 Section 11 of the Byzantine Empire. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Recording by Mike Botez. The Byzantine Empire. The rear guard of European civilization by Edward Ford. Section 11. The Naval and Military Systems. The main external feature of the history of the Eastern Empire is its long and until the 11th century, even to some extent afterwards, successful resistance to its encircling foes. Some notice of the military system, which enabled it to do so, can hardly be omitted. The Roman army in AD 395 had entirely lost the semblance of what it had been in 200. It was a mass of heterogeneous mercenaries. The reason for this has been pointed out. We have also noticed that Leo I began to replace the mercenaries by native troops and that under the Dardanian emperors, foreigners and Romans were nearly equally divided. Justinian I, however, preferred to work with mercenaries, as they were only hired for short periods. He found them cheaper. At the close of his reign, the disorganization was complete and under his successors, a fresh organization had to be carried out, which was in its turn swept away. The main idea of imperial defense in the period 395 to 641 was that the line of the Danube was defended by one army, the Armenian frontier by another, and the Euphrates in Mesopotamia by a third, while reserves of native and foreign troops lay near the capital. None of these armies were territorial. Their strength varied. It was kept up by levies from different parts of the empire. The disasters of the late Dardanian, Mauritian, and Heracliad epochs brought about the beginnings of a scientific territorial system. Such a system had, of course, to some extent existed in the earlier empire. The frontier legions were largely recruited in the districts in which they lay. The recruits were however, for the most part camp children or chance waves who drifted into cantonments. The populations of the provinces in the near were debarred from bearing arms. But after 640 a complete change took place. It had indeed been in progress for some time previously. The armies of the East, Syria, and of the Armenian border had now fallen back behind the line of Taurus. Each was cantoned over a wide extent of country, which became its regular recruiting district. The same was done with the imperial guard, native, obseschi, and foreign, bukelari, the federati, optimati, and a division of the army of Thrace, which had been sent across to Asia. The coast districts from Misia to Cilicia became the naval theme. In Europe, the armies of Illyricum and Thrace were distributed in the themes of Thrace, Thessalonica, and Helas. At first, the themes varied greatly in size and strength. The Anatoliki were by far the largest of the armies, and could practically give the law to the others. Leo III, perhaps, as professor Buri suggests, made the system somewhat more symmetrical. But still, the Anatoliki were very strong. In the Civil War of 740 through 742, Constantin VI was supported by them, and by the Thrace's only on land. He seems to have been outnumbered by 2 to 1. But then, Artavastos controlled the Thrace's, optimati, obseschi, bukelari, Armeniachi, and a host of Armenian volunteers and royal levies. The optimati, probably in course of time, disappeared, and their district either ceased to be a military department or was united to Obsikion or Bukelarion. During the 9th century, considerable alterations were made, chiefly in the direction of decentralization. The danger of the large Anatolik and Armenian armies being collected under one hand was obvious. In 863, when the whole force of Asia took the field against Omar of Melitin, we hear nothing of the optimati. But five old themes, the Anatoliki, Armeniachi, Thraceians, Bukelarians, and obsikians were all present, and three new ones, the Paflagonians, Colonians, and Cappadocians, besides two Clisorarchies, Frontier divisions, those of Seleucia and Karsiana. The European troops, which cooperated in the campaign, were the themes of Thrace and Macedonia. 50 years later, we find that Karsiana and Seleucia have become themes also. During the period 750 to 900, there were no territorial acquisitions of any importance. The conclusion is, roughly speaking, that each great theme was divided into two or more smaller ones. Anatolikon, Armeniachi and Bukelarion were split into eight, and the border districts of Karsiana and Seleucia were enlarged and raised to the rank of themes. Two themes, Lycandos and Mesopotamia, were formed out of territory acquired in reign of Leo VI. The Kiberaiot theme was divided into two, one of which retained its old name, while the other was named after its headquarter port of Samos. In Europe, Thrace was divided into Thrace and Macedonia, Thessalonica into Thessalonica and Strymon, while Helas was split into Helas, Nicopolis and Peloponnesus. A new naval theme was also created in the Aegean. The great increase in the number of themes during the 9th and 10th centuries was the outcome of a calculated policy of decentralization. It does not imply a corresponding increase in the number of troops, though doubtless there was a considerable augmentation as the empire recovered strength and prosperity. As to the actual numbers, it is fairly certain that in the 8th century the five great Asiatic themes could put 80,000 men into the field for an invasion of Syria. For defense, they could probably, by calling in garrisons and depots, master more. It does not, however, appear that armies which conquered northern Syria, Bulgaria and Armenia ever exceeded 80,000 or 100,000 men. The Tactica of Leo VI affords tolerably good evidence that the army was completely territorialized. Each division had its regular district in which it was quartered and recruited. The organization of the troops was by divisions, termae, brigades, drungy, and single battalion regiments, bandy, of three companies still called centuries as of old, though as a fact each was 160 strong. The infantry battalion, including officers, musicians, and color-bearers, therefore probably totaled over 500 combatants. It included one company of heavy spearmen and two of archers and slingers. When in line, the heavy infantry, scutati, were in the center. The archers on either flank went charging. The scutati, of course, led the way. The archers following in second and third line, and when the opposing forces closed, discharging volleys over the heads of the scutati. The cavalry was the premier arm of the service. The empire had to contend all its days with mounted foes. With whose rapid marches and swift, far-reaching raids, infantry would have been unable to cope. The cavalry regiment probably consisted of only two squadrons, each from 160 to 200 strong. Its strength in the field was always much less, owing to the Byzantine practice of carefully weeding out all, but the thoroughly fit and efficient horses and men, and thus avoiding heavy sick lists. It may be set down at 250 troopers. The men were protected by coats of ring mail, worn over leather tunics, guards of plate on the arms, steel helmets and shields, and were armed with lance, sword, and bow. The presence of the latter weapon in the mounted arm is significant. The horses were also protected. Tactics were scientific and highly elaborated. The accepted principle was that the frontal advance should be always combined with a flank attack. Each band had a baggage train of 30 carts with 60 drivers and attendants, carrying in all 240 engineering tools, 60 baskets and sieves, 30 camp kettles and 30 hand mills, besides rations for man and beast, and reserves of arrows, medical stores, and perhaps pieces of armor to replace irreparable damages. The medical staff consisted of two surgeons and several attendants and bearers. The engineers department was scientifically organized and trained and well equipped. Space is lacking, wherein to describe it and its engines. But it may be said in brief that sieges presented no difficulty to the average East Roman army. The divisions and brigades varied considerably in strength. This variation was the general rule. It was based on the principle of disabling an enemy from estimating the numbers of a Byzantine army until the actual day of contact. This principle was also followed by Napoleon. A division might contain from five to 10 bands. A theme, one, two or three divisions of each of the two chief arms. A theme of two infantry and two cavalry divisions would probably put into the field about 16 weeded battalions and 40 squadrons, or say 6,000 infantry and 5,000 cavalry, with about 500 engineers, 2,000 non-combatants, 7,000 horses, and 900 vehicles. The number of the followers and carts is not excessive, as may be thought. An English battalion has five carts and 10 four-horse wagons. A Russian battalion, 20 vehicles and a European Army Corps appears to have one non-combatant for every four fighting men. The cavalry troopers were mostly of the small farmer