewould make thepeople as one religious community (XI, 120). The religious fanaticism andintoleranceof the Muslims are later phenomena, alien to the Arabic nation andexplainable by theinfluence of the Muslim proselytes. The victorious conquests of the Arabsin theseventh century cannot be credited to religious enthusiasm andfanaticism.According to some recent investigations, such as Caetanis, the realcauses of theirrepressible onward rush of the Arabs were materialistic. Arabia, limited innatural

resources, could no longer satisfy the physical needs of its population, andthreatenedby poverty and hunger, the Arabs were forced to make a desperateattempt to freethemselves from the hot prison of the desert. Unbearable livingconditions wereresponsible for the crushing force with which the Arabs rushed upon theByzantineEmpire and Persia. There was no religious element in this movement.[39]Though this view is correct to a certain extent, one cannot find a fullexplanation

of the military success of the Arabs in material needs alone. Included alsoamong thecauses were internal conditions in the eastern and southern Byzantineprovinces soeasily occupied by the Arabs, Syria, Palestine, and Egypt. Their growingreligiousdissatisfaction has been repeatedly pointed out. Monophysitic and partlyNestorian intheir adherence, they came into conflict continually with the inexorablecentralgovernment, particularly after the death of Justinian the Great. It was theunyielding


21/104

policy of the emperors that rendered the provinces of Syria, Palestine, andEgypt readyto secede from the Byzantine Empire and become subjects of the Arabs,who wereknown for religious tolerance and were interested only in obtaining regular

taxes fromthe conquered provinces. The religious convictions of the conqueredpeoplesconcerned the Arabs little.On the other hand, the orthodox portion of the eastern provinces was alsodissatisfied with the policy of the central authorities because of someconcessions tothe Monophysites, especially in the seventh century. In connection withtheMonothelete tendency of Heraclius, Eutychius, the Christian Arabianhistorian of thetenth century, said that the citizens of Emesa (Hims) called the Emperor aMaronite(Monothelete) and an enemy of our faith,[40] and Beladsori, anotherArabian historianof the ninth century, said that they then turned to the Arabs, saying, Yourrule andyour justice are more agreeable to us than that tyranny and those insultsto which wehave been subject.[41] Of course, this is Muhammedan testimony; but itaccurately

reflects the frame of mind of the orthodox population. The major part ofthe populationof the Byzantine provinces of Syria and Palestine was of Semitic origin andlargely ofArabic descent, and that the Arabian conquerors met in the subjectedprovinces apeople of their own race who spoke their own tongue. According to onescholar, Itwas, therefore, not a question of conquering a foreign land, whose taxeswouldconstitute the only direct gain, but also of reclaiming part of their own

fatherlandwhich was declining under the foreign yoke.[42] In addition to the generalreligiousdissatisfaction and the kinship to the Arabs, the Byzantine Empire and herarmy wereweakened after the long-continued, though finally successful, campaignsagainst thePersians, and could not offer the proper resistance to the fresh Arabianforces.In Egypt there were special causes for the weak resistance to the Arabs.The mainreason must be sought in the general conditions prevailing in theByzantine army.


22/104

Numerically the troops were perhaps sufficiently strong; but the generalorganizationof the army was poor. It was subdivided into many parts commanded byfive differentrulers or dukes (duces), entrusted with equal power. There was no unity of

actionamong these governors. Their indifference to the general problems of theprovince,their personal rivalries, the lack of solidarity and coordination toward acommon end,and their military incapacity paralyzed resistance. The soldiers were nobetter thantheir leaders. Numerous as the Egyptian army was, its poor leadership andpoortraining made it very unreliable and created a strong tendency towarddefection.There is no doubt that numerous causes explain the terrifying successesof the Arabs,Maspero said, but the main cause of the Byzantine defeat in the valley ofthe Nile wasthe poor quality of the army which was intrusted, contrary to allexpectations, with thetask of defending Egypt.[43] On the basis of the study of papyri, Gelzerthought thatthe class of privileged large landowners which arose in Egypt previous tothe period of

the Arabian conquests became practically independent of the centralgovernment and,though it did not create an actual local ruling body, was also one of themain causes forthe fall of Byzantine domination.[44] Amelineau, also on the basis of astudy of papyri,suggested as another important factor which facilitated the Arabianconquest theinadequate civil administration of Egypt.[45] The English papyrologist H. I.Bell calledthe conquest of Egypt by the Arabs no miracle, no example of divine

vengeance onerring Christendom; it was merely the inevitable collapse of a structurerotten at thecore.[46] Thus the list of primary causes for Arabian success includesreligiousconditions in Syria, Palestine, and Egypt, the racial kinship of thepopulation of the twofirst countries to the people of Arabia, the inadequacy of military forces,inefficientmilitary organization and poor civil administration, and class relations inEgypt.Byzantine as well as the Arabic historical tradition exaggerates verygreatly the


