Nevertheless, the first half of the eighth century saw the reassertion of imperial military strength, the stabilization of the frontier along the Taurus and Anti-Taurus range, and the consolidation of the new fiscal and military administrative arrangements which had evolved out of the crisis of the 640s and after, generally referred to collectively, if not entirely accurately, as the theme system. In 741 Leo III and Constantine V issued a brief codification of Roman law, the Ecloga (selection), based on a combination of lustinianic law with Old Testament morality, reflecting the ideological perceptions and assumptions of the times. Under Leo, however, there was also an increasing alienation between Constantinople and Rome, chiefly over matters of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and imperial taxation policy in Italy, but also over an ideological clash embodied in the imperial adoption of what came later to be called iconoclasm. The origins of the debate are no longer clear, but the issue of whether or not Christians were right to employ and pay respect to images of Christ or the Virgin had gradually come to the fore in the later years of the seventh century, and some churchmen felt strongly that it was inappropriate. Traditionally, and partly influenced by later iconophile propaganda, it has been assumed that the sources describing the mass persecution, harassment, and death of many iconophiles, as well as the destruction of icons themselves, were more-or-less accurate accounts. In fact, it seems that much of the story is invention and exaggeration. Leo III seems to have been a fairly mild critic of the use of images; Constantine V, while theologically more involved, only adopted a strongly iconoclastic policy after the first eight or so years of his reign; and neither seems to have destroyed images. The iconoclasts were concerned that images be removed from those positions in churches, for example, where they could be the object of mistaken veneration (Herrin 1987:307-43; Brubaker and Haldon forthcoming).
Whatever the truth of the matter, there is no doubt that it is in the reign of Leo III, a competent general and statesman, that the beginnings of a recovery in the empire’s fortunes can be dated. His son, Constantine V, one of the Byzantine Empire’s most successful generals and a popular hero in his own lifetime, was to use this to re-establish the East Roman Empire as a major power in the eastern Mediterranean/Balkan region.
Map 5 The Byzantine Empire in the 8th cei
S)
W
O
R n
>
R c/>
H
0
S
N
>
R
C/>
C
<
W
V-n
M
00
1
00
O
O
VO
Constantine V succeeded to the throne in 741, and almost immediately faced a rebellion from his brother-in-law Artabasdos, one of Leo s closest allies and friends, who may have understood that he would also share in the imperial power upon Leo’s death. Although initially deprived of Constantinople and cut off in Asia Minor, Constantine was able, after a campaign of some eighteen months, to defeat Artabasdos and regain his throne. There is no evidence that he set about enforcing his father’s iconoclastic policies at this time, contrary to later iconophile assertions; but after an attack of plague had struck Constantinople in the late 740s he appears to have taken the issue up more vocally, calling public meetings to discuss the issue and, in 754, convening a synod at which his theological position was clarified and the arguments against the devotion shown to images were elaborated. This synod, the Council of Hiereia, named after the imperial palace on the Bosporos at which it met, was claimed as the seventh general (ecumenical) council of the Church, although this claim was rejected by the council of 787 at which devotion to and public display of images was re-established.
But although Constantine’s reputation has been largely determined by his icon-oclasm, his importance lies as much in his other achievements: provincial military and administrative changes, the establishment of a small elite imperial field army, the so-called tagmata (the regiments) at Constantinople, changes in the fiscal system, and the establishment of a substantial balance in the imperial treasury. He seems to have been a careful financial manager of state resources; and he employed the resources at his disposal in a series of well-planned military expeditions both against the empire’s northern foes, the Bulgars, and in the east. Indeed, his frequent campaigns into the heartland of Bulgarian territory came near to destroying the Bulgar khanate entirely, although the Bulgars offered a tenacious and fierce resistance. In the east he campaigned against a number of key Arab fortresses, reestablishing military parity between the Roman and Islamic armies, and thus providing the stability economically and politically to permit the devastated provinces to recover from the century and a half of warfare to which they had been subjected (Brubaker and Haldon forthcoming; Herrin 1987: 295).
Constantine’s reputation for later generations was entirely associated with his iconoclasm. According to the iconophile tradition, Constantine was fanatical in his hatred of images and monks, and the histories are replete with tales of his persecution and torture of individuals and whole groups of his subjects who opposed his policies. He is accused of burning monasteries as well as images, of turning churches into stables, and similar sacrilegious acts. Yet a careful examination of the evidence suggests that much of this results from propaganda and later misunderstanding. Indeed, the destruction of icons and a generalized persecution of monks is nowhere clearly evidenced in the sources. Neither is there any evidence that the bulk of the population was particularly committed to one point of view or the other. Keen proponents of both views there certainly were, although most were involved either in the state or Church hierarchy at one level or another. A small but very vocal monastic opposition only appears in the reigns of Eirene and Constantine VI. Be that as it may, there is no doubt that iconoclasm was a convenient vehicle for the politics of the empress Eirene, and it is clear that it was only from the time of the council of 787 that a formal theology of images, so important for later Orthodox doctrine, was first elaborated (Brubaker and Haldon forthcoming; Herrin 1987).
Constantine V died in 775 while on campaign and was succeeded by his son, Leo IV (775-80), who continued his father’s policies but did not reign long enough to leave any substantial impact. Upon his death in 780, his empress Eirene became ruler as regent for the young Constantine VI. During her reign, the seventh ecumenical council was convoked and image devotion was restored, with most of the iconoclast clergy accepting the change. But although Eirene seems to have been a reasonably able administrator, the circumstances of her reign, both with her son and after his death in 797 (the result of her own plotting), meant that her rule was not well regarded by many contemporaries. Resurgent Bulgar power produced several military defeats, while the able Caliph Harun ar-Rashid inflicted several defeats along the eastern front. Her major achievement was to begin the recovery of the Peloponnese and central Greece, the interior of which had been out of effective imperial control for more than a century. Conversion to Christianity, the establishment of a Church administration, and the setting up of a military provincial organization went hand in hand in this process, and was to result by the middle of the ninth century in the complete recovery and reincorporation of these regions into the empire (Brubaker and Haldon forthcoming; Herrin 1987).
World History