class. The infantry, chiefly peasantry. During their term of service, they were liable only to the land tax. The officers belonged chiefly to the local gentry. The tastes and habits of the Byzantine aristocracy were distinctly military, and there was no difficulty in obtaining their services. There was also a large leaven of adventurers, chiefly of Armenian and Caucasian strain. In quality, the army was decidedly one of the best that the world has seen. In estimating its merits, we must never forget that its advantage in armament over its antagonists was very slight. It could not check a savage army by storms of bullets and shells, and then massacre it comfortably at a range of 400 yards. Its archery had to cope with similar forces in the ranks of its opponents. Nor was the Byzantine bow the terrible weapon which England borrowed from Wales, and there with defeated stubborn squad and fiery Frank alike. The army of New Rome faced and foiled attacks like the gassy rushes of Ahmed Kell and Tamei, which British soldiers found it hard enough to break with rifle and cannon with no better weapons than sword and spear supplemented by bow and sling. It appears like those of Greece and Rome to have been somewhat liable to panic. But on the whole, its steadiness was great. In conclusion, it ought to be pointed out that the thematic system was essentially defensive. With the advent of epoch of aggression, it began to decline. The armies of John the First and Basil the Second constantly moving between Danube and Caucasus and always on the frontier had to be maintained at war strength by special methods, and the old machinery fell into decay. With the decline in the free agricultural class, also the practice of employing mercenaries, which had never quite died out, began to revive. Basil the Second employed a large core of Russians. The foreign imperial guard became very important. Under the Comneny, probably two thirds of the army were mercenary troops. Still, during the period 610 to 1025, the forces of the empire were mostly composed of born subjects and were as national as in a realm of many races, they well could be. The navy was yet more important than the army, but we have no such complete information concerning it. In 395, there were practically no fleet. The Mediterranean was a Roman lake. The Vandal settlement in Africa brought about a maritime revival. But after the conquest of the Vandals and Ostrogoths, the Pax Romana on the sea precluded the necessity of maintaining a large navy. And it was not until the 7th century that the Saracen naval efforts once more forced the empire to look to its fleet. At first, it consisted of provincial squadrons. But in the 9th century, the Cretan trouble compelled the emperors to organize a distinct imperial fleet, which could be employed independently of the provincial vessels, which were needed to police the coasts. Warships were generally termed dromons, fast sailors. But as a fact, there were two distinct classes, dromons and pamphylons, which may be conveniently differentiated as battleships and cruisers. There were, of course, small craft also. They were certainly not the low, light, lean gullies of the late Middle Ages of Europe, which were evolved in the Venetian lagoons and were useless in rough weather. The classification of dromons as battleships and pamphylons as cruisers must not be carried to an extreme. The latter were built for speed, but were not necessarily unfit to lie in the line of battle. Flagships were usually specially built and very large pamphylons. The typical Byzantine dromon was a vessel of considerable size, probably larger than a Roman quenquerem. The fact that it had only two banks of oars implies merely that the builders of the Aegean had discovered the folly of piling tear upon tear and had developed their craft in the direction of length and beam, and also relied more upon sail power than oars, except for maneuvering. The crew totaled 300 men, or their boats, of whom 70 were marines, the rest semen and rowers, the former being certainly fighting men. The great naval victory over the Russians in 941 gives a clear impression of the Byzantine ships as vessels of considerable size and high freeboard. Medieval gullies would have been easy to board even from boats. Medships was a readout of heavy timber loop hold for archery, and on the forecastle a turret, perhaps a revolving one, sheltering a Greek fire cannon and its gunners. The poop was probably raised and was the station of the officers. There were two masts laid in rigged and perhaps 30 to 40 oars aside. The second class drumones had crews of about 200. The third, which seemed to have included most of the Panthelians from 120 to 160. There were also very light and swift small craft, Calandia, employed in scouting and dispatch bearing. The Imperial Navy in the 10th century consisted nominally of about 200 ships, about equally divided between drumones and Panthelians. In the Cretan expedition of 963, there were apparently at least 100 drumones and 200 Panthelians. The decay of the Navy in the 11th and 12th centuries was partly, no doubt, due to the disorganization of the Asiatic maritime provinces, partly to neglect consequent upon the driving of the Saracen flag from the sea, partly to financial difficulties. Still in 1170 and 1172, Manuel I put afloat fleets of 200 sail. The maritime resources of the Empire were still great. And naval decline must be attributed very much to indolent neglect under the Anjali and the sack of Constantinople, which broke the Empire up into various states, none of which was powerful enough to attempt to dispute the command of the sea with Venetians and Genoese. The vitally important part played in the Imperial history by the Navy has been noticed. End of section 11, recording by Mike Botez. Section 12 of the Byzantine Empire. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Recording by Mike Botez. The Byzantine Empire, the rearguard of European civilization by Edward Ford. Section 12, Irene Successors to Michael III. It is probable that Irene's eunuchs supported Nysephoros for the reason that they expected to find in him a convenient tool. They were bitterly disappointed. He was a man of decided character, possessed of considerable ability and great force of will. Nysephoros inherited the triple struggle, which had been the portion of his Isorian predecessors. The Saracens continually threatened the Asiatic provinces, and Harun was still Caliph, as desirous as ever for the delights of Rapin. In Europe, an enemy who lacked the savage Caliph's thin veneer of culture, Krum of Bulgaria, menaced the empire. Within the strife between iconoclasm and iconodually continued, and the administration owing to the wasteful policy of Irene was in grave disorder. In religious matters, the new emperor inaugurated the policy of toleration, which naturally did not make him popular with the iconodules. As an administrator, the financier predominated in him, and he is said to have welcomed decisions against corrupt officials for the opportunity thereby afforded of confiscating their property. He reestablished the custom duties at Hellespont, which had been remitted by Irene in order to purchase popularity. He imposed a tax of two nomismata on the sale of slaves, and increased the stamp duty on documents. He made all monasteries liable to the hearth tax. The measure was entirely justifiable, for religious houses escaped many obligations which fell upon the late taxpayer. Worse still, in the eyes of the monastic chroniclers, he quartered troops in monasteries and permitted the sale of sacred plate. As he had had experience in finance, it is probable that the taxpayers found evasion of their burdens difficult. The most ill advised of his financial acts was that he converted the entire non-native agricultural population into imperial serfs. It should be said that he expanded the revenue freely in the public service and cannot be accused of foolish parsimony. Internally, his rise led naturally enough to disturbances. Vardan, an Armenian general, revolted, but his troops deserted and he was tansured. In 808, a plot was formed to substitute Arsharvir, another Armenian, for Nicephorus. It was discovered Arsharvir's estate was confiscated and he was tansured. The emperor scarcely erred on the side of cruelty. Hostilities of a feeble sword dragged on with the new western empire during the greater part of the reign. They ended in 810 with a provisional treaty on the basis of the status quo. The Saracen War was far more troublesome. Nicephorus had repudiated Irene's shameful treaty, but acted rushily in doing so before reorganizing the army. In 804, the generals of Harun advanced across Taurus and defeated Nicephorus at Crassos. In 806, Harun himself took the field and captured Tiana and Heraklia on Taurus, while another army ravaged Anatolikon and stormed Ankira. Nicephorus, hampered by the disorganization of the