23/104

numerical strength of the troops on both sides. In reality, the armies of thetwocontending sides were not very large. Some scholars set the number ofArabian soldierswho took part in the Syrian and Palestinian campaigns at 27,000 and even

then fearthat this figure is an exaggeration of the actual number.[47] The Byzantinearmy wasprobably even less numerous. Also, the military operations were carriedon, not only bythe Arabs of the peninsula, but also by the Arabs of the Syrian desertadjoining thePersian and Byzantine borders.Closer study of early Islam clearly moves the religious element into thebackground for the political events of the period. Islam changed into apolitical force,because only as such could it triumph over its enemies. Had Islamremained forever asimple moral and religious teaching, its existence would have ceasedquickly inskeptical, materialistic Arabia, particularly in the hostile atmosphere ofMecca.[48]The champions of Islam had to deal not so much with the conversion ofthe infidels, aswith their subjection.[49]Arabian conquests up to the early eighth century. Constantine IV and the

siege ofConstantinople by the Arabs. Justinian II and the Arabs. After the deathofMuhammed (632), his relative, Abu-Bakr (Abu-Bekr) was elected as theleader of theMuslims with the title of Caliph (Khalifa), meaning vicar. The threesubsequentcaliphs, Omar, Othman, and Ali, were also raised to their position byelection, but didnot form a dynasty. These four immediate successors of Muhammed areknown as the

orthodox caliphs. The most significant conquests made by the Arabs onByzantineterritory fall in the time of Caliph Omar.That Muhammed wrote to the rulers of other lands, including Heraclius,proposing that they accept Islam, and that Heraclius responded favorably,is nowrecognized as a later invention without historical foundation.[50] Thereare, however,even today scholars who accept this correspondence as a historical fact.[51]In Muhammeds lifetime only separate detachments of Bedouins crossedthe


24/104

Byzantine border. But in the time of the second caliph, Omar, eventsdeveloped rapidly.The chronology of the military events of the thirties and forties of theseventh centuryis obscure and confused, but probably events developed in the following

order: In theyear 634 the Arabs took possession of the Byzantine fortress Bothra(Bosra), beyond theJordan; in 635 the Syrian city of Damascus fell; in 636 the battle on theRiver Yarmukled to the Arabian conquest of the entire province of Syria; and in 637 or638 Jerusalemsurrendered after a siege which had lasted for two years. The two leadingroles in thissiege were played by Caliph Omar on one side and the famous defender oforthodoxy,Patriarch Sophronius of Jerusalem on the other. The text of the agreementupon whichSophronius surrendered Jerusalem to Omar and which established certainreligious andsocial guaranties for the Christian population of the city has survived, with,unfortunately, some later alterations. The Christians had succeeded inremoving theHoly Cross from Jerusalem before the Arabs entered the city, and insending it toConstantinople. The conquest of Mesopotamia and Persia, which happened

simultaneously with these Byzantine occupations, terminated the firstperiod of theArabian conquests in Asia. At the end of the thirties the Arabian chief Amrappeared atthe eastern border of Egypt and began its conquest. After the death ofHeraclius, in theyear 641 or 642, the Arabs occupied Alexandria and the victorious Amrsent thismessage to Omar in Medina: I have captured a city from the descriptionof which Ishall refrain. Suffice it to say that I have seized therein 4000 villas with

4000 baths,40,000 poll-tax-paying Jews and four hundred places of entertainment fortheroyalty.[52] Toward the end of the forties the Byzantine Empire wasforced to abandonEgypt forever. The conquest of Egypt was followed by further advances ofthe Arabstoward the western shores of North Africa. By the year 650 Syria, a part ofAsia Minorand Upper Mesopotamia, Palestine, Egypt, and part of the Byzantineprovinces in NorthAfrica, were already under Arabian sway.


25/104

The conquests, by bringing the Arabs to the shores of the MediterraneanSea, putbefore them new problems of a maritime nature. They had no fleet andwere powerlessagainst the numerous Byzantine vessels to which the new Arabian

provinces along theseashore were easily accessible. The Arabs recognized the seriousness ofthe situationvery quickly. The Syrian governor and the future caliph, Muawiya(Moawiya), activelybegan the construction of numerous vessels whose crews had to begathered at firstamong the native Greco-Syrian population accustomed to seafaring.Recent studies ofpapyri reveal the fact that at the end of the seventh century theconstruction of shipsand their equipment with experienced mariners was one of the greatproblems of theEgyptian administration.[53]As early as the fifties of the seventh century, in the time of Constans II, theArabian vessels of Muawiya began their attacks upon Byzantine districtsand occupiedthe important maritime center, the island of Cyprus. Near the coast of AsiaMinor theydefeated the Byzantine fleet commanded by the Emperor himself, seizedthe island of

Rhodes, destroying there the famous Colossus of Rhodes, and reached asfar as Creteand Sicily, menacing the Aegean Sea and apparently heading for thecapital of theEmpire. The captives taken during these expeditions, particularly those ofSicily, weretransported to the Arabian city of Damascus.The Arabian conquests of the seventh century deprived the ByzantineEmpire ofits eastern and southern provinces and caused it to lose its importantplace as the most

powerful state in the world. Territorially reduced, the Byzantine Empirebecame a statewith a predominating Greek population, though not so completely as isbelieved bysome scholars. The districts where the Greeks were in the great majoritywere AsiaMinor with the neighboring islands of the Aegean Sea, and Constantinoplewith itsadjoining province. By this time the Balkan peninsula in general, includingthePeloponnesus, had changed considerably in its ethnographic compositionbecause of


