From the Beginning to THE Middle Ages

The medieval era in the strict sense begins in Byzantium with the reign of Herak-leios. It was during his reign that the empire, after having supposedly triumphed forever over its eternal enemy, the Persians, succumbed in the East to the Arabs, who had long been known to the Byzantines but who now rallied round a new and dynamic religion, Islam.

Circumstances obliged the emperors to modify administrative structures in order to adapt to the new conditions: to increase military effort against the Arabs in the East and, to a lesser extent, against invaders in the West at the very moment when state finances suffered from the traumatic loss of the rich eastern provinces. The creation of the military themes and the transformation of the central administrative offices in Constantinople offer a brilliant example of how reforms were effected in Byzantium. The emperors took no revolutionary decision nor followed any concerted plan but, finding themselves in perilous circumstances, salvaged what they could of the old system. What was left of the professional army was dispersed throughout the provinces which still remained under the authority of

Constantinople, this being the only means of supplying and equipping the troops; thereafter, young soldiers would be recruited within the framework of the new territorial divisions. The thematic reform was completed in less than a century, though it cannot be associated with any imperial decision of precise date. In Constantinople, new offices and new actors emerged out of the old structures. For example, the sakellariosy at the head of the Sakellioriy formerly a department of the Sacrum Cubiculumy became the chief officer of finance (Brandes 2002: 427-79; Haldon 1990:376-402).

The composition of the ruling eUte who led the armies and staffed the offices changed. The proto-Byzantine emperors, though not loath to bestow high civil or military office on their relations, generally preferred to promote commoners whose loyalty and abilities they appreciated and who, in return, owed them their fortune. The old landed aristocracy which subsisted by inheritance formed the Senate. After Herakleios the land tenure of this class was jeopardized by the loss of numerous provinces in the West as well as the East and by the ravages of Arab raids in Asia Minor. In Italy it all but disappeared, whereas in the East the old families of Constantinople appear to have survived the crisis of the seventh century because the capital and its hinterland were less affected by war. In the eighth century it seems that they stood in opposition to the troops recruited by the Isaurian emperors, and this political and social division would explain, though only partially, the division between Iconodules, whose leaders, such as Theodore of Stoudios, Tarasios, and Theophanes, belonged to these old families, and Iconoclasts, the staunch supporters of Constantine V and later Leo V (Cheynet 2000).

In the wake of Arab raids, which remained a danger for nearly two centuries, there emerged a new military class whose foundations were laid at the time of Leo III and Constantine V but which does not appear fully in the sources until the ninth to tenth century. The study of the evolution of the great families is facilitated by their adoption, practised with increasing frequency, of family names such as Melissenoi, Skleroi, Maleinoi, Phokai, Doukai, and Argyroi, whereby they might capitalize on the glory of their ancestors. Amongst specific traits of these famifies one might mention the provincial origins which bound them to the local population. They defended this latter with efficiency; from it they recruited the soldiers and officers of their armies, and by means of it they acquired influence whereby they might compete with imperial authority. Another trait which marks them is their persistence in clinging to the rank of strategos once it had been obtained by a member of the family, particularly as professional training was acquired on the job, whilst accompanying a father or uncle. The list of strategoi of the Anatolic theme in the tenth century shows how the Phokai and their relations by marriage managed to monopolize this office, the most important in the empire after that of domestikos of the ScholaCy excepting only the period under Romanos Lekapenos when they fell into disgrace (Dagron and MihJtescu 1986: 289-315). This hereditary tendency is typical of the era, for the emperors too did their utmost, with increasing success.

To found dynasties. This predisposition to transmit to one’s family the offices of state, notwithstanding the absolute freedom of the emperor to name whomever he wanted to any office, explains the longevity of many families, despite the coups d’etat which brought about changes of dynasty. The Melissenoi who made their appearance in the time of Constantine V still figured amongst the Constantinopo-litan nobility in the fifteenth century.

However, this caste was not a closed one and any valiant warrior might make his way into it by the effort of his sword. This hope of promotion applied particularly in the case of foreigners, above all the Armenians, who were the most numerous until the tenth century. The empire received all ‘nationalities’, absorbing Persians, Arabs, and Slavs, provided they remained loyal to their new masters and converted to Christianity. Often, these foreigners had been local rulers in their own regions. In the course of one or two generations the newcomers were integrated by marriage, and by the end of the tenth century there were few aristocratic families that did not have Armenian or Georgian blood in their veins.

This aristocracy grew rich not only through the booty ever more frequently taken from the enemy, but also through rewards granted by the emperors in return for military exploits. Alliances by marriage served as a complementary economic strategy, for intermarrying predominated within this military elite. The practice of equal inheritance amongst children including, apparently, daughters, divided family fortunes in every generation, giving the emperors a means of pressure. The generosity of the latter, notably through appointment to offices with pensions for life, the rogau could compensate for the spontaneous diminution of estates or, conversely, confiscations could weaken the power of overly turbulent generals. In order to reduce the risks of uncertain fortune, the aristocracy did not place all its riches in landed properties, despite its constant encroachments on free rural communities, but amassed treasures in coin, jewels, and precious cloths, of the sort that wives often received in dowry (Cheynet 1998). Such capital, a good part of it from the rogai distributed by the emperors, was movable and easy to hide, and could thus more easily escape the notice of imperial agents and remain immediately disposable in case of need, for example to raise troops during a revolt.

On the political plane, the shared desire of miUtary leaders to enlarge imperial territory and thus to enrich themselves and reward their men did not prevent profound rivalries arising amongst various factions, even where matrimonial alliances had been made in an effort to calm old enmities. Thus the conflict between the Skleroi and Phokai marked the history of the tenth century and enabled Basil II finally to gain the upper hand.

The old famihes of Constantinople maintained an important position at court, favoured by their proximity to the emperor and their capacity to turn intellectual talents to good use in the wake of the cultural renaissance which began with the second period of Iconoclasm and flourished mainly in the capital. These families occupied posts in the central administration and the Church. This double

Competence is illustrated well by the family of Photios which suppUed a number of high civil servants and several patriarchs from the end of the eighth to the end of the ninth century. The longevity of this civil aristocracy, more difficult to identify because it adopted transmittable names only later, was in no way inferior to that of the military families.

The Constantinopohtan civil aristocracy and its provincial military counterpart were united in a common hierarchy organized round the emperor and which manifested itself at banquets given on great religious feasts or celebrations of great events. There the order of precedence was so complicated that the atriklines (banquet master) had to compose taktika (handbooks) and revise them at regular intervals, for the terrestrial hierarchy, a reflection of the celestial one, ought in no wise to be subject to confusion (Oikonomides 1972). The creation of new offices allowed the emperors to show favour to their supporters. Moreover, the strict distinction between titles and offices reserved for bearded men and those intended for eunuchs was no longer observed by the eleventh century.

This cohabitation at court did not, however, reduce misunderstanding between the civil aristocracy of the capital and certain military families of Asia Minor, as is shown by the vain attempt of Nikephoros Phokas to grant the status of ‘martyrs’ to officers and soldiers killed in combat whilst protecting Christians from Muslims.