army and troubled with Bulgarian raids, sued for peace, which was only granted on the terms of a yearly tribute of 30,000 Anomismata with six great gold medals for himself and his son Stavrakios. The ruined fortresses were not to be restored. Harun, who also had troubles elsewhere, was probably glad to retire with honor. Nicephorus made no attempt to fulfill the conditions of the treaty, and next year Cyprus and Rhodes were wasted. But in 809, Harun died. The only result of the war was that the frontier regions on both sides of the border steadily deteriorated. In Europe, a revolt of the Slavs in Greece was put down by the almost unaided efforts of the Hellenies, but the Bulgarian invasion was to prove the ruin of Nicephorus. Krum was a mere barbarian in Instincts, but a great warrior. He had gained great successes over the decrepit Avars, and in 809 turned his attention to the Empire. He surprised a small Roman force near the Strimon and then besieged Sardica. The fortress had a strong garrison of 6,000 men, but was taken and its defenders massacred. It was evident that the erstwhile predatory Bulgars could now undertake regular sieges. In 810, Nicephorus advanced to recover Sardica, but the troops discontented and demoralized mutinate, and the campaign was a complete fiasco. Nicephorus replaced the mutineers by new levies, raised funds by imposing a heavy tax on monasteries, and by levying an increased retrospective land tax on large proprietors and again took to field in 811. He pushed rapidly forward to Markelon, defeated the Bulgarians and captured one of Krum's villas with considerable treasure. Krum sued for peace, but Nicephorus demanded complete submission, to which the Bulgarian warrior king naturally refused consent. The army lay in careless order, apparently thrown off its guard by the negotiations. There was treachery in the camp. More than one imperial officer had deserted during the war. Treachery alone, even if we admit considerable laxity of discipline, can fully account for what followed. On July 25, Krum made great night assault. The army was taken by surprise. The Bulgarians swarmed through the camp, massacring the bewildered troops almost without resistance. Nicephorus and many great officers were slain. Stavrakios was desperately wounded. The story of a Bulgarian circumvolution is obviously fabulous. A large part of the army with Stephen, general of the guard and Theoptitos, count of the palace, escaped down the valley of the Hebrews to Adrenopoul. As it brought the wounded Emperor Stavrakios safely out of the panic and carnage. It is probable that part of it retained its organization, but it left behind it many thousands of dead and captives and all its supplies and baggage. Stavrakios was proclaimed sole Emperor at Adrenopoul, and the army was ready to stand by him. But his herds were clearly mortal. And the question of a successor was urgent. Michael Ranga Bay, a Greek noble who had married Procopia, the daughter of Nicephorus, claimed the crown in right of his wife and was supported by the iconogials and by most of the malcontents. A Greek, he was naturally an iconogial and took an oath that he would put no one of orthodox principles to death and would faithfully defend church and clergy. Stavrakios retired into a monastery and shortly afterwards died. Michael entirely reversed the policy of Nicephorus. He persecuted the Polish heretics of Asia so fiercely that they began to form independent frontier republics. He wasted immense sums on the clergy, though perhaps by his wife's advice, much was also done for charity and for the families of the slain of Markelon. The Emperor was probably the most insignificant ruler who had ever occupied the throne. And when no effort was made to check Krum's ravages, discontent spread fast. In 812, Krum took debeltos, anchialus and other places. He made overtures for peace. But one of his conditions was that all deserters should be delivered up to his vengeance. And to this, Michael's counsellors stoutly refused to agree. They declared that never should the empire so disgrace itself. Krum took Mesembria in November and early next year advanced on Constantinople, but was forced to withdraw by an outbreak of plague. The weak emperor showed his gratitude for the intercession of the saints by covering the tomb of the patriarch Tarasius with silver and became more than ever an object of content to the troops. In May, Krum again advanced. Michael joined the army at Ajanopoul and after much hesitation, risked a battle at Versinicia, in which he was totally defeated. The European troops on the left were almost exterminated. But the Asiatic division held out desperately and finally retreated, covered by the Anatoliki under Leo the Armenian. The emperor fled to Constantinople, while the forbidden army rallied at Ajanopoul, proclaimed Leo the Armenian emperor, and followed to dethrone Michael. There was no opposition. Michael was tarnished. His sons Theophilactos and Ignatius emasculated and likewise forced into monasteries. And Leo crowned in Hagia Sophia on July 11, 813. Michael survived his deposition for 32 years. Leo was an Armenian noble of the Arzunian clan. His elevation, though, mainly due to his military ability, was also a sign of the great Armenian influence in the empire. He had several children, the eldest of whom, Sambat, was proclaimed his father's colleague under the name of Constantin. Michael of Amorium, a friend of Leo, who had commanded on the right in the recent disastrous battle, was created a patrician. Thomas the Slav, another distinguished officer, appointed general of the Optimati. Manuel the Mamigonian, an Armenian, was placed in command of the Armenia Ki. On July 17, six days after Leo's coronation, the Bulgarian host, 30,000 of them cased in iron, arrived before the walls of Constantinople. Leo resorted to the shameful device of endeavoring to assassinate Krum at a personal interview by means of an ambush. Krum was forced to fly for his life, while his attendants were killed or taken. He revenged himself by plunder than massacre, storming Celembria, Redestos and Apri. Perintus alone held out. Finally, Ajournople, which had been left to itself when the army marched for Constantinople, was starved into surrender and plundered. Leo's cowardly treachery had had terrible results. The consequences could not have been worse, had the foul attempt on Krum's life never been made. Leo remained in Constantinople during the winter, adding to the fortification and energetically reorganizing the army, for Krum had resolved to make an effort to besiege the capital. The Bulgarian army raided Thrace during the winter and captured Arcadiopolis. Leo dared not attack it, and it went home in triumph with a great booty. Krum, meanwhile, had died very fortunately for the Empire. He was perhaps the most formidable adversary that it had seen since Gaserik. Leo had at last put together an army able to take the field, and in the spring of 814 he marched to Mesembria. The Bulgarians, confident of the success, advanced against him, but Leo attacked them in their camp, and after a furious struggle, gained a bloody and complete victory. The Bulgarian host is said to have been annihilated. Certainly, its loss was enormous. The fabric of Bulgarian greatness fell at a single blow. Leo's victorious troops, with five years of defeat to avenge, wasted the whole country with ruthless barbarity. The Bulgarians could not retaliate, and King Jom Omurtag was glad to conclude peace for 30 years. The disorders in the Abbasid Caliphate left the eastern frontier at peace, and in the west, after some piratical skirmishing, the aglabites of Ker-1 made a 10 years truce with the Empire. Leo was then able to devote his attention to internal affairs. He would seem to have modeled himself consciously upon Leo III. He reorganized the army and reestablished the military frontier against Bulgaria. Administrative corruption and disorder were repressed with a stern hand. Leo's justice as the final judge of appeal was universally acknowledged. His religious tendencies were iconoclastic, but he endeavored at first to follow a policy of toleration, and it was only when the Patriarch, Niciferous, publicly anathematized Antonius of Sileum, the leader of the iconoclast church party, and the troops began to retaliate by defacing images that the Emperor deposed him, and substituted Theodotus Melisenos, a strong iconoclast. The chief iconoduals were removed from the office. The most prominent Theodore of Studium was banished. Otherwise, there were no punitive measures. Persecution, there was none. Leo's reign was on the whole one of considerable prosperity, but he was not destined to die in peace. Michael of Amorium, actuated solely, as it would seem, by selfish ambition, plotted to make himself Emperor. He was imprisoned and sentenced to death, but his associates, still at liberty, made their way into the Emperor's private