26/104

the appearance of large Slavonic settlements. In the West the ByzantineEmpire stillpossessed the separated parts of Italy which were not included in theLombardkingdom, namely, the southern portion of Italy with Sicily and several

otherneighboring islands of the Mediterranean Sea, Rome, and the exarchate ofRavenna.The Greek population, which centered primarily in the southern portion oftheseByzantine possessions in Italy, increased very greatly in the seventhcentury, whenItaly became the refuge for many inhabitants of Egypt and North Africawho did notwish to become subjects of the Arabian conquerors. It may be said that theRomanEmpire was at this period transformed into a Byzantine Empire whoseproblemsbecame narrower and lost their former sweeping nature. Some historians,for instance,Gelzer, think that the heavy territorial losses were indirectly evenbeneficial for theByzantine Empire because they removed the foreign national elements,while thepopulation of Asia Minor and those parts of the Balkan peninsula which stillrecognized

the authority of the Emperor, formed, by language and faith, a perfectlyhomogeneousand solidly loyal mass.[54] From the middle of the seventh century theattention of theEmpire had to be directed chiefly to Constantinople, Asia Minor, and theBalkanpeninsula. But even these diminished possessions were constantlythreatened by theLombards, Slavs, Bulgarians, and Arabs. L. Brehier wrote that this periodinitiated forConstantinople that historical role of perpetual defense which lasted until

the fifteenthcentury with alternate periods of contraction and expansion.[55]In connection with the repercussions of the Arabian conquests, it isextremelyimportant to take into serious consideration the data of the Byzantinehagiographictexts, a source which has hitherto been overlooked or neglected.Byzantinehagiography gives a vivid and striking picture of the mass Byzantinemigration fromthe borderland to the center of the Empire under pressure of Arabianinvasions by land


27/104

and sea, Hagiography confirms, enlarges, and illustrates well thoseextremely briefindications which historians and chroniclers supply. The paramountsignificance of theArabian danger in causing congestion and condensation of the population

in thecentral regions of the Empire may be henceforth considered fully proved.[56]Further Arabian conquests in North Africa were stopped for a time by theenergetic resistance of the Berbers. Military activity on the part of theArabs was alsohalted because of the internal struggle which broke out between the lastorthodoxcaliph Ali and the Syrian governor Muawiya. This bloody strife ended inthe year 661by the massacre of Ali and the triumph of Muawiya, who ascended thethrone,inaugurating thus the new dynasty of the Umayyads (Omayyads). The newcaliph madeDamascus the capital of his kingdom.After his success in strengthening his power at home, Muawiya renewedtheoffensive war against the Byzantine Empire by sending his fleet againstthe Byzantinecapital and by reviving the westward movement on North African territory.The most trying period for the Byzantine Empire came during the reign of

theenergetic Constantine IV (668-85), when the Arabian fleet crossed theAegean Sea andthe Hellespont, entered the Propontis, and established itself in the city ofCyzicus.Using this harbor as their base, the Arabs repeatedly thoughunsuccessfully besiegedConstantinople. They made their sieges annually, usually during thesummer months.The Arabs did not take the capital, chiefly because the Emperor knew howto prepare

the city for offering the necessary resistance. The successful defensecarried on by theByzantine army was due primarily to the use of Greek fire, otherwisecalled liquidor Marine fire, invented by the architect Callinicus, a Syrian-Greekfugitive. Thecommon name of this invention has led to some misapprehensions.Greek fire was asort of explosive compound, thrust out by special tubes or siphons, whichinflamedwhen it struck against the vessel of the enemy. The Byzantine fleet wasequipped with


28/104

special siphonophore vessels which caused terrific confusion among theArabs. Therewere also other methods of hurling this artificial fire at the enemy. Thepeculiarquality of this fire was the fact that it burned even on water. For a very

considerableperiod of time the secret of the composition of this fire was vigilantlyguarded by thegovernment, because this new weapon aided the success of the Byzantinefleet innumerous instances.[57]All the attempts of the Arabian vessels to capture Constantinople failed. Intheyear 677 the hostile fleet departed, sailing toward the Syrian shores. Onits way there,off the southern coast of Asia Minor, it was demolished by a severe storm.The militaryoperations on land in Asia Minor were also unsuccessful for the Arabs. TheagedMuawiya was forced to negotiate a peace agreement with the ByzantineEmperor onthe condition of paying him a definite annual tribute.[58]By the successful repulse of the Arabs from Constantinople and by theadvantageouspeace treaty, Constantine performed a great service, not only for his ownEmpire, but

also for western Europe, which was thus shielded from the serious Muslimmenace. It isinteresting to note that the success of Constantine made a strongimpression in theWest. According to one chronicler, when the news of Constantinesaccomplishmentsreached the Khagan of the Avars and other western rulers, they sentambassadorswith gifts to the Emperor and begged him to establish peaceful and lovingrelationswith them and there came a time of great peace in the East and in the

West.[59]During the first reign of Justinian II (685-95), the successor of ConstantineIV, anevent which was of considerable significance in the further development ofArabo-Byzantine relations occurred on the eastern Arabian border. Themountains of theSyrian Lebanon were inhabited for a long time by the so-called Mardaites,which maybe translated rebels, apostates, or bandits. They were organized asan army andserved as the rampart of the Byzantine authorities in this district. After theArabian


29/104

conquest of Syria the Mardaites retreated northward to the Arabo-Byzantine borderand caused the Arabs much trouble and anxiety by their constant raidsupon theneighboring districts. According to a chronicle, the Mardaites formed a

brass wall[60]which protected Asia Minor from Arabian irruptions. By the peace treatynegotiatedunder Justinian II the Emperor agreed to force the Mardaites to settle inthe innerprovinces of the Empire, and for this favor the caliph promised to pay acertain tribute.This step on the part of the Emperor destroyed the brass wall. In latertimes theMardaites are found as seafarers in Pamphylia (Southern Asia Minor), inthePeloponnesus, on the island of Cephalonia (Kephallenia) and in severalother districts.Their removal from the Arabian border unquestionably strengthened theposition ofthe Arabs in the newly conquered provinces and facilitated the subsequentArabianoffensive movement into the depth of Asia Minor. There is no sufficientground forviewing this event, as does Professor Kulakovsky, as an act prompted bythe emperors

consideration for the Christians who were ruled by men of an alienfaith.[61] The basisfor this transmigration of the Mardaites was a purely political one.In the sixties of the seventh century, simultaneously with the attempts toseizeConstantinople in the East, the Arabian army began its westwardmovement in NorthAfrica. At the close of the seventh century the Arabs took Carthage, thecapital of theAfrican exarchate, and at the beginning of the eighth century theyoccupied Septem

(now the Spanish fortress, Ceuta) near the Pillars of Hercules. About thesame time theArabs, under the leadership of their general, Tarik, crossed from Africa toSpain andrapidly conquered from the Visigoths the larger part of the peninsula.From the nameof Tarik came the modern Arabic name of Gibraltar, meaning themountain of Tarik.Thus in the early part of the eighth century the Muhammedan menace towesternEurope appeared from a different direction, namely, from the Pyreneanpeninsula.


30/104

It is interesting to note how fast and how deep the Arab language andculturespread over Spain. A large number of urban Christians adopted Arabicculture thoughthey did not adopt Islam; there were enough of them to constitute a social

class, calledby the epithet of Arab origin Mozarabs, that is, arabicized, In the ninthcentury thebishop of Cordoba, Alvaro, complained in one of his sermons:Many of my coreligionists read verses and fairy tales of the Arabs, studythe works ofMuhammedan philosophers and theologians not in order to refute thembut to learn toexpress themselves properly in the Arab language more correctly andmore elegantly.Who among them studies the Gospels, and Prophets and Apostles? Alas!All talentedChristian young men know only the language and literature of the Arabs,read andassiduously study the Arab books. ... If somebody speaks of Christianbooks theycontemptuously answer that they deserve no attention whatever (quasivilissimacontemnentes). Woe! The Christians have forgotten their own language,and there ishardly one among a thousand to be found who can write to a friend a

decent greetingletter in Latin. But there is a numberless multitude who expressthemselves mostelegantly in Arabic and make poetry in this language with more beautyand more artthan the Arabs themselves.[62]A similar process may be noted in Egypt. The year 699, when the Arablanguage wasrendered obligatory in public use, marks the final end of Greek andEgyptian literatureson Egyptian soil. After that date we have the era of translation of Coptic

works intoArabic.[63]The relations established between the Arabs and the population of Syria,Palestine, and Egypt differed greatly from those created in North Africa, intheterritories of modern Tripoli, Tunis, Algeria, and Morocco. In Syria,Palestine, and Egyptthe Arabs did not meet any strong resistance on the part of the population,but rathercommanded the support and sympathy of the conquered people. Inresponse the Arabstreated their new subjects with great tolerance. With a few exceptions,they left the


31/104

Christians their temples and the right to perform religious services,demanding inreturn only the regular payment of a definite tax and the assured politicalloyalty of theChristians to the Arabian rulers. Jerusalem, as one of the most revered

places ofChristendom, remained open to pilgrims who came to Palestine fromdistant points ofwestern Europe to worship at the holy places. Jerusalem still kept itshostelries andhospitals for these pilgrims. It must also be remembered that in Syria,Palestine, andEgypt the Arabs came in contact with Byzantine civilization, and thatinfluence soonbecame apparent among the conquerors. Briefly, in Syria and Palestinethe conquerorsand the conquered established peaceful relations which lasted for aconsiderable periodof time. Somewhat less satisfactory was the state of affairs in Egypt; buteven there theattitude to the Christians was quite tolerant, at least during the early yearsof theArabian sway.After the Arabian conquest the patriarchates of the occupied provinces fellintothe hands of the Monophysites. In spite of this, the Muslim rulers granted

certainprivileges to the orthodox population of Syria, Palestine, and Egypt, andafter somelapse of time the orthodox patriarchates of Antioch and Alexandria werealso restored.These patriarchates still exist. The Arabian historian and geographer of thetenthcentury, Masudi, said that under the Arabian domination all four sacredmountains Mount Sinai, Horeb, the Mount of Olives near Jerusalem, and the Mount ofJordan