chapel on the morning of Christmas Day, 820, disguised as quarresters, and murdered him on the very steps of the altar. They rushed to the dungeons, released Michael, and proclaimed him Emperor, without waiting to remove his fetters. Leo's sons were seized and emasculated. His wife, forced to take the veil and a hopeless family, bereaved and mutilated, sent across to the Princess Islands, with the dismembered remains of the murder Emperor, lying among them in a sack. Michael of Amorium was not worthy of comparison with a man whom he had so violently succeeded. He was a good soldier, but otherwise possessed of no great ability, cruel and overbearing, something of a braggart also, a sort of crowned ogreau. He was an elderly widower, with a son in the prime of manhood. He crowned this son, Theophilus, his colleague, and contracted a second marriage with the Princess Euphrosine, daughter of Constantine VII. She had already taken the veil, but the patriarch absolved her from her vows, though the marriage was probably only nominal. Michael's accession was the signal for a fierce and prolonged civil war. Thomas the Slav took arms to seize the throne, and enlisted in his cause all Asia Minor, except Arminiakon and Obsikion. He made a treaty with the Caliph Mamun, and was crowned Emperor by Job Patriarch of Antioch. But he committed a grave error in enlisting bodies of Mohammedan's mercenaries, thus giving his enterprise an anti-national character. In 821 he besieged Constantinople, which was stoutly defended by Michael and Theophilus, while the Arminiaks and Obsikions were enforced Calcedon and prevented the formation of a complete blockade. Two attempts to storm were frustrated, and in 822 Michael Fleet defeated that of Thomas, and cut him off from Asia. Thomas was defeated by an army of Bulgarians, which had seized the opportunity to make a raid on Thrace, and thereupon Michael made a sortie, broke up the siege, and blockaded Thomas in Arcadiopolis. After a siege of five months the place fell, and Thomas and his son were taken and executed under circumstances of hideous cruelty, their limbs being amputated previous to hanging. This unfortunate civil struggle, which lasted for nearly three years, was productive of much misery and destruction of property within the Empire, and was the cause of a grave disaster without. In 823 an army of pirates from Egypt landed in Crete, and occupied it with little difficulty. The people were apathetic. At least one district made a favorable treaty with the Corsairs, who established themselves in a gigantic fortress near Knossos, which they called Kandak. For nearly a century and a half the island became a hotbed of pirates. We shall have occasion to see the misery which this robber community was able to inflict. Michael made two attempts to recover Crete, but both were completely defeated. A third attempt was successful in clearing the seas of the pirate squadrons, but Kandak was not taken, and Crete remained Muhammedan. Next in 827 Ziyadetala of Kerwan, invited by Eufumius, a Syracusan rebel who had been threatened with mutilation for the rape of Anan, invaded Sicily. The Byzantine troops were beaten at Mazara, and Agrigentum fell. Syracuse was next besieged, but the plague decimated the Syracans, and they were driven westward by reinforcements from Constantinople. The tide of success ebbed and flowed, but the Syracans, supported by swarms of adventurers from Egypt and Africa, slowly gained ground, and the troubles of the reign of Theophilus prevented the Roman government from sending reinforcements. Michael's general conception of his sovereignty appears to have been that it afforded him a good opportunity for taking his ease. He certainly neglected imperial affairs in the west. We have seen that he failed to recover Crete. The feat which at this time was not very difficult. Internally, he appears to have followed a listless policy of Lezifer. He temporized with iconoclasts and iconodules, and recalled Theodor of the Studium from banishment, but he was probably an iconoclast at heart. His son Theophilus was decidedly one. Michael obtained very qualified support from the Orthodox party. He died in October 829. It was 50 years since the Roman sovereign had died peacefully in possession of authority. Theophilus succeeded quietly to the undivided exercise of the supreme power. Theophilus was a curious figure. He was a man of decided character, a strong and even bigoted iconoclast of the type of Constantine VI. He had received an excellent education from the great scholar John the Gramarian. He was a gallant warrior and a conscientious administrator, but vain and ostentatious, somewhat petty and mean in his instincts, and cursed with a suspicious and discontented temper which led him into the commission of more than one deed of cruelty. His first act was to execute the murderers of Leo V. He seems to have been actuated by a superstitious dread of the vengeance of heaven, but seeing that he directly benefited by the deed and that the murderers had been pardoned by his father, the justice of his action was very problematical. He devoted much attention to improving the administration of justice, but his measures were so arbitrary and harsh that his interference probably did as much harm as good, though the excellence of his intention was never questioned. His notions of justice were oriental, and in other matters to quote Finley, the minute attention which Theophilus gave to performing the duties of a prefect indicates that he was deficient in the grasp of intellect required for the clear perception of the duties of an emperor. Theophilus was a widower at his accession, and as he was sonless it was important that he should marry again. His stepmother Euphrosin helped him by giving a grand reception to as many of the beauties of the empire as could be assembled, and in the midst of the festivities the emperor entered to choose his bride with a golden apple in his hand, a queer bit of rather childish posing. As he came down the line of courtesing maidens he saw the poetess Cassia and stopped by her, but for some reason could not find nothing better to say than that woman was the source of all evil. Yes, sire, came the swift reply, but she is the source of all the good also. Cassia, scholar and poetess, was not to be crowed down by a mere crowned head, but the small-minded monarch's vanity was stung by the retort, and he turned away in irritation. Then he saw Theodora, the daughter of the Drungarius Marinos, standing with dropped eyelids, and gave her the fateful toy without a word. Dr. Basel very rightly points out that Theodora was a scion of the great romanized Armenian house of the Mamigonians, leading us to the conclusion that the selection had been arranged, but against this it must be remembered that none but girls of high station would be present and that Euphrosin and Theophilus would hardly have deliberately insulted Cassia by a pre-arranged repulse. Probably the affair was genuine enough. One strong argument in favor of this theory is that Theodora was a devoted iconodule whom Theophilus would hardly have chosen had he known of her convictions. In 832 Theophilus issued an iconoclastic edict prohibiting every display of image worship and forbidding the use of the word holly before the name of a saint. The edict was enforced with considerable severity. Theophilus rarely or never inflicted the death penalty, but there was a great recordessence of torture and many iconodules were scourged, mutilated, or branded. Theophilus was inconsistent in his proceedings. However, his young wife procured the pardon of several prominent iconodules and he would not ill treat her, though probably her influence did much to encourage the opposition. He strengthened himself by procuring the election of his tutor John the Grammarian as patriarch. The latter, however, was a man of moderation and no increased intensity of persecution followed. By this time the caliphate was visibly breaking up, though still retaining some show of strength under the enlightened Caliph Mamun. Mamun's reign was distracted by civil wars and revolts, especially in Persia, were a great rising to place under Babak. The result was an immigration into the empire chiefly of Persia-Armenian Christians whose number was so large that a core of 30,000 troops was organized from them. Their chief was a great noble who claimed descent from the Achaemenades. He was known among the East Romans by the name of Theophobos and received in marriage the hand of the emperor's sister Helena. The protection granted by Theophilus to these refugees caused a renewal of the dormant war. A Saracen army under Abu Qazar invaded the empire in 831 and gained a considerable victory over Theophilus in person. Next year, however, the fortune of war changed and the Saracen forces which entered the empire were met by Theophilus in Karsiana and completely defeated. In 833 Mamun himself