(Mount Thabor) remained in the hands of the orthodox. Only graduallydid theMonophysites and other heretics, including the Muslims, borrow from theorthodoxthe cult of Jerusalem and the holy places. Along with Mecca and Medina,Jerusalem waslater recognized as a sacred Muslim city. For the Muhammedans thesacred significanceof the city was established by the fact that Muawiya assumed the rank ofcaliph inJerusalem.[64]Quite different was the state of affairs in North Africa. There the greatmajority


32/104

of the Berber tribes, in spite of the official adoption of Christianity, stillremained intheir former state of barbarism and offered a very strong resistance to theArabianarmies, which repaid this opposition by terrible raids and devastation in

the Berberdistricts. Thousands of captives were taken east and sold there intoslavery. In thedead cities of Tunis, said Diehl, which are today in most cases in thesame conditionin which they were left by the Arabian invasion, one still finds at every turnsometraces of these formidable raids.[65] When the Arabians finally succeededinconquering the north African provinces, many of the natives migrated toItaly andGaul. The African church, once so famous in the annals of Christianhistory, suffered avery heavy blow. Here is what Diehl says with regard to the events of thisperiod: Fortwo centuries the Byzantine Empire had conserved in these districts thedifficultheritage of Rome; for two centuries the empire made the great and steadyprogress ofthese provinces possible by the strong defense of their fortresses; for twocenturies it

upheld in this part of North Africa the traditions of classical civilization andconvertedthe Berbers to a higher culture by means of religious propaganda. In fiftyyears theArabian invasion undid all these achievements.[66] In spite of the rapidspread ofIslam among the Berbers, however, Christianity still continued to existamong them,and even in the fourteenth century we hear of some small Christianislands in NorthAfrica.[67]

The Slavonic advance and the origin of the Bulgarian kingdom.From the second half of the sixth century the Slavs not only continuallyattackedand pillaged the Balkan possessions of the Byzantine Empire, but theyreached as far asthe Hellespont, Thessalonica, southern Greece, and the shores of theAdriatic Sea, andsettled there in large numbers. The Avaro-Slavonic attack on the capitaloccurred inthe year 626, during the reign of Heraclius; in the period of the Heracliandynasty theSlavs persistently advanced into the peninsula and began to populate itvery densely.


33/104

Thessalonica became surrounded by Slavonic tribes and found it difficultto seekprotection against their attacks even within its strong city walls.In their vessels the Slavs descended to the Aegean Sea, attacking theByzantine

fleet and frequently cutting off the supply of provisions to the capital. TheemperorConstans II was forced to undertake a campaign against Sclavinia.[68]From this timedates the migration of large masses of Slavs to Asia Minor and Syria.Under Justinian IIa horde of Slavs numbering no less than 80,000, according to V. I.Lamansky,[69] weretransported to Opsikion, one of the themes of Asia Minor. One part of them(about30,000) was mobilized by the Emperor and later took part in the strugglewith theArabs, during which they deserted the Emperor and sided with theMuhammedans. Forthis terrible offense the remaining Slavs of Opsikion were subjected toformidablemassacres. A seal of the Slavonic military colony of Bithynia, a province inthe theme ofOpsikion, has survived from this period. It is a monument of great value,a newfragment of Slavonic tribal history, which affords a ray of light in the

twilight of thegreat migrations, as B. A. Panchenko, who published and interpreted thisseal,declared.[70] Beginning with the seventh century, the problem of Slavonicsettlementsin Asia Minor assumes a very profound significance.The second half of the seventh century was marked also by the formationof thenew Bulgarian kingdom on the northern border of the Byzantine Empirealong theshore of the lower Danube, a state whose subsequent history was of

extremeimportance to the fate of the Empire. During this period the reference is tothe oldBulgarians, a people of Hunnic (Turkish) origin, closely related to the tribeof Onogurs.Under Constans II a Bulgarian horde headed by Asparuch (Isperich), forcedby theKhazars to move westward from the steppes bordering the Sea of Azov,settled at themouth of the Danube, and later moved farther south, entering the part ofByzantineterritory which is now known as Dobrudja. These Bulgarians, as V. N.Zlatarsky


34/104

asserted, had previously formed an agreement with the Byzantine Empireby which, asallies of the Empire, they were supposed to protect the Danubian borderagainst theattacks of other barbarians.[71] It is difficult to say whether this assertion

is correct ornot because very little is known about the early history of the Bulgarians.Even if suchan agreement really existed, it did not last very long. The Bulgar hordegreatlypreoccupied the mind of the Emperor, and in the year 679 Constantine IVundertook acampaign against them. The expedition ended in the complete defeat ofthe Byzantinearmy, and the Emperor was forced to negotiate a treaty according towhich he boundhimself to pay the Bulgarians annual tribute and cede to them the landbetween theDanube and the Balkans, namely, the former provinces of Moesia andSmaller Scythia(now Dobrudja). The mouth of the Danube and part of the Black Sea coastremained inthe hands of the Bulgarians. The newly formed kingdom, recognizedperforce by theByzantine Emperor, became a dangerous neighbor.After becoming politically established, the Bulgarians gradually widened

theirterritorial possessions and collided with the compact Slavonic populationof theneighboring provinces. The Bulgarian newcomers introduced militaryorganization anddiscipline among the Slavs. Acting as a unifying element among theSlavonic tribes ofthe peninsula who had lived up to this time in separated groups, theBulgariansgradually developed a powerful state which was, quite naturally, a greatmenace to the