appeared in the West and ravaged Cappadocia, but died in the same year. The first ill successes of Theophilus had drowsed his bad instincts and he acted towards his generals with such suspicious harshness that one of the most distinguished manuel fled to the Caliph. A splendid embassy under John the Gramerian was sent to Baghdad immediately after the death of Mamun with the object of concluding peace with Mutasim, now Caliph. John had orders, very ill-advised, but which he duly carried out to make an ostentatious display of wealth of the empire. He failed to achieve the main purpose of the embassy but succeeded in inducing Manuel to return. About this time Karsan was formally annexed and a fortress named Sarkel built on the dawn to protect the great trade route eastward. The amount of territorial gain is uncertain. The imperial general was Petronas, brother of Theodora. Irritated by the failure of his overtures to Mutasim, Theophilus crossed Taurus in 836 and ravaged Melitin. A Sarasen army was defeated with great loss and he marched unopposed to Samosata which was taken and destroyed. Among the towns sucked was Sozopetra, a place for which Mutasim appears to have had peculiar affection. He is said to have made a special appeal to Theophilus to spare it. The expedition appears to have been characterized by much wanton cruelty and Mutasim swore a solemn oath that he would destroy and return the home of Theophilus. Meanwhile the war in Sicily dragged on. The Saracens were continually reinforced by Desperados from Barbary and troops sent by the Aglabite monarchs while Theophilus on his side supported his generals with energy thereby however seriously weakening his forces in Asia Minor. By 837 Mutasim had quieted Persia and was ready to begin the fulfillment of his oath. In 838 he invaded the empire in two columns. The main attack was directed from Tarsus straight on Amorium and was led by Mutasim in person. The subsidiary one was commanded by Afshin, the best of Mutasim's captains. It consisted of 30,000 Persians and Arabs, 10,000 Turks and the whole Levy of Armenia under its Christian governor Sembat. Its mission was to invade Cappadocia and distract Theophilus while the main host 130,000 men everyone with Amorium painted upon his shield marched forth from the gates of Tarsus to fulfill the vow of Mutasim. Theophilus was clearly very weak in proportion. The army was probably much reduced by drafts to Sicily. Perhaps it had never been reorganized after the disorders of Michael's accession. It certainly had no trust in the emperor who on his side was without confidence in his officers. Theophilus seems at first to have taken up a defensive position in the Silesian passes, but Afshin's advance turned his flank and leaving only Etios, the general of the Anatoliki, to observe Mutasim, he hastened to throw himself upon his general. A great battle was fought at Dasimon and Theophilus was completely defeated. He displayed plenty of useless personal bravery and was finally escorted off the field by Theophobos and his Persharmonians while Manuel atoned for his temporary lapse from loyalty by dying at the head of the rearguard. Theophilus rallied his broken troops only at Amacea once he retreated to Dori-Leum. Meanwhile the Caliph's vanguard under his Turkish general Ashnas, forced the Silesian passes, his main body, defiling safely under its cover, came through and concentrated on Tiana and Etios, outnumbered by at least five to one, could make no stand. He called in every available man and retreated steadily upon Amorium. From Tiana to Amorium is more than 200 miles, but Etios outmaneuvered the overwhelming army which was in pursuit and reached the Doom City in safety. He sent on such regiments as he could spare to reinforce the Emperor and threw himself into Amorium with his best troops, resolved to defend it to the last extremity. Ravaging Lyconia and Cappadocia with the usual barbarity, the Saracens came on to besiege Amorium. A furious assault was instantly made and gallantly repulsed. Theophilus made overtures for peace. The Bishop of Amorium offered to ransom the city, but Mutasim was deaf. He wanted only vengeance and renewed his assaults again and again, every attempt being repelled with terrible loss. For nearly two months Amorium held out desperately, but famine told steadily upon the gallant defenders and the end was certain. Theophilus could not were dared not advance to the relief. Treachery did what the Caliph's hosts could not achieve. A scoundrel named Voidetses, presumably a Slav, but perhaps an Armenian, betrayed his trust. The Saracens poured in by the gate he opened and Amorium was Mutasim's after a splendid defense of 55 days. The remnants of the garrison were massacred and Mutasim proceeded to fulfill his vow by a foul and calculated butchery of the inhabitants. As far as possible the place was destroyed. 30,000 inhabitants are said to have perished. Mutasim bought his not very glorious success at the price of 70,000 men. Etios and 42 officers were taken, captives prisoners for seven years and finally murdered by Vatek, the son and successor of Mutasim. Giblin very justly says that Mutasim had sacrificed the lives of 70,000 subjects to a point of honor. He made no attempt to utilize his success but retired, retaining no foot of ground after such tremendous exertions. He refused to make peace unless Manuel, now dead, and a Persian refugee named Nazar, were surrendered. Theophilus would not disgrace himself and the war dragged on. Nazar was killed in action by the Emir Abu Said, but the latter was soon after defeated and killed. Melitane was wasted and Celucia, the port of Antioch, sucked by naval expedition. Theophilus, however, since Amorium had ceased to direct affairs with Viga, he strove to dissipate his growing melancholy by indulging in splendid and useless building operations. His health was declining and he appointed Theodora, regent for his little son Michael, with her uncle Manuel, her brother Bardas and Theotistos, the postmaster general, as her assistants. He excluded his gallant brother-in-law Theophilus and just before his death gave way to his suspicions and caused him to be murdered. As he looked up on the dead face of the man who had served him faithfully, his better feelings overcame him. Though art gone, fear of God, he said mournfully, but I am dear to God no more and, turning away, his face died. As he breathed his last, Theodora laid one of the icons that he detested on his breast so that he should die orthodox and not lack the prayers of the church. It was a superstitious act, but nonetheless one of pure womanly charity and deserves record, January 20, 842. When Michael III was proclaimed in the hippodrome, the people called for the coronation also of Manuel, who was highly popular, but he had no intention of wronging his great nephew and steadily refused. Loyalty was perhaps stronger in him than religious feeling. He had, hitherto, had the name of a strong iconoclast, but now supported his niece's iconodulic policy. The ecclesiastical revolution was affected, and on September 19, the proscribed pictures were restored to the churches. John the Gramarian was deposed and blinded. Theodora secured the prayers of the church for Theophilus by flatly informing the iconodulic ecclesiastics that if they would not grant them, she would support iconoclasts. On the whole, the change was well timed. The number of convinced iconoclasts was not large. The movement had done good work in raising the moral tone of society. Men were now desirous of peace. A Slavonic revolt in Peloponuses was put down without trouble, but the octistos, ambitious of military renown, failed in expeditions to Colchis and Crete. In Sicily, the loss of Messina in 842 was a fatal blow to the imperial power. It seems also that Sardinia was occupied by Corsairs above this time. Its connection with the empire had always been loose. The octistos, endeavoring to retrieve his reputation, was completely defeated at the Moropotomous, among the foothills of Taurus, but great Saracen armament was destroyed by storms of Lycian coast. In 845, the cruel Deboci Vatek put to death Gallant general Etios and his companions. They were regarded as martyrs. The Poletian communities were now driven by persecution into open revolt. Their chief Carbeas established himself at Tefrike in Lesser Armenia and joined the dangerous Omar, emir of Malatya, in his raids. Omar was checked by the Viga of Petronas, brother of Theodora, general of Thrakession. Alim, emir of Taurus, was defeated and in 852 a naval expedition sacked Damietta and held the ruins of Alexandria for a year. But the Poletians long remained troublesome. In 855 desertions in the Regency ended in the murder of the octistos by Bardas, who now became practically supreme, though Theodora did not retire until 857. She is accused of neglecting her son, but it is difficult to say whether the charges entirely