Byzantine Empire. In subsequent periods numerous military campaignshad to beorganized by the Byzantine rulers against the Bulgarians and Slavs.Numerically weakerthan the Slavs, the Bulgarian horde of Asparuch soon found itself underthe greatinfluence of the Slavonic atmosphere. Great racial changes took placeamong theseBulgarians; they gradually lost their original Hunnic (Turkish) nationalityand becamealmost completely Slavonized by the middle of the ninth century, althougheven todaythey still bear their old name of Bulgarians.[72]


35/104

In 1899 and 1900 the Russian Archeological Institute at Constantinopleundertook to excavate the supposed site of the older Bulgarian seat (aul)anddiscovered extremely valuable survivals. On the site of the old capital ofthe Bulgarian

kingdom (Pliska, or Pliskova) near the modern village of Aboba innortheasternBulgaria, somewhat northeast of the city of Shumla (Shumen), theexcavatorsdiscovered the foundations of the palace of the early Khans of Bulgariaand part of itswalls with towers and gates, the foundations of a large church,inscriptions, manyartistic and ornamental objects, gold and bronze coins, and lead seals.[73]Unfortunately, these materials cannot be adequately evaluated andexplained becausethe sources referring to this period are very scanty. One must confinehimself atpresent to hypotheses and conjectures. Th. I. Uspensky, who directed theexcavations,stated that the discoveries made by the Institute on the site of the campnear Shumlahave brought to light very important data which afford sufficient basis fortheformation of a clear idea about the Bulgarian horde which settled in theBalkans, and

about the gradual transformations caused by the influence of relationswith theByzantine Empire.[74] As evidenced by the earliest monuments ofBulgarian customsand manners, found during the excavation of their old capital, the samescholar said,the Bulgarians soon became subject to the cultural influence ofConstantinople, andtheir Khans gradually assumed in their court the customs and ceremoniesof theByzantine court.[75] The major part of the monuments unearthed during

theexcavations belong to an epoch later than the time of Asparuch, chiefly tothe eighthand ninth centuries. The excavations are far from being completed.The proposal to move the capital of the Empire. In the middle of theseventh centurythe position of Constantinople changed radically. The Arabian conquest ofthe easternand southeastern Byzantine provinces, frequent Arabian attacks on theprovinces ofAsia Minor, the successful expeditions of the Arabian fleet in theMediterranean and


36/104

Aegean Seas, and, on the other hand, the rise of the Bulgarian kingdom onthe northernborder and the gradual advance of the Balkan Slavs toward the capital,the Aegeancoast, and into Greece created new and singular conditions in

Constantinople, whichnow no longer felt secure. The capital had always drawn its power fromthe easternprovinces, and now a part of these had been taken away from the Empire,while theremaining part became exposed to danger and threats on many sides.Only withreference to these new conditions can we properly analyze the desire onthe part ofConstans II to leave Constantinople and move the capital back to oldRome, or someother point in Italy. The chroniclers explain the Emperors departure fromthe capitalby the fact that he was forced to flee by the hatred of the people, arousedby theEmperors murder of his brother,[76] but this explanation can hardly beaccepted froma historical point of view.The true reason was that the Emperor no longer considered it safe toremain inConstantinople. Besides, it is very likely that he realized the inevitable

approach of theArabian menace from North Africa to Italy and Sicily, and decided tostrengthen thepower of the Empire in the western part of the Mediterranean Sea by hispresence,which would enable him to take all measures for preventing the Arabsfrom spreadingtheir conquest beyond the boundaries of Egypt. It is probable that theEmperor did notintend to leave Constantinople forever, but desired only to establish forthe Empire a

second central point in the West, as had been the case in the fourthcentury, hopingthat it might aid in halting the further advance of the Arabs. In any event,in modernhistorical literature the westward yearning of Constans II, somewhatpuzzling at firstglance, is explained by no personal sensitivity of the Emperor, but bypoliticalconditions.Meanwhile, the state of affairs in Italy did not promise peace. The exarchsofRavenna, having ceased to feel the strong will of the Emperor because ofthe great


37/104

distance which separated them from Constantinople and also because ofthe extremecomplexity of conditions in the East, openly tended toward defection. TheLombardswere in possession of a large part of Italy. The Emperors authority,

however, was stillrecognized in Rome, Naples, Sicily, and the southernmost part of Italy,where thepopulation was predominantly Greek.Upon leaving Constantinople, Constans II started out for Italy by way ofAthens,and, after a sojourn in Rome, Naples, and the southern part of Italy,established himselfin the Sicilian city of Syracuse. He spent the last five years of his reign inItaly withoutsucceeding in accomplishing his original projects.His struggle with the Lombards was not successful. Sicily was stillconstantlymenaced by the Arabs. A plot was formed against the Emperor and he waskilled in apitiful manner in one of the Syracusan bathhouses. After his death theidea oftransferring the capital to the West was abandoned, and his son,Constantine IV,remained in Constantinople.Religious Policy of the dynasty

Monotheletism and the Exposition of Faith.The Persian campaigns of Heraclius, by reclaiming for the Empire itsMonophysitic provinces Syria, Palestine, and Egypt once morebrought to the forethe problem of the governments attitude toward the Monophysites. Evenduring hiscampaigns Heraclius began negotiations with the Monophysitic bishops ofthe easternprovinces in order to bring about some sort of church unity by makingcertainconcessions in the realm of dogma. It seemed that unity was possible if

the OrthodoxChurch consented to recognize that Jesus Christ had two substances andone operation(energy, ), or one will ( ). From the last Greek word the teaching derivedthe name of Monotheletism, by which it is known in history.[77] AntiochandAlexandria, represented by their Monophysitic patriarchs appointed byHeraclius, werewilling to work towards an agreement, as was Patriarch Sergius ofConstantinople. Butagainst the Monothelete doctrine rose the Palestinian monk, Sophronius,who lived in


38/104

Alexandria, and his impressive arguments against the new teachingthreatened toundermine the conciliatory policy of Heraclius. The Roman pope, Honorius,recognizing the danger of all disputes of dogmatical problems which hadnot been

settled by the ecumenical councils, proclaimed that the teaching of onewill wascorrect. Sophronius, raised to the rank of patriarch of Jerusalem, a positionwhichafforded him ample opportunity for exerting still greater and widerinfluence, sent asynodical letter to the bishop of Constantinople in which he argued withgreattheological skill the unorthodoxy of the Monotheletic teaching. Anticipatingtheapproach of great church disturbances, Heraclius issued the Ecthesis( ) orExposition of Faith, which recognized two natures and one will in JesusChrist. TheChristological part of this document was composed by Patriarch Sergius.The Emperorhoped that the Ecthesis would do much to reconcile the Monophysites withtheorthodox, but his hopes were not realized. The new pope did not approveof theEcthesis, and, attempting to defend the doctrine of the existence of two

wills and twooperations, proclaimed the Monotheletic teaching a heresy. This actionintroduced anunexpected animosity between the pope and the Emperor. Moreover, theEcthesis waspublished when it could not have the great effect upon which Heracliuswas counting.The Emperors chief aim was to reconcile the eastern Monophysiticprovinces withorthodoxy. But in the year 638, when the Ecthesis was published, Syria,Palestine, and

the Byzantine portion of Mesopotamia no longer formed part of theByzantine Empire,for they had been occupied by the Arabs. There was still the province ofEgypt, but evenits days were numbered. The Monophysitic question had lost its politicalimportance,and the decree of Heraclius was of no consequence. For that matter,similar earlierattempts at religious compromise had never led to satisfactory results andneversucceeded in solving the main problems, chiefly because of the constantobstinacy ofthe majority on each side.


39/104

Type of Faith of Constans II.After the death of Heraclius, in the reign of Constans II, religious policydeveloped as follows. The Emperor still remained an adherent ofMonotheletism inspite of the fact that the movement had lost its political importance and

stood in theway of friendly relations with the papal throne. After the loss of Egypt,conquered bythe Arabs in the forties, the Emperor made a series of attempts atreconciliation withthe pope, offering to make several changes in the doctrines of theMonotheleteteaching. With this aim in view, Constans II issued in the year 648 theTypus ( ), or Type of Faith, which forbade all Orthodox subjects being in immaculateChristianfaith and belonging to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, to contend andto quarrelwith one another over one will or one operation [energy], or twooperations [energies]and two wills.[78] Besides prohibiting disputes, the Type ordered theremoval of thewritten discussions on this question, which meant the Ecthesis ofHeraclius, posted inthe narthex of St. Sophia. But this measure of Constans II did not effectthe desired

religious peace. In the presence of representatives of the Greek clergy, atthe LateranSynod, Pope Martin condemned the most impious Ecthesis [impiissimaEcthesis], andthe vicious Typus [scelerosus Typus], and declared all those whosenames wereconnected with the composition of the two decrees guilty of heresy.[79]Theoutstanding theologian of the seventh century, Maximus Confessor,resolutely opposedthe Type as well as the Monothelete teaching in general. Great

dissatisfaction with theEmperors religious policy was also growing stronger in the easternchurch.Angered by the popes action at the Lateran Synod, Constans II orderedtheexarch of Ravenna to arrest Martin and send him to Constantinople. Theexarch carriedout these orders, and Martin was convicted at Constantinople of anattempt to initiatean uprising against the Emperor in the western provinces. He wassubjected to terriblehumiliations and confined to prison. Somewhat later he was sent to thedistant city of


40/104

Cherson, on the southern coast of the Crimea, the usual place of exile forthe disgracedin the Byzantine period. He died shortly after his arrival to the city. In hisletters fromCherson the pope complained of bad living conditions and asked his

friends to sendhim food, particularly bread, which is talked of, but has never beenseen.[80]Unfortunately Martins letters give little interesting data concerning thecultural andeconomic conditions of Cherson in the seventh century.The Emperor and the patriarch of Constantinople continued negotiationswiththe successors of Martin on the papal throne, and finally made peace withthe secondsuccessor, Vitalian. The schism in the churches ceased. This religiousreconciliationwith Rome was politically important for the Byzantine Empire because itstrengthenedthe position of the Emperor in Italy.The famous opponent of Monotheletism, Maximus Confessor, was arrestedbythe Italian exarch and transferred to Constantinople, where he wasconvicted by a juryand cruelly mutilated. Maximus died as a martyr in distant exile.The Sixth Ecumenical Council and religious peace.