justified, and Bardas may not have been entirely to blame for his nephew's dissolute habits, though he was debauched and unprincipled, as able and active. Theodora's administration had been on the whole successful. The finances had been thoroughly reorganized by Theoctistos, and the treasury contained a reserve of 130,000 pounds of gold and over 300,000 of silver, about 7 million pounds. The measures of Bardas were on the whole well conceived and carried out. They embraced every department of state. He gave special attention to the administration of the law, and began the task of drawing up a revised code. He protected learning and re-founded the University of Constantinople, placing at its head the great scholar Leo the Mathematician. He did much for the army and affected such a revolution in its tactics, that the author of the military manual, Peri Paradromis Polemu of the next century, speaks of him in the highest terms. His system appears to have been to work the cavalry independently of the infantry against the Saracen raids of mounted men. It was decidedly successful in protecting Asia Minor. At home, however, the court was a scene of constant scandal. Bardas was accused of every vice. The young emperor was already on the high road of Dipsomania. The patriarch Ignatius made no secret of his disgust. When Bardas ousted Theodora, he attempted to force her to take the veil. But Ignatius refused to aid the design and finally declined point blank to administer the sacrament to the Dissolute Regent. Thereupon, Bardas, taken advantage of the enmity which his somewhat excessive zeal had excited, deposed him, substituting in his place, Fortius, the first secretary of state, a man of great ability and wide culture, connected also with the imperial family. He was probably coerced into accepting office, but once established, showed himself no pliant instrument. Ignatius appealed to the bold and vigorous Pope Nicholas I, and for many years a bitter controversial struggle was waged between successive Popes and Fortius. There were other points at issue, beside the haste deposition of Ignatius, and in general it may be said that the effect of the struggle was to widen the bridge between east and west. During the greater part of this period, Omar of Malatia was active in the Asiatic frontier. In 856, Leo, the imperial general, took the offensive, crossed Euphrates and advanced to Amida. The Saracens retaliated by several raids. Michael failed to check them by besieging Samosata in their rear, and in 860 he was badly defeated by Omar at Dasimon. In the same year, Constantinople was scared by a sudden raid of Russians. A strong state had been built up by Scandinavian chiefs upon the Slav communities in the great eastern plain, and the commercial towns of Novgorod on Lake Ilmen and Kiev. Us called and dear the rulers of Kiev came down the Dnieper with a flotilla of about 200 boats, containing perhaps 7000 savage warriors, and horrified the Constantinople by running past the capital, landing in Thrace and ravaging the neighborhood with hideous barbarity. Michael, who had left Constantinople to oppose a Cretan raid, hastily returned and defeated them, but the daring nature of the attempt and the barbarity displayed had created a panic in the capital. In 861 Michael conducted an expedition against Bulgaria. It was successful. King Boris embraced Christianity, but in return Michael retroceded the debatable Zagora, which had changed hands so often since the days of Justinian II. Bulgaria now became rapidly Christianized and gave no trouble for over 30 years. European affairs satisfactorily arranged. It was resolved to deal finally with Omar of Malatia. In 865 Omar collected an army of 40,000 strong, ravaged the Armenian theme and sucked Amisuz. The Thracian and Macedonian themes were sent to Asia, and the commanding chief committed to the capable Petronas. His strategy was admirable. Omar, laden with prisoners and booty, was retreating from Amisuz, pursued by the Bukillarian, Armenian, Paflagonian and Colonian themes under General Nassar. When he found his path barred by the Anatoliki, Opsikians and Kapatosians, they took up a position and repulsed him, while Petronas, with the Thracians and Europeans, was nearing his right flank. Omar retreated apparently to the northeast, but was intercepted by Nassar and again defeated. His one hope now was to find a gap in the circle of foes, but before he could do so, Petronas came upon him near Abisianos in Pontus. He was once more defeated and fled eastward, with the three armies in hot pursuit, only to find himself brought to a stand by, by an impossible mounting spur, while behind him the circle was completely closed. Harassed and exhausted, the Saracens turned to bay. Petronas ordered a general advance. The ten themes closed in on every side and literally swept their opponents from the face of the earth. Omar fell, hardly a man escaped, and when the news of the catastrophe reached Baghdad, the population broke out into alarming riots. Bardas was losing favor with Michael. The Emperor was now a confirmed dipsomaniac, and Bardas created Caesar in 862, joined less and less in his nephew's orgies. He quite possibly hoped to eventually become Emperor, and Michael, who went sober, was devoid neither of energy nor ability, grew suspicious. He confided his suspicions to his grand chamberlain, Basil, a man of half Armenian, half Macedonian descent, who had won his favor in the first instance by his personal strength and skill in horse-breaking. Basil was a man of great natural ability, and endeared himself to the wretched Emperor by repeatedly drinking him under the table at the court debauchies. Feeds of this kind inspired Michael with great admiration, and he gave Basil all his confidence. After some hesitation he directed him with Postmaster General Sambat to make a way with Bardas, who was murdered at Michael's feet, April 866. On May 26, Basil was proclaimed Emperor, and colleague of Michael. Sambat had expected the dead man's title of Caesar, and his disappointment found vent in revolt. In which he was aided by Paganus, Count of Obsicion. The revolt was easily put down, and its leaders blinded. Basil took his position very seriously. Michael found that he had deprived himself of his pleasant boon companion, and grew discontented with him. Amongst his crazy acts this time was the exhumation and burning of the bodies of Constantine VI and John the Gramerian. He now became liable to delirium tremens. Next he created a boon companion named Basiliskian, Emperor, evidently as a rival to the Reformed Basil. The latter's days were clearly numbered, but he resolved to anticipate his fate. He called together relatives and friends, and after an orgy in the Anthemian palace near Calcedon, Michael was murdered under peculiarly piteous circumstances. Whatever may be thought of Basil's conduct, he had practically no choice except to slay or be slain. Michael was 29 years of age at the time of his death, though he probably would not have lived much longer. He was already a physical and mental wreck. His mother, who was in the Anthemian palace at the time of her son's murder, was permitted to give his remence imperial obsequies. She died a few months later, perhaps partly from horror and remorse for her own neglect. Basil, without as appears the slightest opposition, became sole emperor, and of section 12, recording by Mike Botez. Section 13 of the Byzantine Empire. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Recording by Mike Botez. The Byzantine Empire. The Rear Guard of European Civilization. By Edward Ford. Section 13. The Early Macedonians. Part 1. Basil the Macedonian was a man of humble origin, who had commenced life by trumping to the capital to seek employment. On one side, at least, he was of Armenian descent. The means by which he gained crown were soon forgotten, if indeed they were even generally known, and he quickly won respect by his good intentions, industry, and ability. He began by partially confiscating the reckless grants made by Michael III to favorites, and having thus replenished the treasury, set himself to organized finances as they had never yet been organized in the interests of the taxpayers. A man of the people himself, he perfectly understood their sufferings and feelings, and his new regulations appeared to have been thoroughly judicious. In legal matters, he was perhaps less successful by reason of inexperience, and he appears to have caused confusion by hurrying forward the publication of the new manual, the Prochiron. He conciliated the stricter clergy by reinstating Ignatius in the Patriarchate. The act was ratified by a church council held in 869-70, but Basil refused to make further concessions to the Roman papacy. Under the Amorians, Dalmatia had been left almost to itself. At the outset of his reign, an embassy from the Dalmatian Slavs reached Basil, praying for help against Saracen