Although Monotheletism had lost its political significance, it still continuedto sowdiscord among the people even after the prohibition of the Type. Then thesuccessor ofConstans II, Constantine IV, desirous of establishing complete religiouspeace in theEmpire, convoked in the year 680 in Constantinople the Sixth EcumenicalCouncil,which condemned Monotheletism and recognized two natures in JesusChrist displayedin his one hypostasis, and two natural wills and operations [energies]

going togetherharmoniously for the salvation of the human race.[81]Peace with Rome was definitely re-established. The communication sentby thesixth council to the pope addressed him as the head of the first see of theUniversalChurch, standing on the firm rock of faith, and declared that the popesmessage to theEmperor expounded the true principles of religion.[82]Thus, in the time of Constantine IV, the Byzantine government definitelyexpressed itself against Monophysitism and Monotheletism. Thepatriarchates of


41/104

Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Antioch, torn from the Empire by the Arabianconquest,nevertheless took part in the Sixth Ecumenical Council by sending theirrepresentatives. The patriarch of Antioch, Macarius, who apparently livedin

Constantinople and exercised jurisdiction only in Cilicia and Isauria,[83]argued thecase of Monotheletism at the council, and for this stand was deposed andexcommunicated. The decisions of the sixth council proved to Syria,Palestine, andEgypt that Constantinople had abandoned the desire to find a path forreligiousreconciliation with the provinces which no longer formed part of theByzantineEmpire. Religious peace with Rome was reached by way of resolutealienation from theMonophysitic and Monotheletic population of the eastern provinces, a factwhich aidedgreatly the further strengthening of the Arabian power in these provinces.Syria,Palestine, and Egypt became definitely separated from the ByzantineEmpire.It cannot be said that the agreement reached with Rome on the SixthEcumenicalCouncil lasted very long. Even in the reign of Justinian II, the successor ofConstantine

IV, relations between the Byzantine Empire and Rome became strainedagain. Desirousof completing the task of the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils, JustinianIIsummoned in 691 a synod in Constantinople, which was held in theDomed Hall. Thiscouncil was called Trullan,[84] from the place of its meetings, or Quinisext(Quinisextum), because it completed the task of the two precedingecumenical councils.This synod called itself ecumenical. Pope Sergius refused to sign the actsof the council

by reason of certain clauses, such as the prohibition of fasting onSaturdays, and thepermission to priests to marry. Following the example of Constans II, whohad exiledMartin to the Crimea, Justinian ordered Sergius to be arrested and broughttoConstantinople. But the army of Italy protected him against the imperialcommissioner,who would have lost his life had it not been for the intercession of thepope.[85]During the second reign of Justinian II (705-11), Pope Constantine came atthe


42/104

invitation of the Emperor to Constantinople, the last pope to be summonedto thecapital of the Byzantine Empire. He was treated with highest honors byJustinian, who,the papal biographer claims, prostrated himself before the pope with the

imperialcrown upon his head, and kissed his feet.[86] Justinian and the popereached asatisfactory compromise, but there is no exact information on it. PopeConstantine, asthe German church historian, Hefele, pointed out, had by this timeundoubtedlyattained the fair middle path which Pope John VIII (872-882) subsequentlyfollowed bydeclaring that he accepted all those canons which did not contradict thetrue faith,good morals, and the decrees of Rome.[87] Pope Constantine returnedsafely to Romeand was welcomed by the people with great joy. Religious peace seemedfinallyestablished within the greatly reduced boundaries of the Empire.Origin and development of Theme OrganizationIn Byzantine history the organization of the themes is usually connectedwith theepoch of the Heraclian dynasty. The organization of the themes meansthat peculiar

provincial organization, prompted by the conditions of the times, whosedistinguishingfeature was the growth of the military power of the provincial governors,and finallytheir complete superiority over the civil authorities. This process was notsudden butgradual. For a long time the Greek word theme ( ) meant a military corpsstationed in a province, and only later, probably in the eighth century, wasit appliednot only to the military detachment, but also to the province where it was

stationed.Thus it began to be applied to the administrative divisions of the Empire.The main Byzantine source on the problem of the themes is the work OnThemes,written by Constantine Porphyrogenitus, the emperor of the tenth century,and hencedating from a period much later than the epoch of the Heraclian dynasty.This work hasalso the disadvantage of being based in some places on geographicalworks of the fifthand sixth centur

Documents

izvadeno iz kaegija i vasilieva.doc