pirates, and a fleet of 100 ships under Nikitas Orifas sailed for the Adriatic. Ragusa, which had been located for many months, was relieved, and the Slavonic tribe became formally subject to the empire. With great good sense, Basil made no attempt to interfere with their local customs. He pursued the same wise policy with the Slavs of the Balkan peninsula. The chiefs had hitherto bought their posts. Basil permitted free election. In 871, Basil, with some trepidation probably, for he was untried in war, took command against the Policians of Tefrikay, now under the active lead of Criso Chir, son of Carbias. His first attack failed, and he owed his life to the exertions of an officer, Theophilactos, called the unbearable, perhaps from his bad temper. He turned his attention to Italy, where Saracen pirates, beginning in 842 as allies of a claimant to the Duchy of Beneventum, were active and dangerous. In 870 Ludwig II, the capable Carolingian emperor, besieged Bari, their chief center, and was assisted by Nikitas Orifas. But the admiral soon quarreled with Ludwig and withdrew. In 871, the emperor captured the city but was soon involved in troubles in Italy, and at his death in 875 the disorder appeared worse than ever. In 874, Basil proceeded to the east. He took Samosata and Sozopetra, wasted meditation, and gained an incomplete victory over the emir. But then returned to Constantinople, leaving a force under the general Christopherus to watch the Policians. Christopherus defeated and slew Criso Chir at Agriane, took Tefrikay and destroyed the Polician community. Many of the Policians enlisted in the imperial army for service in Italy. Dither in 876, a large expedition was sent. Bari was occupied and in the course of the next four years, the greater part of the present provinces of Apulia, Basilicata, and Calabria was gradually conquered. The general Nicephorus Focas greatly distinguishing himself. Beneventum was occupied, but this conquest was transitory. The new theme of Longobardia was held for nearly two centuries. Success in Italy was to some extent offset by disaster in Sicily, where the Saracens, in 878, captured Syracuse after splendid defense by John the Patrician. The empire now held only Toromenium and Catan in Sicily, with a few forts on Mount Etna. In 876, the imperial army took Lulu, an important fortress on the slope of Silesian Taurus. Next year, Basil took command, but only wasted Silesia and Comagini. His general, Andreas the Slav, defeated a Saracen army on the Popandos, but in the following year, his successor, Stepeotes, was routed near Tarsus. In 880, Basil again took command, but could not take Germanicia, and accomplished nothing of importance. This was his last appearance in the field. In 881, a Saracen raid on Euboea was beaten off by the general Iniatis, and the Emir of Tarsus, Slain, and a Cretan expedition into the Propontis was defeated by Nikitas Orifas. The Corsairs next raided the western coast of Greece, but Orifas hold his lighter vessels across the Isthmus of Corinth, and picking up such ships as were available in the west, caught the pirate fleet off its guard and completely defeated it. The prisoners, many of whom were renegades, were executed with torture, doubtless the provocation had been great. The raid had evidently been concerted with the African Saracens, for shortly after, a fleet from Tunis, including 60 immense ships, appeared in the Ionian Sea. It ravaged Cefalenia and Zacanthos, while Nazar, the imperial admiral, was detained by a general desertion of his rowers. They were replaced by a hasty levy of Peloponnesians, and Nazar then attacked the Muslims and gained a complete victory. He drove the relics of the fleet into the African ports, landed in Sicily, and wasted the neighborhood of Palermo. The price of olive oil fell to almost nothing. The victorious ships came home laden with it. In 884 the first edition of the Basilica appeared. It was not an epoch-making piece of legislation, simply a collection of all the laws in force, more or less based upon the Code of Justinian. In some respects a conscious throwback to it. The Iconoclast legislation is of course violently criticized, but Finley remarks that the Orthodox codifiers were glad enough to avail themselves of its help. An important feature is that the tenant farmers are once more chained to the soil. The democratic epoch of the Iconoclast has passed. For the next two centuries the dominant class is a war-like nobility, steadily encroaching upon the small cultivators. The results of this aristocratic revival were eventually disastrous. The imperial armies had been recruited from the hardy peasant class. With its gradual disappearance, the supply of good war-like material began to fail. It is difficult to blame the emperors, who did their best to protect the peasantry, or the nobles, who were as creditable on aristocracy as any state ever possessed, and for whom land was practically the only safe investment. Another evil fostered by the victory of orthodoxy was monocism. The foundation of monasteries became a fashion. Men stepped aside by thousands from the active work of life. Valuable land passed without hindrance into the church's dead hand. On the death of Ignatius in 878, Basel reinstated Fortius, whose reappointment was confirmed by Pope John VIII, and by a church council held in 879-880. Basel's aim all his life was to keep on good terms with the Bishop of Rome, but the bridge between East and West was too wide to be closed by personal friendliness. Basel in early life had owed much to a Greek lady of Patras, named Danielis, who played to him the part of a fairy godmother. Her wealth was enormous. She appears to have been what would today be called a multimillionaire, and the inventory of her presence and property shows that Peloponnesus must have contained wealthy manufacturing towns, as well as agricultural communities and sheep farms, and that prosperity in Greece was at a high level. Basel's private life was not edifying. On the death of his first wife, he married Eudosia Ingerina, mistress of Michael III, for the same reason that the Comte Dubarie married Jean-Vo Bernier, and at the same time carried on an intrigue with Michael's sister, Thecla. His wife conduct was a scandal, and he passed his last years in an atmosphere of continual suspicion. He died in 886 and Leo and Alexander, whether his children or not, quietly succeeded. The reigns of Basel I and Leo VI form a period of transition from the era of defense and recuperation to that of expansion. Under Irene and the Amorians, all the great Mediterranean islands had been lost, but Basel had gained southern Italy, strengthened imperial influence in the Mediterranean, and secured the frontier on the east. Internally, though the decline in the free agricultural population had already begun, the wealth of the empire was probably greater than it had ever been. The chaos in Europe drove capital into the single state, where life and property were safe and justice was assured. Byzantine commerce filled the Mediterranean, and though Saracen pirates might inflict much private misery and now and then deal severe blows, the imperial fleets on the whole guarded the trade routes. The trade with the east was extensive and profitable. A very large part of Eurasian commerce was concentrated in the empire. Nearly the entire carrying trade of the Mediterranean was in the hands of its maritime peoples, mainly Greeks. The European provinces had recovered greatly under the vigorous rule of the Iconoclasts. Hellas was especially rich and flourishing. The revenue was large and easily raised. The administration was generally equitable. Operation was decidedly the exception and not the rule. The comparative inaction of the next 80 years was due mainly to the lack of enterprise, not always unjustified of the emperors. Leo VI, first act, was to enter the body of Michael III with full solemnities in the Church of the Holy Apostles. It certainly gives color to the suspicion that Basel was not his father. Leo was a kind of 9th century Claudius or James I. He had been educated by fortius and possessed considerable book learning, but little practical ability. He spent much time in elaborating court ceremonial and in compiling and re-editing books. A literary emperor was something of a curiosity to the Constantinopleitons and when Leo composed a book of political riddles and prophecies they forthwith dubbed him the wise. Personally, he seems to have been a kindly-natured man, but all his reign he was under the influence of ambitious placement. First, Tzautes Stylianos, then Samonas, a Saracen who was hardly even a nominal Christian. His morals were loose. His forewives overlapped. His successor was not born in wedlock. Fortius was induced to retire in favor of the emperor's second brother Stephen, then only 18 years old. Leo had some bickering with Stephen's successor Nicolaus, the mystic. Upon the subject of his matrimonial lapses, but otherwise the ecclesiastical piece of the reign was unbroken. Fortius, after retiring from the Patriarchate, spent the rest of his life in seclusion in an Armenian monastery where he died in 891. Internally, the chief event of Leo's reign was the publication of a new and enlarged edition of the Basilica in 60 books. The administration went on as usual, little affected by the emperor's personal weakness, except that much trouble was caused by his selfish ministers, granting trading monopolies to their creatures. The ultimate consequences of this were disastrous. It brought on war with Bulgaria, between which state and the empire peace had subsisted for over 70 years with trifling interruptions. Bulgaria had proved a valuable buffer state on the breakup of the Khazar Empire in the 9th century. It had become semi-civilized and Christian and had attained a considerable degree of wealth as the middleman between the empire and central Europe. In 892, the Bulgarian king Simeon, after vain efforts to secure redress, Leo being hoodwinked by his favorites, invaded the empire and defeated the army of Thrace, mutilating his prisoners. Leo raised troubles in his rear by inciting the Turkish Magyars, north of the Danube, to attack Bulgaria. But Simeon successfully coped with them, and in 893 defeated a Byzantine army under Theodor Protovestiarios and Leo Katakalon. Leo had perhaps by this time gained some inkling of the real reason for the war, and he concluded peace. During Leo's reign, the Asiatic frontier was generally defended with success, General Nysephoros Focas distinguishing himself about 891 by a very successful invasion of Silesia. In 902, a Byzantine army marched up to the gates of Aleppo, but the Cretan pirates were very troublesome in the Aegean, raiding Lemnos in 901 and Demetrias in 902. In 904, Leo of Tripolis, a Christian renegade, sailed from Tarsus with a fleet of 54 Corsair vessels, passed up the Aegean and descended on Thessalonica, the second city of the empire, which was almost ungarisund. A gate was forced, the great city was sacked, the hideous massacre perpetrated, and 22,000 captives carried off, as we are told, though how they were conveyed requires explanation. In any case, the number was very large, and quite apart from the dreadful amount of private misery inflicted, the disgrace was great. The catastrophe was due solely to the neglect of the navy by Leo's favorites. This shocking disaster forced Leo's administration to pay attention to the navy, and thereafter a large fleet of 40 to 60 Dromons was kept on foot in the Aegean. In 909, the Admiral Himerios gained a considerable victory over the Corsairs, but an attack on Crete in 9012 resulted in a complete failure. In the east, considerable success was gained, very largely by the private enterprise of Phil Roman Armenians. Three barons of the region north of Melitin ceded their fiefs to the empire, which with some additions became the new theme of Mesopotamia. An Armenian chief named Mele, meanwhile had evicted the Saracens from a considerable tract northeast of Silesia. He offered his conquest to the empire, and was made patrician and strategos of the newly acquired theme, which was named Lycandos, and interrupted direct communication between the emirs of Malatia and Tarsus. Leo Catacalon was now appointed general of the Armenian frontier, and about 913 he captured Theodosiopolis and wasted Fasian. The king of Iberia laid claim to these acquisitions, but the difference was adjusted by Romanos I, the empire retaining Theodosiopolis and Iberia Fasian. The imperial boundary in Armenia was therefore in 920, once more where it had been under Maurice. Leo died in 912, he had reigned nearly 26 years, a period on the whole of advancing prosperity. The one great disaster had been the Saka of Thessalonica, otherwise the isolated raids of the Saracens had done comparatively slight mischief. Territory had been acquired, the Asiatic frontier defended. Leo's personal weakness had not fatally interfered with the working of the administrative machine. Alexander became sole ruler for little over a year. He was a mere figurehead, but his administration committed a grievous blunder by rejecting the overtures of Simeon of Bulgaria for a renewal of peace. He endeavored to protect the succession of his young nephew by appointing a council of regency, and died in 913. The little emperor, Constantine VIII, at once became the center of plot and counterplot. Simeon of Bulgaria invaded the empire in 913 and again in 914, when he gained temporary possession of Adrianople. Amid these disorders, the general Constantine Dukas endeavored to seize the regency. He entered the palace at Constantinople, but was repulsed by the guards and slain, and his house all but extirpated by battle and execution. The intrigues at the capital ended in the young emperor's mother Zoe Carbonopsina, who had been hitherto excluded from public affairs, becoming head of the government. She was known only as a society queen, but showed no lack of energy. In 915, a Saracen fleet was defeated of Mendoz, and in 916, a great raid made into Syria, and 50,000 captives carried off. Zoe now wisely decided to make a truce with the Caliph and concentrate on Bulgaria. In 917, her envoys reached Baghdad, and peace was concluded on the basis of a general exchange of prisoners. The balance was much in favor of the empire. The larger part of the army of Asia was now transferred to Europe. The Pechenegs of the South Russian plain were subsidized to attack Bulgaria. Every effort was made to ensure success and to increase the spirit of the troops, but the core commanders were adverians. Leo Focas, who commanded in chief, was jealous of the admiral Romanus Lecapenos, who was to transport the Pechenegs across the Danube. Lecapenos distrusted Focas. The first engagement resulted in a success, but Focas wasted time inspiring upon Lecapenos, and was not at his post when Simeon gave battle on August 20, 917, near the Fort of Achelus. The army was entirely defeated and retreated on Mesembria, while Lecapenos, hearing of the collapse, sailed home fortwith. He has been accused of deserting his comrades, but as the broken host reached the capital safely and repelled an attack by the pursuant Bulgarians, it does not appear that it was in such danger as to render the presence of his fleet indispensable. After much obscure intrigue, Lecapenos was created general of the foreign guard, and his fortunes were greatly advanced by the young emperor's sudden passion for his youthful daughter Helena. The lovers were united in April 919, and Lecapenos created Basilio Pater, emperor-father. A revolt under the disappointed Leo Focas was easily suppressed, and Focas blinded. Lecapenos next ousted Zoe, and forced her into a convent, and was crowned emperor on December 17, 919. The young Constantine and his child wife were soon thrust into the background. Romanus I has been described as a weak man, but the accusation hardly stands in the face of facts. He was resolute to found dynasty. He crowned three of his sons, and in 933 made the fourth Theophilactos Patriarch, a rare example in the Byzantine history of the boy bishop so common in the west. Theophilactos, after conducting himself in his sacred office as might have been expected of an indulged and pleasure-loving youth, died in 956, naturally enough from the results of a riding accident. In 921, the king of Bulgaria advanced on Constantinople. Romanus' difficulties with a beaten army and hostile officers and ministers were great. Afraid to trust a single general, he divided the command among Leo and Potus Argeros and the Johannes Rector. They were defeated, and Simeon sucked the suburbs of the capital. In 923 he again marched on Constantinople, but was repulsed in a gallant action in which Saktikios, a general of the guard, fell after performing miracles of valor. He thereupon endeavored to procure the assistance of the Fatimid Caliph of Ker-1, but Romanus, by adroit negotiations, frustrated the design. In 925 Simeon once more advanced and took Adrenople, but Romanus, in a personal interview, succeeded in making peace. One condition was that the Bulgarian Church should be independent under its own patriarch. The others are not known. It is a mere unsupported conjecture that the Balkan interior was ceded to Simeon. The latter had a legitimate casus belli, but he had shown himself a mere barbarian in the brutal ravages which he permitted. We may note, in order to conclude the story of this dangerous enemy, that shortly afterwards his army was completely defeated by the Serbs and Croats, whom he was endeavoring to keep to their allegiance by a series of massacres and ravages, and in 927 he died. His empire collapsed. His successor, Peter, troubled by Magyars without and rebels within, could only maintain himself with difficulty in Bulgaria. End of section 13, recording by Mike Botez